MINUTES OF THE
JOINT meeting of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
May 27, 2003
The joint meeting of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Assembly Committee on Education was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 4100 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.
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
Assembly Committee on Education MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. William Horne, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Carol Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry welcomed Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3.
Senate Bill 191 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34-635)
Senator Raggio said in all of the years he had served as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, S.B. 191 was one of the more meaningful bills that had been produced and was one of the more important bills that the 2003 Legislature would be required to process. Senator Raggio explained that he would be introducing S.B. 191 as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Education, which had developed the bill.
During the interim, the Legislative Committee on Education had received a series of in-depth briefings on the new federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) following the enactment of H.R. 1 by Congress at the end of 2001. The accountability provisions of the federal act had three primary goals: 1) reducing the achievement gap, 2) improving the quality of teachers in schools, especially the Title I schools, and 3) improving the use of remedial programs. Consistent with the goals, and in order to retain eligibility for federal funding of educational programs within the state, the Legislative Committee on Education had S.B. 191 drafted to amend Nevada’s current accountability and assessment system in order to comply with federal law.
Senator Raggio said, “We can all take a great deal of credit in our efforts over the years as a legislative body to improve education in the state.” The Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) of 1997, which had been “fine-tuned and followed,” had been a great achievement and assisted in placing the state in the position of having the capability of complying with the requirements of the NCLBA. Senator Raggio said S.B. 191 would require additional teacher licensing provisions, would include minimum requirements for the qualifications of paraprofessionals, and would create a single, statewide system of school accountability. The proposed bill would merge Nevada’s public school accountability system with the federal model and would require annual testing in reading, language arts, and mathematics; periodic testing in science; and a data management system to report test information. Additionally, the changes would address state, district, and school report cards; teacher quality; a financial accountability system; remedial programs; and accountability sanctions and rewards. Whenever possible, Nevada’s existing systems were retained and the revisions were designed to fit the current systems. While making the needed changes, the revisions also retained the emphasis on assisting schools and local school districts with school improvement and upon providing the policy makers at all levels with information needed to make the decisions required with regard to public education as contained in the NERA. To that end, the concepts contained in the NERA were revised to comply with the federal requirements to establish a single, statewide system of standards-based accountability linked to state assessments and to specific school and school district improvement processes. Senator Raggio emphasized that the NCLBA required that Nevada’s system have a common framework of rewards and sanctions. He said S.B. 191 represented a complete rewrite of Nevada’s public school accountability program.
Senator Raggio said the Senate Committee on Finance had revised S.B. 191 extensively in an effort to accommodate all of the concerns expressed by the local school districts, the Nevada Department of Education (NDE), the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (NASS), and the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). Additional changes were made to the bill to reduce the fiscal impact upon the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) and local education agencies. At the request of the Senate Committee on Finance, the schools districts and the NDE provided assurances with regard to some of the bill revisions. For example, initially the Committee had considered testing students in the fall, but there had been a “great hue and cry” that the testing should be conducted in the spring. Senator Raggio said the concern of the Senate Finance Committee was that the change in testing dates would alter the concept and direction and also might jeopardize the capability of staying within the time limits required under the NCLBA. As a result of lengthy discussions with the NDE and the school districts, the Committee had requested and received written assurances that using the testing program of S.B. 191, including the spring testing, would not result in over testing of students. In moving the accountability testing to spring, rather than fall, all the time lines specified in S.B. 191 would be met, specifically those concerning the designation of schools needing improvement, school improvement planning, which was a requirement, and parent notification, an important element. Parents receiving notification of a school needing improvement in a timely manner was one of the key concepts of the NCLBA. Senator Raggio emphasized that the NDE and the school districts all agreed in writing that the change to spring testing would not result in any additional costs. The NDE, school districts, and the NSEA also assured the Senate Finance Committee that they were aware of and understood the implications that the shift in testing dates “really takes us from what we envisioned as a diagnostic system that identified the student needs early in the school year and shifted it to what really is now more of an evaluative system that documents what a child has learned.”
Senator Raggio reiterated that S.B. 191 would bring Nevada into compliance with the NCLBA. As Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Education, Senator Raggio urged the Joint Committee’s prompt consideration and approval of the bill. He also cautioned the members not to jeopardize S.B. 191 by adding additional provisions.
Senator Raggio introduced H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB, and Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, who would provide information to the Joint Subcommittee on the specific provisions of S.B. 191.
Mr. Sturm referred to a handout (Exhibit C) that would be referenced during the presentation. He noted that legislative staff could not advocate, support, or oppose any legislation, and were present at the request of Chairman Arberry and Chairman Williams to provide the Joint Subcommittee with background on S.B. 191. Mr. Sturm said he, Mindy Braun, and Carol Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB, would be making the presentation.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the handout (Exhibit C) included any notations of what portions of S.B. 191 had been expanded beyond the federal requirements, such as the state certification for paraprofessionals. Mr. Sturm said the certification for paraprofessionals had been deleted from the bill. He referred to a section in the handout that provided a broad overview of the major components of S.B. 191, including the requirements under the NCLBA and what went beyond the requirements. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if funding was included in S.B. 191 for any additional state requirements. Mr. Sturm said he thought state funding was included for the additional remedial programs.
Ms. Braun referred to the revised fiscal note included in the handout. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the amount of funding included in the revised fiscal note had been reduced so dramatically from the original fiscal note. Ms. Braun said the original fiscal note included funding to cover the requirements of the NCLBA, the NERA, and S.B. 191. Ms. Giunchigliani did not think it was irresponsible for the school districts to request the additional funding since all three of the components had not been fully funded. Ms. Braun explained that the NCLBA was federally funded and the federal government had indicated the Act was fully funded. The NERA was the result of previous legislation and was a different component that could have had a fiscal impact, but was not part of S.B. 191. The fiscal note was intended to address only the state funding required for S.B. 191. Ms. Giunchigliani voiced concern with the many unfunded mandates that had been placed onto the local school districts over the years, and she felt the additional standards and requirements would result in additional fiscal burdens for the districts. Ms. Braun said the fiscal note (Exhibit C) did include the combined fiscal effect of the NERA and the NCLBA and also the effect of only S.B. 191.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the requirement of having NDE staff at every site that did not test at least 95 percent of pupils. Mr. Sturm said that component had been deleted from the bill; the bill now read, “to the extent funds were available.” The NDE indicated there would be a sampling of sites rather than every site. Mr. Sturm said the changes required by federal law were fully funded by the NCLBA.
Assemblywoman Chowning noted there were only six days remaining in the 2003 Legislative Session and S.B. 191 included 142 sections that the members were seeing for the first time. Mrs. Chowning said it would be helpful to have a section-by-section breakdown of concept and funding. She indicated it would be a great disservice to the members of the Joint Subcommittee and to the other members of the Legislature who would eventually need to vote on S.B. 191 if the members had to spend more time researching and determining the goals of the bill and how the requirements were funded.
Chairman Williams concurred that it was unfortunate to have the bill presented to both committees with only six days remaining in the session. He also recognized that the local school districts were experiencing financial problems and there needed to be assurances that the schools in need of help would receive assistance.
Mr. Sturm explained that there was a section-by-section breakdown of S.B. 191 included in the handout (Exhibit C), but parallel costs were not included in the breakdown. He thought the fiscal note referenced, at least conceptually, what was not funded.
Mr. Sturm began a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C) and said the NCLBA included six key principles:
· Achievement of high academic standards by all children
· Measurement of student academic progress and needs through assessment
· Accountability for results in schools, districts, and states
Mr. Sturm referred to the changes in the accountability system and said originally under the NERA there was school-level accountability and there were now requirements under the NCLBA for district-level classifications and state‑level classifications. Ms. Giunchigliani said the NCLBA only referred to Title I, and S.B. 191 went beyond Title I. She asked how it could be determined which of the factors were not necessary. Mr. Sturm explained that the NCLBA went beyond Title I, for example, the Act required all teachers to be highly qualified by a certain date. Title II of the Act included funding that school districts could use to make certain teachers became highly qualified. In addition, there was a requirement for a single accountability system, a big issue in Congress. Nevada had two accountability systems, one for Title I schools and another for all other schools in the state.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for additional information on the System for Accountability Information in Nevada (SAIN) and In$ite. Mr. Sturm said the SAIN program, formerly the SMART program, collected the testing data. In$ite required Title I schools to have the ability to track expenditures down to the school level so that the principal, district office, and the state could manipulate or redirect funds as needed. The In$ite program was recommended to assist the state in complying with the fiscal component of the federal law.
Mindy Braun said the In$ite system was the one system that did provide data down to the school level. Under the NCLBA there was a requirement that if a school was designated as demonstrating need for improvement, the school district had to review allocations down to the school level and then look at how the school was using the funds; In$ite did provide that information.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Title I definition had changed. Mr. Sturm said a Title I school was a school that received Title I money, and a Title I school district was a district that received Title I money. The federal definition applied. Upon receipt of Title I money, the local school district had to make a decision as to how much to spend on how many schools and then make a determination on how many of the schools met the eligibility requirements.
Mr. Sturm continued the PowerPoint presentation and addressed the remaining three key principles included in the NCLBA:
Mr. Sturm said S.B. 191 would implement the requirements of the NCLBA; states had specific mandates and there was some flexibility in how to achieve the goals. Mr. Sturm said there was a philosophical disconnect between the NERA and the requirements under the NCLBA. The NERA was more involved with collecting data, providing information to policy makers, and providing state funding for school remediation to schools needing assistance. The NCLBA provided rewards and consequences for schools.
Chairman Williams asked for additional information on the key principle related to parental involvement and choices. Mr. Sturm said for Title I schools the federal law required that if the school was classified as needing improvement that the parents be notified about the status of the school. After a certain number of years, if the school continued to be classified as needing improvement, parents could transfer their child to another school in the school district. S.B. 191 also included a provision that parents had the ability to ask the district about teacher qualifications in both Title I and non-Title I schools, which went beyond the federal law.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Williams related to the parents having the right to move their child to another school, Mr. Sturm said a child had to be in a school designated as needing improvement that received the classification for a period of two or more consecutive years and then the parent could move the child to another school within the district. Chairman Williams asked when the notifications were provided to parents. Mr. Sturm referred to an accountability time line included in the handout (Exhibit C). There was a preliminary designation for a school needing improvement on June 15 of each year. Schools were allowed to challenge the data that led to the designation of needing improvement. The parents should know by August 1 if a school was designated as needing improvement and then would be able to make a choice from the schools offered by the district. Under federal law, the district was required to offer a minimum of two schools for the parents to select from. Mr. Sturm stated there was Title I funding available to provide transportation for a child moving to another school. Chairman Williams asked if the basic support per pupil amount would follow a child moving to another school, and Mr. Sturm indicated it would because the child would be enrolled in the other school prior to the official “count day.” The parent would select the school prior to the beginning of the school year.
Mr. Sturm continued and said during the interim the Legislative Committee on Education directed that a bill be drafted to accommodate the NERA to the extent possible and to maintain the philosophy of assisting schools needing improvement and providing policy makers with information. Mr. Sturm referred to the major components of the bill:
Ms. Braun said, prior to enactment of the NCLBA, adequate yearly progress (AYP) was only utilized to determine the status of Title I schools. Sections 4 and 5 of S.B. 191 included requirements that the State Board of Education would define the proficiency of schools, districts, and the state as measured by AYP. In doing so, the State Board of Education would establish AYP performance objectives for all pupils and all subgroups of pupils. Under S.B. 191, adequate yearly progress was required to include performance on specified tests, graduation rates, and attendance rates for elementary, middle school, and junior high school students. The performance on assessments for AYP purposes did not include science examinations.
Ms. Braun said Sections 6, 10, and 30 of S.B. 191 described AYP determination. Ms. Braun said the State Board of Education would use the 2001-2002 test results on the state norm-referenced test (NRT). Performance on the state’s criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) at grades 3, 5, and 8 would be utilized to determine the base performance level of pupils and would be the starting point for tracking annual improvement. Based upon the pupils being proficient in English and mathematics at the end of the 12-year cycle, specified under the NCLBA, there would be annual targets in English and mathematics for each of the subpopulations of pupils, which would be established by the State Board of Education. The individual schools, school districts, and the state as a whole would be held accountable for reaching each of the targets established by the State Board of Education.
Ms. Braun continued her presentation and said there were a total of 45 different combinations of adequate yearly progress (AYP). In order to meet AYP at the school or district level, each subpopulation would be required to meet the annual performance targets for English and mathematics established by the State Board of Education. Another factor was attendance for elementary, middle, and junior high school pupils and a dropout rate for high schools. In addition, there was a requirement that 95 percent of pupils participate in the assessment. Under the NERA, the requirement was 90 percent. Under S.B. 191:
The subpopulations would include ethnic groups, pupils with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient (LEP) pupils. In order to meet AYP, not a single cell could fall below the minimum set for AYP growth. In addition, the 95 percent rate on assessments had to be met by each of the subpopulations. The graduation rates for high school students and attendance rates for elementary, middle, and junior high school students also had to be considered in meeting AYP. Ms. Braun said there had been estimates for the 2003-2004 school year of 58 schools not meeting AYP and the number was projected to increase to as many as 150 schools in the 2004‑2005 school year; as many as half of the schools in the state could be designated as schools needing improvement under the NCLBA in subsequent years.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the projections for schools identified as needing improvement was tied to expanding and going beyond the federal law. Mr. Sturm said federal law required that all schools be evaluated using AYP standards. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the purpose of AYP. Mr. Sturm said AYP was intended to ensure that each subgroup would be monitored. In the past, most states monitored the school or the district population to determine performance on the tests. Under the NCLBA, every group had to make progress and be proficient. Ms. Giunchigliani stated, “We will now teach to the tests even more so, and in addition to that you will have kids labeled, which people used to argue against.” She wondered how the transient issue would be addressed. Mr. Sturm said the federal law had a provision that test scores would not be counted unless a child had been in the school for one year. If the child had not been in the school for one year, but had been in the district for one year, the score would be aggregated up to the district testing. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sturm to find out the definition of a year under the NCLBA.
Chairman Williams said he continued to have questions on the portion of S.B. 191 that would allow parents to move a child from a school designated as needing improvement to another school. He asked what would happen to the students remaining in the school designated as needing improvement if a certain number of parents opted to move their children to another school. He also wondered why, if funding and human resources were going to be provided to improve a school, some students would be allowed to move to another school. Ms. Braun said the school choice provisions were a requirement under the federal NCLBA. The Act included requirements for a plan for improvement and access to state funding, state remediation, and supplemental tutoring services to assist the schools designated as needing improvement. Chairman Williams said, “If we really believe that those support systems and those things are going to work to improve the school, why are we speaking out of both sides of our mouth saying, okay, we think it is going to improve, but probably won’t so you have an option to leave.” He said the process was “such a dichotomy.” Mr. Sturm said the Congress enacted the law with “that philosophy in mind” and it was definitely a philosophical disconnect with the current accountability law.
Ms. Braun said that under the NERA, the report cards were issued at the school level and the district level and contained information on academic achievement and teacher and students characteristics. Under Section 6 of S.B. 191, the requirement for report cards was extended to the state level. The requirement was included in S.B. 191 because the state report card was required under the NCLBA and it was required to be submitted to the federal government. The NDE would be required to compile the district data and submit that compilation to the federal government. The information that was not required by the NCLBA was the state improvement plan. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if some of the current reporting requirements would be eliminated and Mr. Sturm answered in the negative.
Ms. Braun said the actual reporting requirements for the NCLBA, the NERA, and any new elements were included in the handout (Exhibit C). The new, required elements that were not included in the NCLBA or in the current NERA were performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination as well as information concerning paraprofessionals. The state‑level report card would include the data aggregated from the district and school level. Section 39 of S.B. 191 required the NDE to conduct an analysis of the state accountability report card. Plans for the academic improvement of children would be completed based upon the information reported in the school, district, and state-level report cards. Section 7 of S.B. 191 included the requirements for the state-level improvement plan; Section 8 included the requirements for the district-level improvement plan; and Section 9 described the school-level improvement plan. Under the NERA, improvement plans were required at both the school and district level. S.B. 191 expanded the requirement for improvement plans to the NDE. The bill described the contents of improvement plans and specified that, based upon the analysis of information contained in the report cards, the improvement plans must contain such things as strategies to improve the academic achievement of pupils, decrease the dropout rates, and increase the attendance rates. The plans were also required to address the need for professional development of teachers and principals and provide strategies to improve the allocation of financial resources. Ms. Braun noted that a technical amendment to S.B. 191 would be required related to the reporting date for the regional accountability report cards. When the shift was made from fall testing to spring testing, the accountability report card deadlines were moved from April to August, however, the shift in reporting dates was inadvertently not made for the regional report cards. She said the shift in reporting dates would be a technical adjustment to the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the actual implementation dates for the NCLBA and the NERA. Mr. Sturm said he thought the first reprint of S.B. 191 included all of the deadlines required under the NCLBA. He said he could not recall a deadline that was included in the bill that was not federally mandated or was not part of the state plan submitted to the federal government by the NDE.
Ms. Braun said S.B. 191 included the same school categories as the NERA: exemplary, high, adequate, and needing improvement. The primary change was that the designation of schools would now be based on adequate yearly progress, which was tied to the CRTs. The performance on the NRTs, currently the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, was no longer a part of the formula. The performance on the NRT would only be tied to the distribution of remediation funding under S.B. 191. Under Section 32 of the bill, there was a requirement that a school district needing improvement be designated as such according to the same requirements as schools. Once a school failed to meet AYP for two consecutive years, the school would be designated as demonstrating need for improvement for the first time. At that point the school improvement process would begin. Technical assistance included analyzing testing data for the school, identifying and implementing professional development for school personnel, and analyzing the allocation of resources down to the school level.
Ms. Braun said in addition to technical assistance there would be a technical assistance partnership (TAP) that would be established by each school district. The membership of the TAP would be one school employee and one school district employee; the duties included the review and revision of a school’s plan for improvement. The first two times a school was designated as demonstrating need for improvement, the school district was required to implement a TAP. After a third designation, the NDE would assume responsibility for implementing a school support team. Sections 25 and 26 included the duties of the school support team. The membership of the support team included highly qualified teachers and principals, employees of the designated school, parents and guardians of children in the designated schools. Membership of the support team could also include school district administration employees, members of the local school boards, and staff of the NDE. The duties of the support team included review of the operations, report card data, and school improvement plans. The primary duty of the support teams was to help the schools revise their improvement plans.
Mr. Sturm referred the members to a bar chart included in the handout (Exhibit C). The shaded areas of the chart included the required actions under the NCLBA that applied only to Title I schools. Mr. Sturm said the fourth year a Title I school was designated as failing AYP, the school had to offer supplemental services to the parents of low-performing students enrolled in the school. An example would be a parent receiving resources to send their child to a private agency, such as the Sylvan Learning Center, to correct a reading problem.
Mrs. Chowning said this was the first she had heard that the local school districts would have to provide resources for students to receive services from a private entity. Mr. Sturm said the State Board of Education was required to have a listing of approved supplemental service providers. The NCLBA required that the providers meet certain standards and had a proven record of effectiveness. Mr. Sturm said money was provided under Title I for the supplemental services in Title I schools. Mrs. Chowning agreed with Mr. Sturm’s earlier assessment that there was a philosophical disconnect between the NERA and the requirements under the NCLBA. She was extremely concerned that the requirements of the NCLBA deviated so dramatically from the NERA.
Ms. Braun said the state remediation funds and the list of effective remedial programs continued to be available for all schools. She indicated the approved supplemental services list would include private entities, nonprofit organizations, and school districts. Mrs. Chowning thought the private entities should be selected as a last resort. Ms. Braun said parents would select the provider of the supplemental services from the approved provider list, and she believed the committee that would review the programs would carefully consider any private entities because cost was a tremendous issue. Private companies had not been placed on the state remediation list because cost had to be factored in.
Mr. Sturm referred again to the bar chart and said corrective action would be required by the fifth year for a Title I school that was designated as needing improvement. The corrective action included one of the following:
· Replacing relevant staff
· Instituting a research-based curriculum
· Decreasing management authority
· Appointing outside experts
· Extending the school year/day
· Restructuring internal organization
In the sixth year, whether or not the school made adequate yearly progress, the school had to begin a plan to restructure. Under the earlier version of S.B. 191 there was an option to convert to a charter school; that option had been deleted. The plan required one of the following:
In the seventh year, the alternative governance plan would be implemented and the school would be restructured.
Assemblyman Beers referred to the option of replacing relevant staff and asked if the staff would be transferred to other schools. Mr. Sturm said Section 3.5 of S.B. 191 provided that all of the requirements included in the bill had to comply with existing collective bargaining laws and regulations.
Mr. Sturm said one of the most overlooked areas of the NCLBA was the requirement that the local school districts must achieve adequate yearly progress and the consequences of the school districts being designated as needing improvement. Mr. Sturm noted that the consequences applied to all school districts receiving Title I funding, and all of Nevada’s 17 school districts received Title I money. There were seven possible actions that the state educational agency “shall take” if a school district failed to make adequate yearly progress. Those actions included:
Chairman Arberry was concerned with the number of buses that would be required to transport students to higher-performing public schools in other school districts. Mr. Sturm opined that Congress did not envision states like Nevada and Alaska with large geographic areas in the development of the NCLBA.
Mr. Sturm referred to the remaining possible actions:
Mr. Sturm said the majority of states indicated they would select the final possible action.
Mr. Sturm continued the presentation and provided detail on a number of miscellaneous accountability provisions included in S.B. 191:
Chairman Williams said some of the smaller states had elected not to accept the NCLBA funding because of the numerous requirements. He asked how much money Nevada would receive through the NCLBA. Ms. Braun said there was a substantial increase in funding and she would provide the actual amounts to the Chairman.
Chairman Williams asked if a school could continue to operate if a large number of parents elected to move their children to another school. Mr. Sturm said school district staff might be able to explain the potential impact of the school choice provision.
Assemblyman Horne asked if it was correct that funding to a particular school could be reduced, and Mr. Sturm said the reduced funding was related to the school districts, not individual schools. Mr. Horne asked if federal funds were provided for the additional transportation costs required for students removed from a school by their parents and reenrolled in a school within a busing district. Mr. Sturm responded that under the school of choice provision, a certain amount of a district’s Title I money was set aside to cover bus transportation. There was also a provision under the NCLBA that the lowest performing students at a low‑performing school would receive preference for the transportation money. Mr. Horne recognized there was the potential for a partially unfunded mandate that the districts would have to cover. Mr. Sturm said he would defer to the LCB Legal Division to provide additional information on the funding for transportation and would provide that information to Mr. Horne.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Sturm to restate the provision that would remove a school board. Mr. Sturm said removal of a school board was one of the options that the NDE could take. He reiterated that it was more likely the NDE would select the action to institute and fully implement a new curriculum that was based on state and local academic content and achievement standards.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for additional information on the financial analysis program referenced on page 16 of S.B. 191. Mr. Sturm indicated the wording was included because there was no requirement in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) for a financial analysis program; past funding had been addressed in an appropriation bill. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification of the language included in Section 9, subsection 2(o), of S.B. 191. Ms. Braun said when appropriations or substantial legislation had been passed for a particular school district, the results had not been highlighted in the accountability reports or in the plans for improvement; the language included in Section 9 would correct the problem.
Ms. Giunchigliani then referred to the improvement plans and said she had a former administrator that ignored the work of the school staff and wrote and submitted her own plan. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were any protections built into the bill to prevent that scenario from occurring. Because of the high stakes, she thought there needed to be a mechanism for protesting if the school staff was not included in the development of a plan. Ms. Braun said the protection was built into the state remediation application. Ms. Giunchigliani said there were signatures on the applications but “they were forged.”
Carol Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB, said before she addressed the charter schools, she wanted to address an earlier discussion that children had to be enrolled in a school or school district for a full year to be counted in AYP. The provisions of S.B. 191 stated the determination made for each school district must be based only upon the information and data for those pupils who were enrolled in the school district for a full academic year, regardless of whether those pupils attended one or more schools within the school district. Ms. Stonefield said the school district would allow movement among schools within the district.
Ms. Stonefield continued the PowerPoint presentation and said charter schools were addressed in the NCLBA and S.B. 191. Many of the provisions related to charter schools had been changed. Charter schools had existed in Nevada since 1997. There were 13 charter schools with an approximate student enrollment of 26,000 as of the 2002-2003 “count day.” The charter schools were chartered by local school districts, although the 2001 Legislature authorized the State Board of Education to also charter schools. The NCLBA encouraged charter schools with innovative programs through voluntary grants and also provided that a public school could be closed and reopened as a charter school as one of the corrective actions if allowed by state law. Since NRS 386.506 specifically prohibited an existing public school from converting to a charter school those provisions were deleted from S.B. 191.
Ms. Stonefield said all charter school teachers and paraprofessionals initially hired to work in a program supported by Title I funds after the effective date of the NCLBA, which was January 8, 2002, “must meet the requirements of the act.” She explained that “initially hired” did not apply to individuals employed by another charter school or a public school district without interruption. By January 8, 2006, all paraprofessionals working in Title I programs in charter schools “must meet the requirements of the NCLBA, and by July 1, 2006, all teachers employed by charter schools who teach in the core subjects must meet the requirements of the NCLBA.” The NRS allowed some flexibility in the employment of unlicensed teachers in charter schools; at least 70 percent of the teachers who provided instruction had to be certified in English, mathematics, science, and social studies. The NCLBA clarified that social studies would apply specifically to government, economics, geography, history, and also added foreign language and the arts.
Mr. Sturm said the state and the districts were required to collect data on:
Mr. Sturm addressed the new system demands:
Mr. Sturm said there were four different data collection segments that were needed for the SAIN:
Mr. Sturm said Section 55 of S.B. 191 specified that the system must:
Mr. Sturm said the section of the bill related to the Superintendent of Public Instruction had been “beefed up considerably” after working with interested Assembly and Senate members. The superintendent:
Ms. Braun referred to the testing provisions of S.B. 191. She said the NERA required 16 tests, which included:
Ms. Braun said under S.B. 191, the number of tests would increase to 21. The increase was due to the NCLBA, which required standards-based testing in grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high school in mathematics and reading. The tests had to be implemented no later than FY2006. Science testing would be required in selected grade clusters in FY2008.
Ms. Giunchigliani voiced her concerns with the new science testing requirements. She pointed out that no additional time had been added to the school day or the school year, and she said even though the curriculum included science, teachers were lucky if they could provide instruction in science 20 minutes each week. She wondered how the schools or the students could be held accountable if there was not sufficient time to implement the curriculum and she asked if the lack of implementation time had been discussed.
Mr. Sturm replied, “Only in the context that science, at least currently, is not going to be part of the AYP.”
Ms. Braun said currently there was testing in science in the NRTs at grades 4, 7, and 10. Science was also built into grades 5 and 8 in the CRTs. Ms. Braun said she would find out what the federal requirements were and would get back to Ms. Giunchigliani. Ms. Giunchigliani emphasized that the problem was lack of instructional time. She asked if there had been any discussion about consolidating some of the testing, or eliminating some of the testing due to the new requirements under the NCLBA. Mr. Sturm said most of the 21 tests under S.B. 191 were part of what the NDE had submitted as far as the state compliance plan with the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the school districts also conducted district testing. Mr. Sturm said Senator Raggio had asked the districts if they were planning to eliminate the district tests. They had indicated elimination of the district tests was a local option through the local school board, but that the standards-based tests now required in grades 3 through 8 did address a number of the areas that the district-level tests addressed. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would urge the districts to be certain they were not double testing the students. She said, “At some point there needed to be some reality on the number of instructional days that were lost to testing.”
Ms. Braun said the new testing requirements were included under Sections 67, 71.3, and 71.7, which specified that the testing program would be administered each spring and would consist of:
· English and Math CRTs in grades 3 through 8
· Writing tests to continue in grades 4 and 7
· CRT Science tests would continue in grades 5 and 8
· HSPE would meet the NCLBA requirements for testing in high school
Ms. Braun said the state norm-referenced testing would continue in grades 4, 7, and 10, but would not be included in any AYP calculations. Under S.B. 191, the new CRTs were required to be developed, printed, and scored by a national testing company because of the high stakes. The CRT scores would be the only scores utilized to designate schools; however, both the CRTs and the NRTs would be utilized to determine eligibility for state remediation funds. The additional changes to testing included the deletion of testing exemptions for the limited English proficient (LEP) and special education students. There was a requirement for a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) comparison with Nevada assessments. The science portion of the High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE) would be delayed until the 2007-2008 school year. Charter schools would bear the costs of any retesting in circumstances of testing irregularities. The assessments for LEP must, to the extent practical, be in language and form to yield reliable student achievement data. Beginning in FY2003, there had to be an annual assessment of LEP students on English language skills. Although the LEP students had to be included in assessments, the students who had not attended schools in the United States for at least three consecutive years did not need to be tested on the English portion of the examination. There were individual case-by-case waivers allowed for LEP students for up to two or more consecutive years.
Ms. Braun said Section 139 required the Legislative Committee on Education to review any new regulations adopted by the State Board of Education related to the enactment of S.B. 191.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Arberry related to the testing, Ms. Braun said once the children took the examinations and the reports were provided back to the school districts and the NDE, adequate yearly progress would be reviewed to determine if the students made sufficient progress from the prior year, or if a school would be designated as demonstrating need for improvement. Based upon the results that the schools and school districts received, all the plans for improvement would be revised, support teams and the technical assistance partnerships (TAPs) would come into play, and a new improvement process would be implemented.
Assemblywoman Chowning noted that a student failing to demonstrate adequate achievement was required to take a remedial program, and she asked if funding would be provided for the required remedial programs. She also asked about the modifications to the required High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE). Ms. Braun explained that continuation of funding for state remediation had been recommended by the Governor for any low‑performing school. The money committees had also approved $1 million in FY2004 and $1.5 million in FY2005 to assist non-Title I pupils in obtaining the tutoring or services needed for improvement. Federal funding would be available for the Title I pupils. Mrs. Chowning said the language in S.B. 191 included numerous requirements. It was not fair to require students to take programs without assurances that funding would be available. Ms. Braun emphasized that the funding had been approved by the money committees and would be available. However, the amount of funding might not be adequate due to the projected increase in the number of schools that would be identified as needing improvement.
Mr. Sturm deferred to the NDE to respond to Mrs. Chowning’s concern related to test accommodations and modifications for the disabled and the LEP population. Mr. Sturm noted there was “some tension between what test vendors will accept as an acceptable accommodation in order to yield appropriate test results and what the U.S. Department of Education is saying in their guidance about this.” Mr. Sturm said almost all children would be taking the same test in the same manner.
Ms. Stonefield continued the presentation and said one of the key principles of the NCLBA was the requirement for high quality instructional personnel in the schools. She said a paraprofessional was an individual that provided one-on-one tutoring, assisted with classroom management, assisted in computer laboratories, provided library and media center assistance, and provided instructional services under the supervision of a licensed teacher. Paraprofessionals newly hired to work in programs supported with Title I funds after the effective date of the NCLBA must meet the requirements of the NCLBA. By January 2006, all paraprofessionals who worked in Title I programs had to meet the requirements of the NCLBA. The requirements included completing one of the following:
Section 84.5 of S.B. 191 directed the State Board of Education to prescribe at least one examination for paraprofessionals. The NCLBA required that paraprofessionals in Title I schools meet the requirements of the bill. Under Section 6 of S.B. 191, the State Board of Education must include in their annual report information on the number and percentage of all paraprofessionals who did not satisfy the requirements of the NCLBA.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the two years of higher education was defined as 60 credits. Ms. Stonefield said the two years was the provision included in the NCLBA and she assumed the State Board of Education would be able to promulgate a rule related to the number of credits required.
Gloria Dopf, Director, Special Education and Diversity Programs, Department of Education, interjected that the State Board of Education had adopted regulations regarding the equivalency of the two-year requirement at the last Board meeting. The Board elected to use 48 credits as the equivalent of the two years of experience. At another meeting the Board adopted the Educational Testing Service (ETS) ParaPro assessment as the examination. Ms. Dopf said the ParaPro test was piloted in 2002 and 2003 and was now available on the Web and through the testing centers.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the new requirement for paraprofessionals to have “this new education” and asked if funding was provided by the NCLBA for the districts to pay the paraprofessionals commensurate with the new requirement. Mr. Sturm said not specifically and noted a number of states had raised the same issue. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the schools could pay additional salary amounts from the Title I funds. Mr. Sturm said, “Some of that gets mixed up with bargaining and whether these folks are part of a collective bargaining agreement.” Ms. Giunchigliani said the salary issue for paraprofessionals was another unfunded mandate that the Legislature needed to address.
Ms. Stonefield referred to the area of highly qualified teachers. The NCLBA required a state plan to achieve the goal of all teachers being highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Section 137 of S.B. 191 directed the State Board of Education to prepare a plan by September 1, 2004, and submit the plan to the Legislative Committee on Education. The Committee could then make recommendations to the 2005 Legislature as a result of its review. The NCLBA also required that the state plan include an annual increase in the percentage of highly qualified teachers until teachers met the objective. Veteran teachers were required to comply with the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE). The HOUSSE option did not apply to elementary, middle, or high school teachers new to the profession, which was defined as those hired after July 1, 2003. Those teachers were required to meet the definition of highly qualified teachers. The HOUSSE option did apply to teachers who were not new to the profession. Options available to meet the NCLBA definition of highly qualified included:
Ms. Stonefield said the three groups of veterans or experienced teachers who had to take action in the next three years to meet the highly qualified requirement included those who were teaching in a middle school, those secondary teachers who were teaching out of field, and teachers primarily in elementary schools and charter schools that had not yet taken the PRAXIS examinations.
Ms. Stonefield said Section 132 of S.B. 191 required the NDE to notify teachers about the NCLBA requirements. Section 99 of the bill restricted the ability of districts to request, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to approve, waivers so that licensed teachers could teach out of field if a shortage existed. The bill provided that no waivers would be granted in schools designated as needing improvement.
Mrs. Chowning voiced concern that the Superintendent of Public Instruction could not waive requirements for personnel teaching out of field. Nevada had a hard enough time recruiting teachers, especially in the schools needing improvement. Mr. Sturm said Mrs. Chowning’s concern had been a topic of discussion among the states and the federal government and it was a big issue. In reading the national literature there had not been a satisfactory answer. There was the tension between the need for teachers and Congress not willing to budge on the issue of highly qualified teachers. Mrs. Chowning reflected that because the requirements were being “set in stone, we are setting everybody up for failure.”
Chairman Arberry asked how much funding the state would receive from the federal government under the NCLBA, and Ms. Braun indicated she would forward the information to the Chair.
Ms. Stonefield continued and said under the NCLBA, a highly qualified teacher had to be fully licensed, or certified, by the state and not have any certification or licensure requirement waived on an emergency or temporary basis. A highly qualified elementary teacher had to hold a bachelor’s degree and be able to demonstrate subject knowledge and teaching skills in basic elementary school curriculum. High school teachers were required to hold a bachelor’s degree and demonstrate knowledge and skill through a test or an academic major, a graduate degree, or the coursework equivalent to the academic major. The Commission on Professional Standards in Education was required to review the regulations governing qualifications to ensure compliance with the NCLBA. There was some concern with the middle school teachers because in the past Nevada did not offer a middle school license. According to the NCLBA a middle school teacher must hold a bachelor’s degree and be able to demonstrate competence. Sections 94 and 137 of S.B. 191 directed the Commission on Professional Standards to adopt regulations prescribing the qualifications for a license to teach middle school. The spring 2003 graduates who would be teaching in middle schools would have until the end of the 2005-2006 school year to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements.
Mr. Beers asked if any type of bachelor degree would meet the requirements and how did the new requirements differ from the current requirements. Ms. Stonefield said currently Nevada offered an elementary license and a secondary license. According to the NDE, the license that was required depended on how the school was defined. A teacher teaching in grade 7 or grade 8 in a K-8 school required only an elementary school license. Some middle school teachers did hold a secondary license, typically applicable in the junior high/middle school setting and high school. Individuals with a secondary license had a subject major; elementary teachers did not have a subject major. The Legislative Committee on Education had authorized the NDE to create a middle school license, but those teachers who would achieve that license would have to hold a subject major in addition to holding a bachelor’s degree. Mr. Beers asked if it would be a fair assumption that the majority of current licensees would meet the requirements of a highly qualified teacher. Ms. Stonefield said she could not address the number of teachers that would meet the highly qualified requirement, but the definition proposed by the NDE was that by the end of the 2005-2006 school year a teacher would have three full years of teaching experience and hold the major, or the course equivalent, in the subject in which they were teaching. The teacher might also hold a graduate degree or a professional license.
Ms. Stonefield continued and said all parents had the option of inquiring as to the professional qualifications of their child’s teachers and paraprofessionals. In Title I schools, the school had to notify parents if a child’s teacher was not highly qualified or was a long-term substitute. For Title I schools in need of improvement, the school districts were required to submit a plan to ensure poor and minority children were not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, out-of-field teachers at a higher rate than other children.
Ms. Stonefield reviewed the regional professional development programs (RPDPs). Several sections of S.B. 191 authorized the Statewide Coordinating Council and the governing bodies of the RPDPs to accept gifts and grants. There were a number of voluntary programs contained in the NCLBA, as well as funding from other sources such as foundations. There was also a provision that certain state and local government entities must first obtain written consent from an RPDP prior to representing in a grant application that the RPDP would be participating in providing services. Ms. Stonefield said occasionally the RPDPs had learned they were part of a grant application and had not been notified.
Ms. Stonefield referred to the safe and drug free schools and communities and said the NCLBA required that pupils who attended persistently dangerous schools must be offered an opportunity to attend another public school. The State Board of Education was required to adopt regulations to define persistently dangerous schools and to govern options offered to families. Local school districts were to adopt plans to ensure that schools were safe and free of controlled substances.
Chairman Williams said the list of schools needing improvement had increased significantly in Clark County, and he asked if S.B. 191 would allow parents the option of selecting from a larger number of schools if the increases continued. Chairman Williams also asked if the bill would address the issue of the growing number of schools needing improvement. He noted that the Board of Trustees of the Clark County School District had been diligent in allowing children to attend schools close to their home when possible.
Mr. Sturm said approximately 100 of the 500 schools in the state were Title I schools. There was a limit to the number of schools where the school choice option would apply. If all the Title I schools in Clark County were in the category of needing improvement, the options would more than likely become narrower. The options would be determined by the school districts. Chairman Williams asked if the ability to “opt out is only to opt out to a Title I school.” Mr. Sturm explained that the district picked the schools the parents would have the option of transferring their child to.
Chairman Williams referred to the children remaining in a school needing improvement. He noted that several years ago the principal of one of the schools included in the list of needing improvement was transferred by the school district to another school. Chairman Williams felt the principal was the focus of the school and should not have been transferred until the improvement plan was implemented. Mr. Sturm said one of the options that could be recommended by a state improvement team was removal of the school principal, but that was not a requirement. He explained that the principal did complete the initial plan and had responsibility for implementing the plan.
Ms. Braun referred to Chairman Arberry’s earlier question on the amount of federal funding that would be provided under the NCLBA funding. She said the Act was covered under several federal titles: Title I, which was the basic grant; Title II, the teacher quality grant; a second Title II, which covered education technology; Title V, innovative education programs; and Title VI, which provided state assessment funding. The total federal funding that would be provided under the NCLBA for the 2003-2005 biennium was $156.6 million; $78.3 million each year.
Ms. Braun said Sections 139 and 113 of S.B. 191 would require the Legislative Committee on Education to review any regulations adopted by the State Board of Education related to the implementation of the NCLBA and S.B. 191. Sections 114 and 43 required the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation to review the effectiveness of the new accountability program and review improvement plans. Ms. Braun said S.B. 191 contained two appropriations. Section 127 included $9.95 million for educational technology. Section 129 appropriated $1.4 million in each fiscal year of the 2003-2005 biennium to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to obtain contractual services of a consultant to provide brochures for reporting pupil test scores for statewide accountability tests and for related services.
Ms. Braun referred to the revised fiscal note (Exhibit C), which had been submitted by the school districts. The total estimated statewide fiscal impact to school districts for S.B. 191 only was $84,000 in FY2004 and $147,000 in FY2005. The estimated fiscal impact of the bill was based upon implementation of the technical assistance partnerships (TAPs) in non-Title I designated schools. The estimated cost to implement a TAP at each school would be approximately $1,000, which was based on ten days of substitute pay at $100 per day. The number of non-Title I schools was projected to be 28 in FY2004 and 49 in FY2005. The total statewide costs for substitutes would be $28,000 in FY2004 and $49,000 in FY2005. The school districts also estimated an additional $2,000 per non-Title I school to bring in outside experts to assist in analyzing data, reviewing curriculum, and other areas. The total statewide cost of this component would be $56,000 in FY2004 and $98,000 in FY2005.
Mr. Sturm said he had an answer to the transportation question posed earlier in the meeting by Chairman Williams—how the districts would be able to support the additional transportation. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, “If the amount of funds described for the transportation under school choice and available to provide services under the subsection is insufficient to provide supplemental educational services to each child whose parents request services, the local educational agency shall give priority to providing the services to the lowest achieving children.” Mr. Sturm said the provision also applied to the transportation money. The school would be required to set priorities ordering who would be served with the available funds. Chairman Williams asked what would happen if the local school district did not have sufficient funding to transport the number of students that wanted to be transported. The Clark County School District was considering expanding the distance children had to walk to school because of a transportation shortage. Chairman Williams asked if there were any penalties if the district did not adhere to the requirements. He also asked if the Legislative Committee on Education could do more than merely review the regulations adopted by the State Board of Education for implementation of S.B. 191. Mr. Sturm said the provision for review was similar to that of the Health Care Committee reviewing health regulations, which did require feedback. The NDE would listen to the recommendations made by the Legislative Committee on Education. Mr. Sturm said there were penalties for not complying with adequate yearly progress and school choice was part of that. The school districts were required to reserve a certain portion of Title I funding for transportation. Once that funding was exhausted, the district had to establish priority order.
Chairman Williams said there were some smaller school districts in certain states that had opted not to go with the NCLBA because they felt costs to implement the Act would exceed revenues. He asked what would happen if a small school district in Nevada opted not to participate in the Act. Mr. Sturm said he did not know the answer to the Chair’s question. He indicated he had seen the same articles that the Chairman had read in the national literature. Chairman Williams said it was important to know how a small district electing not to participate in the NCLBA would impact Nevada’s plan. Mr. Sturm said he thought the NDE might be able to address some of the Chairman’s concerns since a plan had to be submitted to the federal government for approval. Chairman Williams echoed Mrs. Chowning’s concern related to receiving information on S. B. 191 so late in the legislative session and he thought it was a disservice to the people of Nevada.
Ms. Dopf referred to Chairman William’s question on compliance. She said the NDE had explored the compliance issue with the Department’s federal liaison officers and the response had been informal. The Department was going to pose the question in writing in order to receive a formal response from the federal government. The informal response was “fairly daunting.” Ms. Dopf said many of the requirements of the NCLBA existed and were not specific to Title I schools whether or not the funds were received. The areas that would be required regardless of whether a district, school, or state selected the funds were those that had to do with:
Ms. Dopf said the one area where there should be some latitude would be in the area of designation of schools and the consequences that went with the designations. The area was Title I specific and would probably not be required. Ms. Dopf said to date none of the states had indicated an unwillingness to accept the funding or comply with the requirements of the NCLBA. The NDE had received some inquiries from the local school districts but did not know of any districts or school sites in Nevada that were currently positioned to refuse the funds. Ms. Dopf said, “In the informal discussion, we were told that it would not just be Title I funds that would be in jeopardy.”
Mr. Sturm referred to the key effective dates (Exhibit C) for the creation of the middle school teacher license, all teachers qualified, all paraprofessionals qualified, and adding science to the HSPE. Mr. Sturm said LCB staff had tried, to the extent possible, to make certain all of the key provisions of the NERA remained as well as the philosophy of that Act, which was to provide information and offer assistance to schools needing assistance.
Chairman Williams asked if the teachers had to be nationally certified.
Ms. Stonefield said the NCLBA required that all teachers meet the definition provided in that Act by the end of the 2006 school year. A highly qualified teacher had to hold a bachelor’s degree and could not hold any waivers or other emergency or temporary licenses. Elementary school teachers had to hold a bachelor’s degree, state license, and had to be able to demonstrate that they were competent in the curriculum of an elementary school. Middle school and high school teachers had to hold a full state license, bachelor’s degree, and a major, or adequate coursework equivalent to a major, in their academic subject. Those teachers teaching out of field would have the next three years to obtain the required coursework to meet the requirement. A teacher holding a graduate degree or National Board Certification had already met the definition of a highly qualified teacher.
Chairman Williams again referred to the teacher shortages in the Clark County School District. He asked if there were any extensions or waivers for teachers included in the NCLBA. Mr. Sturm said many states had noticed that there did not appear to be a penalty for not meeting the highly qualified requirement. There was some question if the federal government would “come down hard” on the highly qualified teacher requirement. Chairman Williams asked if any of the funding could be used for training the paraprofessionals.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, NDE, said the funding included in Title II could be reserved by the districts for paraprofessionals. Dr. Rheault pointed out the qualifications required under the Act were for paraprofessionals in Title I schools only. A paraprofessional failing to meet the highly qualified requirement could move to a non-Title 1 school.
Mrs. Chowning asked for additional information on Sections 130 and 141 of S.B. 191. Mr. Sturm said the Senate Finance Committee had deleted the stipend provision because it was being handled through the budget process. The 1/5 retirement credit was deleted because under the current law the number of schools needing improvement had been fairly stable. As Ms. Braun indicated earlier in the meeting, under the NCLBA the requirements for meeting adequate yearly progress would result in many more schools being designated as needing improvement. Conceivably in four or five years, more than half of Nevada’s schools could be classified as needing improvement.
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any brief comments from the audience.
Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said Senator Raggio had introduced S.B. 191 saying the bill would improve student achievement and teacher quality. Mr. Bellister said Nevada ranked 45th in the nation in per pupil expenditures and there was still a need for salary increases for public school employees. Mr. Bellister said the NSEA had offered amendments to the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Bellister said he would provide the suggestions to the members in writing.
Anne Loring, President of the Nevada Association of School Boards, said she had provided a copy of her testimony to the members (Exhibit D), and wanted to go on record on behalf of the Association in support of S.B. 191 as amended. The Association believed the passage of the bill was critical to the state of Nevada and the school districts in implementing the NCLBA.
Dr. James L. Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District, said he also had written testimony that he would provide to the members (Exhibit E). Dr. Hager said he was also the Chairman of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents and the Association also supported S.B. 191 as amended. The Association believed S.B. 191 was critical for the districts to be able to have a one-unit system for assessment and accountability. Dr. Hager echoed Senator Raggio’s comments that the passage of S.B. 191 was essential for the districts to continue the high achievement that “we are seeking.”
Dottie Merrill, Washoe County School District, said she served as the designated staff to the superintendent and school board in deriving the fiscal impact information and was present to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, suggested amendments to S.B. 191 (Exhibit F) and asked the members to:
· Amend Section 5, page 4, line 38, by deleting “or”
· Amend Section 5, page 4, by deleting line 39 and inserting:
“(VII) Child welfare agency: or
(VIII) Correctional institution,”
Mr. Musgrove said the amendments were required because Child Haven had a school on-site and would not be under the same curriculum unless the amendments were made.
Dr. Rheault said the NDE was in support of S.B. 191 as amended. The first printing of the bill included six pages of minor to critical corrections. Those concerns had all been addressed in the amended bill.
Frank Brusa, Nevada Association of School Administrators, indicated that the Association also supported S.B. 191 as amended.
Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women’s Lobby, said the Lobby also supported S.B. 191 as amended.
Debbie Smith, representing the Council to Establish Academic Standards, said the Council’s interest in the legislation was in the area of assessment. The Council did have a position on maintaining the CRTs and using the CRTs for the accountability portion and that was changed in the amendment. The Council appreciated the fact that the amendment was adopted.
Bonnie Parnell, representing the League of Women Voters and the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA), said both groups preferred S.B. 191 as amended. Many issues had been resolved in the amendment and a great deal of work went into the amendment. However, Ms. Parnell indicated that many concerns remained. No one questioned the lofty goals of the NCLBA. However, the concerns remained related to the unfunded and unanticipated costs of implementing S.B. 191, and perhaps more importantly, what would be the unintended human consequences of the bill. Ms. Parnell said it was with reservation that both the League and the Nevada PTA supported S.B. 191 as amended, but she asked the members to consider the necessity of going beyond implementing the NCLBA and then down the road adding to it.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 11:04 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda J. Smith
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: