MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
May 31, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 12:54 p.m., on Saturday, May 31, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams 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. 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:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
Susan Scholley, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division
OTHERS PRESENT:
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association
Thyra (Tee) Slusher, Nevada Leadership Academy
Chairman Williams:
Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll was called.] Please mark members present as they arrive. We have two bills on the agenda. We’d like to get everybody out so they can get some lunch or a little breather between now and the 5:30 p.m. Floor session. We’d like to get out of here within the hour, if possible. We’ll start with S.B. 230.
Senate Bill 230: Makes various changes regarding transportation of pupils. (BDR 34-641)
Susan Scholley, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division:
[Introduced herself.] As one of the research staff assigned to the Legislative Committee on Education, I had the opportunity to work on this issue in the interim. I am here today on behalf of the Committee on Finance, presenting Senate Bill 230. For the record, as Legislative Counsel Bureau staff, I neither advocate nor oppose legislation, but I am simply here to present the bill and answer any questions. Senate Bill 230 arose out of a request to the Legislative Committee on Education from the school district transportation directors to fix a number of issues in the pupil transportation statutes. To that end, Senate Bill 230 clarifies that charter schools are subject to the transportation statutes applicable to other public schools, and you will see those references added throughout the bill.
The bill also requires the State Board of Education to adopt regulations for a safety plan for the evacuation of pupils with disabilities from the school bus. The school district transportation directors advised the Committee that there were problems when they do bus evacuation drills; it is difficult to practice, while, at that same time, evacuating pupils with disabilities. There have been instances of injuries, and those pupils should be practicing their evacuation drills separately from the general population. This bill would require the State Board of Education to adopt regulations for safety plans for the evacuation of pupils with disabilities from the school bus. It then requires the school districts and charter schools to establish their safety plans, consistent with those regulations, for the evacuation of such pupils and for that training.
[Susan Scholley continues.] The bill also increases training for school bus drivers from 20 hours to 40 hours. The testimony before the Committee on Education was that this is already being done across the state. Further, it clarifies that training for bus drivers would include training in pupil management and discipline and would also require CPR certification. The bill also deletes an antiquated provision, which allowed pupils to be employed to drive a school bus, which these school transportation directors believe is no longer appropriate. It requires the State Board of Education to adopt regulations setting forth qualifications for the persons who train school bus drivers. Although there are regulations for school bus driver training, there were no regulations for training the trainers.
Further, the bill deletes an exemption from State Board regulations for vehicles used to transport pupils to and from extracurricular activities, and it makes all pupil transportation vehicles subject to State Board regulation. Another issue that was brought to the Committee’s attention was instances where school buses are unloading students individually, generally in front of their homes. For unloading students who are not mobile or are in a wheelchair, the bus drivers asked that they not have to activate the flashing red light system in those instances. As you know, when they activate the flashing red lights, all the traffic has to stop. In those instances where they are off-loading the student down the front walks into their homes, they didn’t want the traffic to have to stop. This allows them to make an exception for the flashing red light system when they are individually loading or unloading a student and the student or the bus driver is not crossing in front of the bus.
Finally, Sections 9 through 11 set forth the various time frames for adopting all these regulations and the deadline for bus drivers complying with the new training requirements. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblywoman Angle:
I’m looking at the fiscal note, and I see there are several counties who say they won’t have any impact from this. However, there are several rural counties who say they will have some impact. Could you expand upon that, why there is a difference, and what some rural counties might be experiencing from this bill that other counties aren’t?
Susan Scholley:
I’m not sure I can answer that question. I know there was some discussion in Senate Finance on the fiscal note for CPR certification. Several districts are already providing that training for their bus drivers; some are not. I think, ultimately, it was determined that the fiscal notes were not significant, so I really can’t address the differences there.
Assemblywoman Angle:
So this was in conjunction with the CPR training?
Susan Scholley:
It’s my understanding that was the bulk of the fiscal note.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
Regarding page 9, Section 7(b), was there testimony that addressed this on the Senate side? It’s of great concern to me. Just because it says “a pupil with special needs” does not mean that pupil with special needs might not run in front of the bus and get hit by a car. Not all special needs students are confined to a wheelchair, or things like that. I’m concerned about their safety with this language of not having the flashing lights. I need to know if there is testimony that will make me feel better about that. I’m worried we’re going to put a student’s safety in jeopardy with this language.
Susan Scholley:
It’s my understanding that issue was raised in the Senate Finance Committee. The language is permissive, so the driver is to use his or her judgment. The intent was to allow them to not activate the flashing red light system when you did have an immobile pupil, as in a wheelchair or some other form of immobility.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
I understand the intent, but that isn’t what this says. It just says “a pupil with special needs,” and all pupils with special needs are not necessarily immobile. We may have a driver who doesn’t have the training, or thinks that’s not going to be a danger, when absolutely it would be a danger. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, if we could amend this to make sure it says it’s only for pupils who are immobile. I think it’s not only the right thing to do, to look out for the students, but we may also invite a lawsuit if we don’t put that language in there.
Susan Scholley:
Assemblywoman Chowning certainly has a point, if a bus driver used poor judgment. In line 4, on page 9, all these exceptions from the flashing red light system say that the driver “may,” so it is discretionary with the bus driver. The concern was, on busy streets, where you have a situation that clearly is no danger to the student, backing up the traffic created another sort of hazard. That was the intent of the transportation directors, to allow the driver to use his/her discretion. I understand your point.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
In Clark County, as well as other places, there are residences located on what used to be sleepy little streets, but now those streets have very heavy traffic. If a student is a “runner,” as is known with special needs kids in some cases, they definitely would not be safe. We need to try to avert tragedies wherever we can. If we could amend that language, I would like the Committee to consider that.
Assemblyman Horne:
I agree with Mrs. Chowning. I would prefer, and I don’t understand what the harm is, turning the flashing lights on each time you stop. “You practice how you play, and you play how you practice,” not only in sports. If we start giving discretion, one time we will have a driver who will forget, and they will make a bad choice. We’ll have a child run out into traffic. We have a quiet neighborhood, but we have a number of automobiles that drive down my street very fast. If you had a “runner,” you would have a problem. I don’t recall what the rationale was for not turning the lights on. If they stop the bus, and they are letting a child on or off, I don’t care if he’s in a wheelchair or he’s mobile, I think the lights should be on.
Chairman Williams:
I agree with my two colleagues. I think if we’ve passed a bill to double penalties in work areas when there aren’t even people working in the area, truly we can do this for school buses. Regarding most of the students with disabilities who are picked up and delivered in residential areas, they are not major thoroughfares, and you’re not impeding traffic that long. I think people expect to stop when children are loading and unloading, and I agree with Mr. Horne that, once you differentiate, people don’t know when to slow down and when to stop. If you have to stop every time, then you know.
Are there any other questions? Is there anyone in opposition to this bill? Is there anyone who has additional amendments? There’s no opposition, Ms. Cahill; I was just trying to make sure everyone could get to lunch by 2:00 p.m.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association:
[Introduced herself.] We have circulated amendments that we offered on the Senate side. These amendments did not get put in on the Senate side. In the amendments, which have been distributed to you (Exhibit C), the third amendment on the sheet actually deletes the section you were just discussing. I know Ms. Scholley said that the bus drivers requested it, but the bus drivers I spoke to say, “Don’t give me that discretion. Don’t put that liability on me to make the decision whether or not I should put the flashers on, and, in some cases, if I don’t use the flashers, and there is an accident, then I’m the one responsible for that.” We have actually submitted an amendment that would delete that section of the bill.
[Debbie Cahill continues.] Section 5, subsection 2, line 39 of the bill requires that bus drivers receive training, and the bus drivers are requesting that be done annually. There are many changes in rules and regulations, and in some cases state statutes, and the bus drivers tell me they would like to receive that training on an annual basis. The way the bill is now, if they receive the training, they could go several years before there is any added training. We inserted the word “annually” in that line, after “training course.”
Section 5 of the bill deals with providing CPR. We are requiring that bus drivers receive CPR certification. We simply feel that the district should be the entity that provides that training to the bus drivers, so the burden falls upon the district to provide that training. We had originally believed that this could be done at minimal cost, because we understood that firefighters and EMTs had groups who would provide the training free of charge to the schools and bus drivers. We had a bill in a previous session that required certain teachers to become CPR certified, and that was the understanding, that this was something which could be provided at no cost. We thought the district should at least organize this and make this available. We respectfully request that you consider these amendments. With these, we have no opposition to the bill.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Conceptually, you would be putting in the CPR as a voluntary kind of thing, as legislative intent?
Debbie Cahill:
The bill requires that they become CPR certified, and we have no problem with that. We think they should be CPR certified. The amendment we’re offering says that training should be provided by the district, and not at the expense of the bus driver. If the district didn’t organize the training and pay for it, bus drivers would be required to go out, find the training, and get it done on their own. We think it should be something that the districts should organize and provide.
Assemblyman Hardy:
The legislative intent would be to allow the voluntary CPR training to take place, but it would be organized by the school districts. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Debbie Cahill:
That’s our intent. I believe that’s something that could be explored. I just spoke with Dr. Craig Kadlub from the Clark County School District, who may have some concern about the availability of that training. We certainly would make every effort to help make that available.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any additional questions? Thank you, Ms. Cahill. Is there anyone else? We’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 230. We’ll now open the hearing on Senate Bill 252. Do we have Ms. Scholley again?
Senate Bill 252 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning charter schools and distance education programs. (BDR 34-140)
Susan Scholley:
I also had the opportunity to work on charter schools during the interim. Senate Bill 252 is actually a combination of Senate Bill 252 and Senate Bill 33. S.B. 33 was a bill that came out of the Legislative Committee on Education; S.B. 252 was a bill sponsored by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. Briefly, S.B. 252 primarily addresses charter schools, although there are some provisions that relate to distance education. I’m going to go through the bill more or less sequentially, starting with Section 1. If you want to follow along, you may.
Section 1 provides that charter schools will pay the cost of retesting when a school tested less than 90 percent of the student population. Currently, the school districts are on the hook for this. Later, in Section 14, it also clarifies that charter schools will pay the cost of retesting if retesting is required due to security breaches in the administration of the tests.
Moving on to Sections 2, 15, and 16, they require applicants for employment at charter schools to submit fingerprints, and, if an applicant has a conviction of either a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, the charter schools must submit to the Superintendent of Public Instruction a request to determine if the conviction is related or unrelated to the position. If the Superintendent determines that the conviction is unrelated to the position, then the charter school may hire the person. This is the same rule that currently applies to school districts, so this was an effort to make charter school regulations consistent with other public school regulations.
[Ms. Scholley continues.] Section 4 clarifies the definition of what is commonly known as an “at-risk” charter school. There are currently caps on the number of charter schools that do not serve at-risk students. Charter schools that serve at-risk students have no cap. Section 4 clarifies the existing definition of a charter school dedicated to serving at-risk students by specifically indicating that a reference to a certain percentage of at-risk students will not be used in the definition. It also goes on to require that such at-risk charter schools file a demographic report on their pupils after count day, so that the sponsor may monitor the student population that the charter school is serving. The intent of this is to refocus the definition of an at-risk charter school on the educational programs and opportunities being offered, rather than counting the number of heads that may fall into an at-risk category.
Section 7 is a significant change in charter school law. Currently, school districts are the primary sponsor of charter schools. Last session, there was a bill that allowed the State Board of Education to sponsor charter schools, under two circumstances: if the charter school was turned down by a school district, or if the charter school served only special education students. Senate Bill 252 will now allow charter school applicants to go either to a school district or to the State Board of Education. There is no restriction, any longer, on applying first to the State Board for sponsorship. Further, the bill provides that a school district may approve a charter school, districts having the discretion to approve or disapprove. However, the State Board shall approve a charter school if it meets the requirements of the law. The State Board will not have discretion to turn down a charter school, if the charter school meets the requirements of NRS 386.
Section 8 is simply a clarification. An issue arose during the interim with an interpretation from the Attorney General’s Office. This clarifies that where a charter school is operating an elementary school and wishes to expand and operate a middle school, the governing body can make the application for that second school, and it can be the same as the governing body for the elementary school. Another issue, which the bill addresses, is the revocation process, where a sponsor has a problem with a charter school and wants to revoke the charter.
Section 10 of the bill tightens up the revocation process. Currently, it provides that the charter may not be revoked until 90 days after notice is given. The bill now sets a concrete 90-day time frame, so that a charter school will not have the revocation process hanging over its head for an undue period of time. You can imagine that it causes problems with charter schools, because testimony was received that it is difficult to enroll students and retain teachers when the charter school is not sure if the charter is going to be revoked. This requires the school district or the State Board, whoever the sponsor is, to give notice and then make a decision within 90 days, so that they have an answer within a finite period.
[Ms. Scholley continues.] Section 10 also clarifies what happens if there’s a second notice of revocation, and it provides some limits on re-raising issues that were addressed in a prior notice of revocation. It also allows the parties to agree to a waiver of the 90 days if they want more time to work it out.
Section 11 requires the Department of Education to offer training for charter school governing body members on education law and related matters that governing body members need to know, such as the open meeting law, public records act, that sort of thing. Section 11.5 clarifies that governing body members of a charter school are eligible to receive per diem and travel expenses in the same way as school board trustees. It sets a limit of no more than 12 meetings per year for reimbursement purposes.
Section 12 provides a number of provisions relating to charter schools, setting aside a percentage of their per-pupil apportionment to sponsors to help offset the cost of charter school sponsorship. All charter schools, under S.B. 252, will be required to contribute .25 percent, one quarter of one percent, of their apportionment, to the fund for charter schools. The fund for charter schools is a revolving loan fund that was set up last session in Senate Bill 399 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session but was not funded. It was hoped that it would be funded through gifts and grants, but there was no appropriation to the fund, and it has not ever received any money. This would allow some funds to begin to flow, and then charter schools can access the funds for both new and existing charter schools.
State-sponsored charter schools would be required to submit .25 percent of their apportionment to the State Board to support activities of the State Board and Department of Education related to sponsorship and oversight of charter schools. Again, that would only apply to state-sponsored charter schools. Finally, the bill keeps the current percentage that a sponsor can request from a charter school to offset its administrative expenses associated with sponsorship. School districts can ask for 2 percent in the first year of a charter school operation, and 1 percent every year thereafter. For state-sponsored charter schools, this would set the first year at 2 percent, but it would be 1.5 percent in the second and subsequent years. As you can see, state-sponsored charter schools would pay a premium for state board sponsorship, because they would be sponsored at the rate of 2 percent in the first year, plus the .25 percent. In addition, in the second year, they get the 1.5 percent plus the .25 that goes to the State Board.
[Ms. Scholley continues.] The bill also eliminates, in Section 13, a provision that was added last session for state-sponsored charter schools. It was never used, since we currently don’t have any state-sponsored charter schools. This provision said that state-sponsored charter school students would get the statewide average of the per-pupil apportionment. That is being eliminated. For state-sponsored charter schools, the per-pupil apportionment will be the same as for other schools within that district.
Section 13.1 corrects an oversight from the 2001 session and allows a committee to form a charter school, and to submit an application for a program of distance education. Section 13.7 allows postsecondary faculty, that is faculty from the University or Community College, to teach the core subjects in distance education programs. Then there are minor changes to deadlines for review of charter school applications, and submittal of written agreements on distance education programs, that I won’t go into in detail. Again, I would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Angle?
Assemblywoman Angle:
In Section 1, subsection 2(a), it says that the school districts shall pay for all costs related to the administration of examinations pursuant to this paragraph. Then it says if the charter school is required to administer examinations, they must pay those costs themselves. Aren’t charter schools public schools? Why is there this discrepancy? I think you said something about 90 percent, and I don’t see that in here. Maybe you could point that out to me.
Susan Scholley:
The 90 percent is up in line 4, and it references that if less than 90 percent of the pupils enrolled in the school, who are required to take the examination, don’t take the examination, the school is designated as not needing improvement. Further down, it talks about those situations when or if retesting is required. Currently, the school districts are required to pay the cost of retesting. The testimony was that, if the charter school fails to test over 90 percent of the students, they should be responsible for paying the costs of retesting. Paying for the cost of retesting was supposed to be an incentive to make sure that a school did test the full 90 percent.
Assemblywoman Angle:
My second question has to do with Section 5. This is exciting to me, that they can make application to the State Board of Education, because I know in some counties, school districts don’t want to take these applications. Is this a choice, or an “either/or?” If you go to your school district, and they don’t want to take your application, can you then apply to the State Board, or do you have to make that choice before to go directly to the State Board, and not apply at the school district level? If that were the case, there would be more incentive to put your application right through to the State Board, rather than going through the local school district.
Susan Scholley:
The bill allows the charter school to choose to whom it wishes to apply. If they go through the school district, they run the risk of being turned down. If they are turned down, there’s nothing in the bill that would restrict them from then applying to the State Board. However, they may choose to go directly to the State Board, in which case the State Board has to approve them, unless they don’t meet the requirements. It really leaves it up to the charter school to determine whom they want to go to first.
Assemblywoman Angle:
Lastly, there’s a reference to a fund for charter schools on page 12. How was this fund created, and is this a new fund? What can that money be used for? It looks like it’s an administrative cost, that .25 percent that’s going to be put into this account, so it would build up. I’m wondering what the money can be used for in that charter school fund, and how that fund was established.
Susan Scholley:
The fund for charter schools was established in 2001 as part of Senate Bill 399 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session, which was an overhaul of the charter school statutes last session. The fund is administered by the Department of Education. There was no appropriation to the fund, however, in 2001. The fund can accept grants, gifts, donations, and, also, it was hoped at the time, an appropriation. The fund has been created in statute; it was set up for the purpose of providing low-cost loans to charter schools, both new charter schools for startup costs, as well as existing charter schools for whatever purposes they would want to apply to the Department. As I said, the Department administers the funds and would receive the applications. That is an existing fund, but it is a “fund without funds” at the moment. It is hoped that this would “seed” it, and that money then would be available to the charter schools by applying to the Department.
Assemblywoman Angle:
So these funds would only be used for low-cost loans for startup costs, not for these tests. They couldn’t go back and get the cost of the tests out of this fund. Or could they?
Susan Scholley:
I don’t have the statute in front of me, so I don’t know how broad the discretion is. The fund is not limited to loans for startup costs; it does include programmatic costs, or programs that a charter school would like to implement by requesting a loan from the fund. I just couldn’t tell you whether or not the reimbursement for retesting would be included.
Assemblywoman Angle:
And it’s always a loan, something that would be paid back. It’s not something you get, like a grant, where you don’t have to pay it back?
Susan Scholley:
It is a loan fund, yes.
Assemblywoman Chowning:
On page 10, it references time constraints that are good. There will be no less than 30 days, during which the charter school may correct the deficiencies. Then there’s a period of 90 days that public hearings have to be held in. Farther down, this seems to be conflicting; I don’t understand why the sponsor of a charter school and the governing body can enter into a written agreement that prescribes different time periods. You either have time period deadlines or you don’t. I don’t understand the thinking there. My second question is on page 11, who’s going to pay for the salaries of the governing body for the meetings?
Susan Scholley:
To Assemblywoman Chowning, in regard to the revocation process, the intent was to create a 90-day time frame for revocation, so a charter school that wanted a speedy answer would be assured of a speedy answer. There may be instances where the charter school and the sponsor would like time to work out their differences. They may have a relationship which would allow them to be in a situation where additional time would be to the benefit of the charter school or the sponsor, so the intent was to give some latitude to the parties to not be bound by this 90-day time frame, if both of them agreed, in writing, to a longer period of time to work out their differences. Again, the idea is to create a given situation where everyone knows that it will happen in a three-month period, so there will be a beginning and an end, which people can plan on. It does allow the flexibility of the parties, similar to a lawsuit where you have deadlines. Again, the parties are allowed to waive those deadlines if they’re trying to reach a settlement. As to the stipends for the salaries and the travel, that would come out of the charter school operating budget.
Chairman Williams:
Are there any questions? Thank you, Ms. Scholley. Is there anyone in opposition to this bill? Is there anyone offering amendments? Is there anyone in favor that has a dire need to express that?
Thyra (Tee) Slusher, Nevada Leadership Academy:
[Introduced herself.] Nevada Leadership Academy is a third-year charter school. We have become quite famous with our first year of revocation process. That charter was reinstated as recently as February 23 of this year.
We’re currently in the process of rebuilding our school because of the bad media, and the struggles that we have had. We just recently completed our annual compliance review with our current sponsor, Washoe County School District. They have begun the second revocation process.
I want the Committee to realize that I am committed to the charter school movement, and to Nevada Leadership Academy. Also, we’re not the idiots that they try to make us out to be. Things that we have been in compliance with for two years, this year we’re out of compliance on, and it’s been the same information we’ve given them.
I honestly believe that, unless S.B. 252 passes, the future for Nevada Leadership Academy looks dim. We have endured the bad press; we continually endure it. It’s not good for the children who get caught up in it. My commitment is to the children, or I wouldn’t have endured it for as long as I have. Again, I want to express that I do support this bill, and it is important for the success that I know Nevada Leadership Academy could have if we were under a different sponsorship.
Chairman Williams:
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Is there any other business to come before the Committee? The meeting is adjourned [at 1:33 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: