MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
Human Resources/K12
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
February 25, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K12 of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman Christina R. Giunchigliani at 8:09 a.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David E. Goldwater
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Denise Davis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education
Phyllis Dryden, Director, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education
James L. Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents
Charlotte Petersen, Superintendent, Humboldt County School District; Vice Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents
Ben Zunino, Superintendent, Eureka County School District
Kenneth B. Lange, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Distributive School Account - Budget Page K12 ED-7 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2610
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education:
We are prepared to answer any questions the committee might have.
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education:
I will be reading from my prepared statement, “Issues Pertaining to the DSA Budget” (Exhibit C). There are changes from our meeting a few weeks ago, and I believe staff has been notified of them. The full 8 percent increase in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is now included in the budget, instead of 4 percent. The revised calculations are shown on the spreadsheet handout (Exhibit D). This adds about $26 per student each year of the biennium to the basic support amount. The other change concerns enhancement unit 332 (E‑332). If textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware remain in the Distributive School Account (DSA), they are subject to the changes made to the basic support amount through the funding formula calculation. Not every student in the state will receive the $50. The list of items could be expanded by the Legislature to include things such as library books. This will not change our report to the federal government.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Is the total PERS contribution increase coming from the DSA? Is the proposed stipend included in salary and computed under the PERS formula?
Mr. Thunder:
The stipend is shown as a flat amount. I believe it would be subject to PERS, but we need to verify that. The amount would either be inclusive or would be an additional amount the districts would have to pay. We need to clarify that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are you saying the stipend is subject to PERS, but we do not believe it is budgeted that way?
Mr. Thunder:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Is the modification you submitted half of what the PERS contribution should be?
Mr. Thunder:
The modification we have presented is the full amount of the PERS increase, which went from 18.75 percent to 20.25 percent of payroll. It amounts to an 8 percent increase. The actual percentage you see in the DSA documents does not quite equal 8 percent because some people in the school districts are enrolled in Social Security, and some are in the employer/employee paid section.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Is it all coming out of the DSA?
Mr. Thunder:
Yes. The new revision also comes out of the DSA.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Generally speaking, are we asking the employees to come up with any part of that?
Mr. Thunder:
Given the revision, no. The complete cost would be borne by the State.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Please respond to me regarding the stipend. If we are truly going to provide adequate remuneration for teachers and their classrooms, I believe it should involve the entire remuneration package. We can include a $1000 signing bonus, but most of these people need health care and a good retirement as well.
Mr. Thunder:
Correct. We will check on the stipend and any other benefits that may be tied to it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Regarding the modification, did the budget use 18.75 percent, which is the percentage we used for all other public employees within the State?
Mr. Thunder:
The budget was originally created using the actual PERS contribution percentage in fiscal year (FY) 2002. The practice in the past has been to use the percentage the districts report in the second year in the Nevada Revised Statutes 387.303 Report (NRS 387 Report) as the percentage in each of the following 2 years of the new biennium. Initially, 4 percent was added to the percentage. The revision would increase it by 8 percent instead of 4 percent.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is this the only employee group you would be paying the full PERS amount for?
Mr. Thunder:
In the DSA, yes; I believe State employees are another issue.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We will need to investigate further creating that kind of discrepancy.
Mr. Thunder:
Returning to the first page (Exhibit C), we have revised enrollment estimates and updated the “State of the School Districts” report (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Projections have been made for 10 years. I was previously asked about the Clark County numbers, which were less than projections. Clark County finalizes its projections annually in February; when the information is available, we will advise staff. Increases for FY 2004 are 3.64 percent over FY 2003 enrollments.
In 2002, we paid for more students than we actually had enrolled due to the hold-harmless provision. Assembly Bill (A.B.) 122 concerns a 1‑year hold‑harmless provision versus a 2-year hold‑harmless provision.
ASSEMBLY BILL 122: Revises provisions governing calculation of basic support for school districts with declining enrollment. (BDR 34-963)
On page 2 of my remarks (Exhibit C), we have done calculations for each option. The difference is not a large amount in comparison to the full DSA, but it is a significant amount to some school districts. These districts are typically facing mine closings and a general downturn in the business environment. I have a letter from the Elko County School District to enter into the record (Exhibit F). Before the last three biennia, the hold‑harmless provision only applied to a few small districts. Ten districts currently show enrollment declines from the prior year, and eleven districts are involved in the hold‑harmless provision because the time period is 2 years.
Moving on to page 3 (Exhibit C), we have not previously included a line item in the budget for the hold-harmless provision. For many years we have had a surplus in the DSA because we underprojected sales tax or overprojected enrollment, or both. We have relied on that source of funding for hold‑harmless in the past.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Which district was added since the change was made last session from 1 year to 2 years? Of the ten districts, how many have received hold‑harmless funding the last two biennia?
Mr. Thunder:
I believe most of them.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It is the same group, regardless of a 2-year or 1-year time period.
Mr. Thunder:
Another issue regarding hold‑harmless is discussed at the bottom of page 2. The hold-harmless provision was intended for school districts with multiple schools. I do not believe it was ever intended to apply to individual schools. A discussion regarding charter schools will occur at next week’s meeting.
The class-size reduction program is addressed on page 3. Questions about future allocation procedures are listed. The Executive Budget went from a 3 percent movement on scale in class-size reduction to 2 percent, to bring it in line with others in the DSA. This results in a slight impact. The reasoning is, when the program started, most of the teachers were new and they moved along quickly. We did not have the more experienced teachers who were retiring. The movement on scale is designed to accommodate both of those facts.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Do we have any data to support the concept of flexibility? To me, our choices are to stay the same or increase the program through sixth grade. What does expanding the program mean? When I first learned about class-size reduction, it seemed to be based on studies that were driven by data. There were reasons for particular ratios; it was grounded in principles and fact. The concept of flexibility, without any supporting data, does not seem to accomplish the class‑size policy. If we want to get rid of class-size policy, we should just get rid of it. I do not support that.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
I think the best information we have from the State is the Elko study of the last 4 years. All the initial research came from the Tennessee Department of Education Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio Final Report 1985-1990, which implemented 15 or 16 students per teacher. Critics still say it is the best study available. We have never done a detailed study in Nevada on the current class sizes. Elko just presented its report for the current biennium to the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. All indications from that report show both students and teachers benefit by using the flexible class size. In their opinion, it was as effective as the 16 to 1 ratio.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
I would like to see that report.
Assemblywoman Gibbons:
Do we have any data showing how effective class-size reduction has been for students who have been involved since first grade?
Dr. Rheault:
In the past, we did comparisons of fourth grade assessment results between students in a class-size reduction program for 3 years versus students who moved into the district. Results were mixed, but for the most part there were slight increases in the achievement of students, primarily in reading and math. We have not done a comparison recently, but I believe this year’s junior or senior class was the first group to be involved in class-size reduction.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
As I recall, the primary reason flexibility was granted to Elko was to end team teaching. The original intent of class-size reduction was to create a teacher within the classroom. I think we need to heed the important part of the study, which says the teacher and the student can be held accountable. You cannot get away with pushing paper if your class size is 16 to 19 students, and you can utilize your curriculum far better. I think ending team teaching is still the ultimate goal, and it ought to be what we look at this session in terms of class‑size reduction.
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education:
We provide “Special Education in Nevada” (Exhibit G) to the Legislature to update trends in special education and provide historical context. The State’s percentages within disability categories, as shown on page 1, are consistent with national trends. There has been growth in the number of youngsters with autism, which is also a national trend. Because these students have a wide variety of needs, their support programs tend to be costly. There have been no changes to the criteria for identification of disabilities at the State or federal levels.
On page 2, the student count of 42,532 represents 11.5 percent of the total student enrollment figure. Students with disabilities have been 10 percent to 11 percent of the population for many years. The identification process we follow has resulted in Nevada being in the lowest quartile of percentage of youngsters served nationally.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Has the percentage of special education students increased in the last 20 years?
Ms. Dopf:
It has increased incrementally in the last 20 years.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I thought it used to be 8 percent to 9 percent. Nationally, it has been around 12 percent. Today, on National Public Radio, I heard it is 36 percent nationally.
Ms. Dopf:
Those figures use a census denominator instead of total school enrollment. Using census figures, we are actually at about 9 percent.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What would you say is the national average?
Ms. Dopf:
I have not seen the 36 percent figure. The figures I have seen are 12 percent to 15 percent, using the larger denominator.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Where are attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) categorized?
Ms. Dopf:
Under State and federal law, youngsters with ADD, hyperactivity, or ADHD may be categorized under another disability if it is their primary need, or under “Other Health Impaired” if it meets the criteria.
On page 3, the graph shows trends in the rate of growth of the special education student population versus the rate of growth of the general student population. The last key point listed under the graph points out that, as we increase testing and standards, we are going to have a greater growth rate in special education.
Senator Rawson:
The graph is interesting. Is this United States data?
Ms. Dopf:
This graph uses Nevada data.
Senator Rawson:
So, despite approximately 30,000 new students a year, is the growth rate itself declining in the general population as well as special education?
Ms. Dopf:
This graph shows percentage of growth. The growth rate percentage is declining.
Senator Rawson:
The growth rate is now about half of what it was 10 years ago. We should take comfort in the fact growth is tapering off.
Ms. Dopf:
Page 4 discusses the aggregate costs of special education. We are required to track these costs in the NRS 387 Report. The “average special education per pupil costs” shown on the graph is the sum of the “special education costs” and the “general education costs.” Special education costs are not decreasing. Average costs are lower because growth in students outpaced growth in costs. Actual costs are increasing slightly.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do the districts break out what services they actually provide themselves, and what those costs are?
Ms. Dopf:
The report uses the same categories as the budget for the general cost. We have the number of instructors and non-instructional staff, but there is no breakdown of non-instructional staff, such as speech therapists.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I still believe we need to deal with the full funding issue, but maybe we are not aware of what fully funding special education means. It would be interesting to see what related services are provided by various districts, along with those costs, so we can better define what a unit means.
Ms. Dopf:
Those services are included in the costs. You cannot break them out precisely.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Some districts could have added administrative staff, other facilitators, and people they consider related services, who are not directly related to the special education classroom. We might have a better picture of what full funding would be.
Ms. Dopf:
The graph on page 6 shows total costs attributable to special education by funding source. The State component is the unit funding, and the local support is everything else.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are districts supplying $163 million from their budgets?
Ms. Dopf:
Yes. They are supplying basic support in the General Fund that is not dedicated specifically to special education, but the districts must pay for those costs, so it is part of the expenditure.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This is different from the number I recall from previous years; I remember they were subsidizing $13 million to $20 million, depending on the district.
Ms. Dopf:
Those numbers are from the 1980s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when we first looked at the problem of unit funding that did not cover the actual costs of special education, we were looking at a few million dollars. As we continued to increase the unit funding at 2 percent, combined with the growth of the general student population, the amount increased in FY 2002 to $163 million. That is part of the General Fund contribution.
Senator Raggio:
I am continually confused by special education funding. How does federal funding fit in this puzzle?
Ms. Dopf:
The third key point under the graph on page 6 discusses federal funds. The graph does not include federal funds because the NRS 387 Report does not include it.
Senator Raggio:
We are trying to figure out how we fund special education. To me, not including federal money seems to distort the picture. We have to add in the federal money somewhere. I understand everyone’s perception varies regarding what to include as costs; some items might not pertain solely to special education. We have to know how we are funding the real costs of special education. Special education students are also counted in the regular basic school support. We fund a total number of students, including special education students, when we distribute the basic school support, and then we add the authorized number of units at an additional cost. I think we are doing a pretty fair job of funding.
Mr. Thunder:
When we refer to State funding, we are referring specifically to State unit funding. State and local funding includes the mix of DSA funding, which includes State funding.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would you reconfigure this graph, and include the 13.5 percent federal funding and the DSA funding? We could see they receive the per-pupil allocation, and this is additional. The percentage is up from the 9 percent we used to receive from the federal government, but it is not up to the 40 percent they mandated. Is there any proposed congressional legislation concerning this issue?
Ms. Dopf:
It is up for reauthorization and discussions are taking place. In the 2003 conference agreement on the budget, special education and Title I were the two programs that received funding increases. I will reconfigure the graph.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does the federal percentage go directly to the local districts?
Ms. Dopf:
Yes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is the $36 million allocated for special education units based on the numbers of pupils, or the number of units?
Ms. Dopf:
It is not on a unit basis; it is on a student basis. It used to be a straight per pupil amount based on the December 1 count. Now there are census and hold‑harmless provisions and sliver grants. For the purposes of this discussion, it is still driven by an approximate child count.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If we were to look at district budgets, where would we find that $36 million?
Ms. Dopf:
In the local plan.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Can they merge it into the General Fund, or do they have to keep it separated?
Ms. Dopf:
They have to keep it separate, which is why the NRS 387 Report does not track federal money. It is a separate accounting, but we have those figures.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is that included in the $163 million?
Ms. Dopf:
No. If you add the $36 million to the $163 million, which I attempted to explain in the third key point, you would have the total expenditure, which is 13.5 percent.
Page 7 discusses the State Board of Education’s unit request. Proposals from the board and the Executive Budget in the DSA are shown. The board requested a special education contingency fund for high-cost students and programs, which was not recommended in the Executive Budget. I previously mentioned autism and hearing impairments, and the disparity between dollars received by all funds versus costs of programs. Clark, Washoe, and some rural districts provided information to show costs could be as much as $19,000 beyond the $10,000 of support per pupil, up to $160,000 for autism programs. We are recommending an additional amount of money to help defray the costs of some of the high-cost programs and youngsters. Years ago, the out-of-district placement program had over 30 students and a budget of $1 million. Because of the emphasis on keeping students within their districts, high-cost programs are now absorbed in the special education budgets. We requested a specific contingency fund to help districts offset some of these costs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are these the out-of-district kids that came back about 6 years ago?
Ms. Dopf:
They are not necessarily those who came back, because they have gone through the system by now. We have encouraged districts to build in-state options. Autistic youngsters 3- and 4-years old are not going be sent out‑of‑district or out‑of‑state, away from home. They are not the only high-cost youngsters, however; there are medically-fragile people in the system.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why do we break autism out separately from either serious emotional disturbance or mental retardation? Was autism previously included in one of those categories?
Ms. Dopf:
Autism used to be grouped within the categories, both at State and federal levels. We utilized the federal categories and descriptors in the reauthorization of the late 1990s; autism was identified as a separate category for us to establish criteria and track it as an individual disability category. The traumatically brain‑injured category was also separated at the State and federal levels.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many students have we identified as having autism, and what is the age breakdown? I see Clark County has gone from 89 to 879 students over the past 5 years. Are you asking for a $20 million contingency fund to assist districts? I would like to see numbers by districts, by age groups, so we can see where they are in the education process and make projections.
Ms. Dopf:
We just completed our December 1 child count. We have to send it to the federal government by February 1. I will provide the information to staff. Numbers are reported by age and by disability, both statewide and by district.
Page 8 discusses the challenges of adequacy and funding during times of fiscal crisis, as well as the No Child Left Behind Act and other mandates that affect the performance of all youngsters.
Senator Cegavske:
Over time, have we changed the way we evaluate children for special education programs? What is the waiting period for an evaluation?
Ms. Dopf:
We have refined some of the tools and processes we use to help support the evaluation. Essentially, we have not changed processes significantly from 1997 when changes were made in the federal law. Autism and traumatic brain injury had specific criteria and evaluation processes established when they were separated from their previous categories. If significant changes occur at the federal level during reauthorization, it will impact the State. As to the question of waiting periods, we have 45 school days from the time of written consent to the time of evaluation.
Senator Cegavske:
Are you able to stay within that time frame?
Ms. Dopf:
For the most part, the districts are keeping within that time frame.
Senator Cegavske:
I am concerned about learning-disabled students, because we tend to overdiagnose and put kids into special education classrooms when they could be in classrooms with specially-trained teachers.
Ms. Dopf:
Learning disabilities are being scrutinized at the federal level. I do not think we fit some of the national trends. When you mention 20 percent or 36 percent of youngsters are in special education, and over 50 percent of those have learning disabilities, we have to remember other states have less precision in their identification process. We have had specific criteria and a regression analysis requirement as part of our data analysis. Within Nevada, our learning disability criteria is very rigorous and tries to weed out the youngsters who have not had the opportunity to learn from those who have had opportunities to learn.
Senator Cegavske:
Are we still trying to implement the requirement that regular classroom teachers have some special education training? It benefits the teacher and the classroom to identify more students earlier.
Ms. Dopf:
The requirement for a 3-credit special education course is included in the education programs at our universities, so graduates of our university system have had training. Nationally, programs are becoming more uniform, but I cannot guarantee that other programs include it.
Senator Cegavske:
Why are we having such a high rate of adjusted diplomas?
Ms. Dopf:
I alluded to this previously when I discussed the growth of special education students; a similar dynamic is affecting the percentage of graduates with adjusted rather than standard diplomas. It is specifically tied to the change in what we expect in the proficiency exam and what constitutes proficiency. The original proficiency exams required an adequacy level. As standards have increased, some special education students cannot pass the exam, even with special accommodation, because there is a strong emphasis on language, reading, and writing, which are the areas in which learning-disabled students have problems. We have more special education students finishing with adjusted diplomas. They fulfill their individualized education programs, but they cannot pass the proficiency exam.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Learning-disabled students with an adjusted diploma can still enter college or the university; regular students cannot.
To clarify, there were no major changes in testing, so that does not account for increases in numbers. I think it is good that, as background training for all teachers, there is awareness of special education needs. However, my experience as a special education teacher was that we try to put too many kids back into the general student population before they are ready. Usually, in the middle schools and high schools, they are left to do the best they can in subjects such as social studies and the sciences because their reading skills are inadequate. Some states have moved to a weighted number, so a mainstreamed learning‑disabled kid counts as 1.5 or 2 students, so balance is maintained and the teacher has time to work with every student.
Mr. Thunder:
Another major area is the adult high school diploma program. We are aware a Letter of Intent was issued by the last Legislature. We will make a preliminary presentation today and discuss specifics at a later date.
Phyllis Dryden, Director, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education:
We offer adult basic education, adult high school, and the general education diploma (GED). The adult education unit consists of the adult high school diploma (AHSD) program delivered through the school districts. It follows all regular diploma requirements for core curriculum and standards, including the proficiency exam. It is funded by the State. The adult basic education GED is federally funded. This program is delivered through the community college or other community group, and the goal is to prepare a student to pass the GED. Both programs serve students with the same characteristics; 60 percent of all students are English as a second language (ESL) students, and many do not have basic literacy skills in their own language. Our unfunded piece is GED testing. Testing sites are located at the community colleges and at school districts throughout the State. They will accept anyone, whether they have been enrolled in a preparatory program or not.
My discussion today concerns AHSD, which is completely funded by the State. We have a regular AHSD program and a corrections AHSD program. To date, the regular AHSD program has 14,563 students, or about 80 percent of the enrolled students, and corrections has 3518 students. Regular AHSD receives approximately 60 percent of the funding. We are working on a formula within the department, and all parties agree the new formula will give 70 percent of the funding to regular adult high school.
Senator Cegavske:
Is there a breakdown of the costs of the regular AHSD versus the corrections program?
Ms. Dryden:
It is more expensive for the corrections program because we have to hire full‑time teachers, and some districts require hazard pay for going into the prison. I do not have the figures with me, but I will furnish them.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is the deadline for the formula? If it was requested last session, why has it taken 2 years to complete?
Ms. Dryden:
We are ready to bring it forward.
Dr. Rheault
We did implement the formula, but we have been reducing it every year. In 2001, the prisons were getting about 43 percent of the funding. It has taken some time to implement. I think the final corrections have been made to the formula.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why would the formula not follow the population of students?
Dr. Rheault:
In the past, there was no formula. An amount of money was used for operations, based on the fact the program was offered. When the formula became based on numbers, it took a few years to phase in.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is it tied to the fact there used to be more year-round districts?
Ms. Dryden:
Not necessarily. In our major cities, we have year-round programs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We might want to review that. If 80 percent of the students are in regular adult high school, that should probably be where the funding goes.
Senator Cegavske:
Are the costs you will be providing only for teachers, or are books and other materials included?
Ms. Dryden:
The overall formula is cost per student, factoring in rural areas, because rural programs cost more. During the past biennium, we implemented an application process so districts and corrections have to apply for funds. Cost breakdowns are required.
Senator Cegavske:
Are students provided books and materials?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes. There is no cost to the student.
Senator Cegavske:
Has a sliding-scale fee ever been considered? I also understand a student needs 12 hours of credit, and attendance is not required as long as the student passes the test. Is that correct?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes. More than a year ago, the board approved competency-based testing. Like alternative education programs, the adults do not have to sit in class year‑round; they can test out. If they want the high school diploma, they have to pass the proficiency exam.
Senator Cegavske:
Is the cost different for those who only take the tests?
Ms. Dryden:
We have been working on that issue. How do we differentiate?
Senator Rawson:
We hear 60 percent to 80 percent of prisoners are dropouts. Do we have data on that?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes. We have data on each student. Before a person can enroll in the AHSD program, he or she has to have dropped out of school, or not completed school.
Senator Rawson:
Do we have a percentage of the total prison population?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes, but I do not have the figures with me today. I can provide them.
Senator Rawson:
We would like to know.
Ms. Dryden:
The number is quite high, and they have a lot of learning disabilities.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How do you segregate individuals who want a diploma from those who want a language background but not a diploma?
Ms. Dryden:
When people enter the programs, they are assessed. They are interviewed regarding their goals and program expectations. The AHSD programs also offer ESL and GED preparation as well as high school diplomas.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Did you do a breakdown of the numbers, so we have an idea of who is interested in which aspects?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes. We require data be submitted annually, and we have breakdowns according to age, ethnicity, GED, and ESL levels.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many obtain a diploma, versus a GED?
Ms. Dryden:
In 2002, in the regular AHSD program, 17 percent obtained diplomas and 16 percent completed GEDs. In corrections, 9 percent completed GEDs and 6 percent obtained adult high school diplomas.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is the total enrollment?
Ms. Dryden:
There are 14,563 students in the regular AHSD program. I need to correct my previous statement. Only 5 percent obtained diplomas, and 12 percent completed GEDs, for a total of 17 percent.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The title is misleading. We also have the adult basic education GED, which is federally funded. Is that separate?
Ms. Dryden:
It is separate. It is delivered through the community colleges and other community-based organizations. AHSD is strictly through the school districts.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Why do we not have one adult high school diploma and one GED? Am I correct that students must be age 16 and older? Is there a maximum age?
Ms. Dryden:
You must be at least 16 years old, but there is no maximum.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have we done any evaluation of why only 17 percent are finishing?
Ms. Dryden:
Adult students attend classes one or two evenings a week. They have a year to finish the program. They may also be trying to learn English.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do we give them an opportunity to learn English before they take classes?
Ms. Dryden:
We segregate the different levels. I know our figures look low, but we are not dealing with traditional students. Since they only attend class once or twice a week, it takes longer.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I understand what you are saying, but I think we will have to examine this further.
Ms. Dryden:
We will be happy to provide any information that we have.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Did you say testing is not funded, but testing centers exist?
Ms. Dryden:
Yes, there are sites throughout the State. The student pays $50 to take the GED test.
Mr. Thunder:
Returning to my presentation (Exhibit C), page 4 discusses proposals endorsed by the Governor. First is the transition to full-day mandatory kindergarten, as proposed by the iNVest program.
Dr. Rheault:
In response to questions asked during initial budget discussions, I have a compilation of research studies (Exhibit H) conducted since the late 1980s. The latest research, done in 2001, reports 55 percent of U.S. students were in full‑day kindergarten in 1998. The compilation shows there is a positive effect from full‑day kindergarten, especially for at-risk students; students score higher on standardized tests in reading and math; there are fewer Title I placements and fewer retentions in first, second, and third grades; higher attendance for full-day students; and no difference in special education referrals. Overall, the research is positive. The budget asks for 30 percent of the classrooms in the State to be funded for full‑day kindergarten.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How is “full day” defined?
Dr. Rheault:
In the studies, full day was defined by each state. In Nevada, we define full day for first graders as 240 minutes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would you get us the times used by other states?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes. I assumed it was each state’s definition of full day.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Since Nevada has only had mandatory kindergarten since 2000, comparisons with 1998 data might not be valid. Your study points out full‑day kindergarten is recommended for at-risk students, not schools. Does the budget target the number of students or schools? For example, if a school has multiple kindergarten classes, the at-risk students could be put in one full-day class. Not all kindergarten classes at the school would have to be full day, which would result in less of an impact on facilities.
Dr. Rheault:
We calculated 30 percent of the students would be targeted for full-day kindergarten. We propose defining an at-risk school as a Title I school that has 50 percent or more of its students receiving free or reduced lunches. There are about 310 elementary schools in Nevada; 114 of them would meet this criterion.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Of the 114 schools, how many kindergarten students are at-risk, versus the school being at-risk?
Dr. Rheault:
Using the economic disadvantaged definition of at-risk, it would vary from 50 percent of the students at the school. Some schools are over 90 percent, based on economic status.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many kindergarten classes would need to be formed in order to accommodate the number of at-risk kindergarten students, exclusive of the school itself? We would be targeting the population shown statistically to benefit most, and it would allow us to demonstrate results as we track them.
Dr. Rheault:
I will look at the 114 schools we have identified and see how they would be affected.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We currently fund 23.5 kindergarten teachers defined as at-risk through the class-size reduction program. Why are we giving money to schools that do not meet the poverty level and are already below class-size reduction numbers?
Dr. Rheault:
We cannot find documentation for the distribution of the 23.5 teachers in 1989. We think it was based on a budget of $750,000 earmarked for teachers in the first year of class-size reduction. Since then, it has varied slightly. When we have given allocations to the districts, we have not asked for specific school placements. It has always been intended for at-risk kindergartens, but some placements have been made in classes not at-risk.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I see poverty levels of 21 percent, 16 percent, 32 percent, 24 percent, and 21 percent; those schools should not even be on the list. We also gave money to schools already below the class-size ratio. How does that happen? The Lois Craig Elementary School was already at 14 and we gave them money.
Dr. Rheault:
I would have to check that number.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would like to know why schools not meeting poverty guidelines are on the at‑risk list. How did some schools already below the class-size number get funding?
Senator Rawson:
We are all concerned about the budget, and we see this as an expensive proposal. Is there a more efficient way to do this, if we decide to do it? Historically, we have allowed local areas to pay for the classrooms; now, we are paying to lease temporary classrooms. Looking at the next 10 years, we see leasing continuing. This does not appear to be a transition. It looks like we are establishing policy. Is purchasing more efficient than leasing? If we are purchasing, why are we doing it from this account? We need to know more.
Dr. Rheault:
I can explain some of the thinking behind the decisions. To implement the program at the start of the 2004-2005 year, the only way is to rent or purchase portables; there is no way to get bond money or pass funding to get enough classrooms. We show 172 portables or 344 classrooms. The intent could be made clear that this program needs to be included in future bond issues.
Senator Rawson:
Should we establish policy and have an orderly transition, or fund the first part of it and use temporaries to get it started quicker? If we establish policy, it will happen, in a natural and progressive way. It took 10 years to get to the moon.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When mandatory kindergarten was implemented, how many classrooms were actually needed versus what we were told would be needed?
Dr. Rheault:
The mandatory kindergarten bill only required half days, so parents sending their children to private full-day kindergartens have not typically changed to public schools.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
As I recall, it was argued the program could not be implemented because of lack of classrooms. I would like to compare what was projected versus the actual numbers, so we have an idea of what will be projected this time. If we target the at-risk population, I suspect 340 rooms or 170 portables may be inaccurate. As Senator Rawson pointed out, you have included facility costs in the budget every year into the future. If we are going to have a policy change, the districts need to plan for it through their bonding capacity. Not every county may need to create a classroom, because they may not have enough students. We gave them the choice to opt out. I do not have an accurate idea of the true numbers for full-day kindergarten for the at-risk population of students.
Dr. Rheault:
The request is based on statistics from the Department of Education, not the districts. We increased the number of students we think will move from private schools to public schools for full-day kindergarten. We project about 31,000 students in the 2005 class. We then divided the projected number of students by the 22.8 average class size of kindergarten students last year.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Ask the districts to look at the number of at-risk kindergarten students, not the school site, and tell us the impact. Could they form an at-risk, full-day kindergarten class at the school and maintain their current classes? What facilities and teachers would they need to do that? Parents tend to send their children to private schools for two reasons: class sizes and full-day kindergarten. How many of these children are at-risk? This population may not come back to public schools if we target the at-risk children.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Do we have current kindergarten statistics? I still hear complaints there are more than 30 kindergarteners in classes in Washoe County.
Dr. Rheault:
The statistics are in the class-size reduction report. District-wide averages for kindergarten vary. We use 22.8 as average, but some districts average over 24 or 25. Individual classes may be over 30 students.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
I hear complaints teachers do not get an aide or another teacher. We need to look at this issue. Kids need one-on-one interaction.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We need to look at this by school site. Average means nothing. Do any of the districts currently have full-day kindergarten?
Dr. Rheault:
There may be a few provided by Title I, but they are isolated classrooms.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many districts have a combined kindergarten and first grade class?
Dr. Rheault:
I believe Carson City does.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I thought Fallon had some combined classes. It would be nice to see what we already have. In some cases, flexibility might be a good idea.
Dr. Rheault:
To answer Assemblywoman Leslie’s question, Washoe County has one of the lower kindergarten class sizes; this year, it was 19.7 students per class district‑wide.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
What is the highest class size?
Dr. Rheault:
We can report by individual school. In the report, I provided individual averages for first grade through sixth grade, but not kindergarten.
Mr. Thunder:
The next area to discuss is stipends for teachers in at-risk schools.
Dr. Rheault:
Previously, we were asked for the formula used to determine the stipend. Four areas are identified by the iNVest plan as high-impact positions: special education, secondary mathematics, school psychologists, and ESL. These areas also have the greatest teacher shortages. Assembly Bill No. 555 of the 71st Session allows the department to approve critical labor shortage positions. In 2002 and 2003, 38 positions were filled out of about 300 positions requested. The most requested teachers were special education, secondary mathematics, school psychologists, and ESL. Speech therapists are not listed because there is no speech therapy license; they are licensed as special education.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Did the projection come from the school districts’ iNVest plan?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, but it is consistent with critical labor shortage requests and my experience with school districts.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have you done any research regarding teachers listed as teaching outside their area of licensure?
Dr. Rheault:
The 2002 exception report is the latest data we have. There were 110 teachers approved for exception, but none in special education. We approved about 25 exemptions for secondary mathematics.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I understand a teacher with a degree in special education can be placed in any situation, which means a person trained in learning disabilities could be placed in a classroom of severely emotionally-disturbed students. To me, that is outside the teacher’s area. What is the reporting process for people who only teach one or two periods outside their subject area? Do they have to apply for an exception?
Dr. Rheault:
Yes, they do. We can tell you if they teach one class outside their field.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are you saying that out of about 22,000 teachers statewide, only 110 have been assigned outside their area of licensure?
Dr. Rheault:
That is true in the core subject area.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do we have to narrow it down to the core subject area now?
Dr. Rheault:
We do not give exceptions at the elementary level, so exemptions are only for the secondary level.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You have a generalist license at the elementary level. I think a lot of games can be played with this. I personally do not support the stipend; I would rather pay people properly in the first place. I still question how this is driven. What are we going to do if the needs change? How many teachers on special assignment could be back in the classroom teaching, rather than being on an administrative assignment for a period of time to increase need for high-impact areas? You recommend teachers work for 165 days before receiving the stipend. Why 165 days, and is the stipend based on that?
Dr. Rheault:
The department was asked about criteria. Currently, in statutes, alternative schools can request a move to 165 days a year, with the approval of the state superintendent. We are trying to define the minimum school year to qualify for the stipend.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How would you get it back if he or she did not complete the contract?
Dr. Rheault:
Hopefully, the district has not issued the final check. There would be a problem if the person has no outstanding balance and the district has no outstanding balance.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
There is a high turnover rate within the first 3 years of teaching.
Dr. Rheault:
Hopefully, this incentive will be enough to keep more of them around.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I doubt it. Going back to Assemblyman Goldwater’s earlier question, the intent is to pay PERS on this stipend, but it is not built in?
Mr. Thunder:
I do not think the intent was there. They were thinking in terms of a $2000 to $3000 stipend, depending on area. The PERS issue was not considered.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Which stipends are subject to PERS? I believe the Executive Budget recommends three.
Mr. Thunder:
We need to clarify all of these issues and report back to you with the information. In some cases, if the stipend is not part of the regular salary, it would not have to be subject to PERS.
Dr. Rheault:
I will have to confirm this, but I do not believe the $2000 new teacher signing bonus approved in 2001 was tied to PERS.
Senator Raggio:
I do not want to leave the impression there is not a real reason or necessity for these stipends. During the interim, the Legislative Committee on Education heard a great deal of testimony, which lead to the recommendation to provide stipends. In addition to special education and math, the committee also felt stipends were necessary for science. We heard testimony that the practice was good teachers were not being assigned to or kept in at-risk schools. Instead, less‑qualified teachers were being placed in at-risk schools. The committee felt there was a need for stipends, or some incentive, that would encourage placement of highly-qualified teachers in areas where they were needed.
I disagree with the comment that teachers should be adequately paid in the first place, because it does not address the issue of necessary incentives. This is a national concern, not just a State concern. It is addressed in the No Child Left Behind Act. Highly-qualified teachers are to be trained and placed in the areas of math and science; the act also deals with the burnout that occurs in areas such as special education. I take exception to any comment that seeks to minimize the need for stipends. I encourage the committee to look at the necessity for stipends in these critical areas. I would also recommend, as did the Legislative Committee on Education, that the stipend proposal be extended to science, where there are also critical shortages.
Senator Rawson:
It looks like we are breaking tradition again with this late budget addition regarding PERS. Other State employees have a different methodology. If we do not make any changes, our budget is appropriate. If we approve this, we add $10 million per year. If we are going to give some benefit to the employees, I think we have to evaluate whether this is the best way to do it. Do we want to complicate our process between various employees? I am not advocating one way or the other; it complicates our process to do it this way.
Senator Cegavske:
This is a question we have discussed before. When special education teachers are ready to leave the classroom, are we helping them move into regular classrooms? Several years ago, we had teachers who were given the option to stay in special education or quit teaching altogether, because we were not allowing them the flexibility to go into the regular classroom. We were in desperate need of teachers, but they felt it was either stay in the special education classroom or get out. Have we been more flexible with that?
Dr. Rheault:
I will have to get more information on that. I am not sure we have gotten more flexible. I think some districts are asking for a commitment if they hire a new teacher; for example, a teacher commits to stay in special education for a couple of years.
Senator Cegavske:
I am referring to teachers who have been in for long periods of time. I know we had to fight several years ago to help one teacher get out of the special education classroom into a regular classroom. She is doing fantastically well, and has children with learning disabilities in her classroom that otherwise would be pulled out. I have visited her classroom; it is a benefit to all the children in the class. I would appreciate it if you would let me know what we are doing or trying to help the teachers do.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would say it is the poor management, not the students, that burns teachers out. I left after 23 years; I can tell you it is very much an issue. While I respect the Senator’s comments about stipends, I am stating I think it is time we stop doing things to people and create incentives that allow districts and associations to negotiate market- and performance-based pay. I hope this committee will remain open to that dialog, so we treat people as adults within the profession and help them choose what they believe might be best for them. Then, the stipend money can go into that kind of fund, rather than being segregated, with a few dollars being thrown at one person versus another.
Apparently, there is a shortfall in the local school support tax. In addition, we are projecting $7.9 million available in estate tax for the fund, but we may have to do another addition to the supplemental appropriation. Do you have any new information?
Mr. Thunder:
Each month, when we get the report from taxation, we do the projection for another month. We are currently projecting using a method similar to the “Rule of 78’s” in which you give more value to the recent month, and less value as you go back. Using that method, we show a significantly higher amount. The Executive Budget has approximately $71 million for the supplemental appropriation. Our current projections show about $89 million. We have actual receipts through November; we will get the December receipts this month.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do we have enough in the Fund for School Improvement Account (estate tax) to make up the difference?
Mr. Thunder:
Probably not; it is more volatile than local school support tax receipts. I think $29.5 million has already been included in the Executive Budget. The Governor is proposing we use all available resources from the estate tax.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Based on projections, we probably should not move any legislation forward on the supplemental appropriation until we can get a good number estimate. Is late April the earliest that the districts are paid?
Mr. Thunder:
My cash flow analysis indicates we will need the supplemental appropriation before May 1 in order to make the payments without going into deficit. One minor benefit is that we can borrow money from the General Fund to cover revenues to be received from the slot tax, which comes in mid-June, and the last few months of the estate tax. My current calculations show we will only need to borrow about $6 million, as opposed to the $65 million to $70 million we have had to borrow in the past, because we have been notified by the controller’s office that payments will be made monthly throughout the rest of the year.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Please keep us apprised of that part. Do you want to discuss textbooks again?
E-332 Enhance Pupil Achievement – Page K12 ED-10
Mr. Thunder:
Decision unit E-332 provides $50 per student per year. As originally proposed, it can be used for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware. If the committee desires, it can expand the list to include more items.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What was the $50 tied to? What is the rationale behind it? Did it come from the Budget Division?
Mr. Thunder:
I believe it was an iNVest recommendation.
Senator Rawson:
During the 66th Session, we discussed each of the areas; textbooks and supplies were separate items. When the money goes out to the schools, is it in a general fund, which the schools can use for anything?
Mr. Thunder:
The number is determined by the line items in the documents supporting the basic support numbers. When the DSA money goes to the districts, it is unrestricted. When you increase one line item by 10 percent, it only affects that basic support amount. The number you start with is the result of what happened in the base year. The districts take seriously the request that certain amounts go into various line items; it becomes difficult for them during the budgeting process to apply individual amounts. The basic support per‑student amount you approve is based upon all this information, but you are not approving a budget because it is not a budget at that point.
Senator Rawson:
Do we know what they actually expended in the various line items?
Mr. Thunder:
We get that information each year in the NRS 387 Report. I have done a compilation of all the years.
Senator Rawson:
I have never gone through that reconciliation. Although it does not have to be spent per line item, I would like to see how we are actually spending our money. I would like to see the comparison. I would like to know what we are actually spending per pupil on textbooks and supplies, and any other maintenance and utility items. I would like to see how realistic our figure is, so we will have a rational basis for what we are doing. It is not for chopping budgets.
Mr. Thunder:
I will be happy to provide the information. I think you are aware the amount for salaries and benefits is between 85 percent and 90 percent of the districts’ budgets.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When did we do the last large allocation for textbooks? Did we do the allocation 4 years ago and a study 2 years ago?
Mr. Thunder:
I think there was a 10 percent increase in the line items. In 1997, DSA money was available to school districts that could be used for the district’s most pressing needs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do we know how that was spent? I agree with Senator Rawson that we are setting a trend here if we are not careful. We expect the money to be used for textbooks, but it might not be used in that manner. More importantly, once the districts get the money, how do they allocate it to individual schools? Do all the districts fund their formula the same? There is also the issue of need. I do not want administrators of schools that already have new textbooks to claim they have to buy new textbooks. I think there needs to be some tie to the $50.
Mr. Thunder:
The Governor’s recommended change would remove the $50 per student from the DSA “box.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I am not arguing the separation. We need to know what we got for our dollars and what the true current need is. We might be underfunding. One book costs $50. Does the money go to library books or textbooks? Where exactly is the line drawn? I know a textbook study was done 2 years ago; we need to look at those recommendations and compare them to what we need now.
Ms. Dopf:
In previous meetings, staff was given a copy of the report from the 71st Session on comprehensive early childhood programs. There was $3.5 million per year available to support a comprehensive early childhood delivery system, which was intended to increase early childhood services for children between 3 and 5 years of age by initiating or expanding services. The Executive Budget recommends funding at last year’s base budget of $2.6 million. We did not spend $3.5 million because of the programming freeze following September 11, 2001. The freeze was lifted in January; expenditures were $2.6 million, which is now the base budget. In previous hearings, you heard this $2.6 million was used by eight school districts to provide comprehensive programs. There were 32 sites; 18 were new programs and 14 were expanded. To ensure this funding was not a replacement, we tracked where other early childhood funds are used; this was indeed an expansion of funds. Overall, 884 children and 927 adults participated and benefited. In the legislation authorizing these funds, there were specific expectations for evaluation and specific performance indicators along the lines of youngsters’ readiness for academics. Even though the programs have only been in effect for a short time, the report indicated the achievement indicators were quite good, for the most part.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You talked about why 32 percent of the State funds for the early childhood program were spent on items not directly related to the program. I believe remodeling projects were included, which have nothing to do with teaching kids.
Ms. Dopf:
We have provided you with the individual budgets. Many of the programs were start‑up programs; facility, equipment, and supply costs were contemplated in the initial expenditure.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are you saying we allowed start-up costs, and we indicated the money could be used for remodeling facilities, putting in restrooms, computers, copiers, fax, telephone lines, and so forth, to create a preschool program?
Ms. Dopf:
There were no limitations regarding using the money for facilities. There were some facility costs to start programs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Then we need to be better at this, because I do not think it was the intent of this committee to make that kind of a recommendation for those dollars. How many parents and students have continued with the program?
Ms. Dopf:
The retention rate is very high, as indicated in the report. The 884 children referenced were the aggregate of youngsters who started in programming this year and will continue the programming next year. I think the attrition rate was less than 10 percent.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Last year, 14 percent left before the end of the year; in 2001-2002, 28 percent left the program. Do we consider that a success because fewer people have left the program?
Ms. Dopf:
Youngsters also “age out” of the program. If you start at 4 years of age, you leave the program naturally when you turn 5. The loss of youngsters in the program does not necessarily mean the program is not successful. There is a natural rate of youngsters moving out.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
True, but I think the numbers said: moved out of the area, 35 percent; switched to another program, 17 percent; dropped out due to attendance, 17 percent; family crisis, 7 percent; lack of interest, 20 percent. Early childhood programs are needed. Is there a better delivery system, or a better group to deliver programs? These are some of the factors we need to consider as we continue to appropriate additional funding in this area.
Ms. Dopf:
The comprehensive program was the underlying theme of this; the delivery system was a combination of school district programs and community-based programs that were available and wanted to be included. It was not a single delivery system.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How did Sunrise Hospital qualify?
Ms. Dopf:
Sunrise Hospital was providing early childhood services through a program funded by the application process.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does it provide services for an entire year to someone who comes into the hospital once?
Ms. Dopf:
It is an early childhood program located at the hospital; the same situation exists in the community college system. The hospital fulfilled the criteria for being an early childhood program.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think we need to review the criteria to make sure we are doing the best we can for these young kids. Are the majority of them disabled? Is that part of the criteria?
Ms. Dopf:
There is an inclusionary aspect, but they are not a majority disabled.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does that conflict with other early childhood programs?
Ms. Dopf:
If this is an appropriate early childhood system, there will be a natural percentage of youngsters who are disabled.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are we duplicating? Is the same child going to both programs?
Ms. Dopf:
No, we are not duplicating, and it is not the same child. We have ensured we are not duplicating any of the service systems. I have a report arraying where the early childhood money is going to make sure it builds on other programs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
For future considerations, start-up costs should not be considered in this funding; if there are those who want to include them in the application process, they should have the facility in order to do the program.
Ms. Dopf:
The Legislature would have to make that judgment call. A discussion today was about facility needs and program needs. If you are going to set up a program, you need a location for the program.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Were these competitive bids?
Ms. Dopf:
The competition was for the applications.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would like to see a copy of the application and what they had to provide.
Ms. Dopf:
The full set is available.
Dr. Rheault:
We do not have anything to present on the regional professional development program. The annual reports are available. The funding flows through the DSA, but it goes directly to the programs. They are evaluated separately.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How are teachers captured in this? Is professional development done during duty days? How many teachers are taken out of the classroom to be instructors at the professional development centers?
Dr. Rheault:
I do not have that information with me. I just received a final report for the past 1.5 years, and I believe it contains all that information.
I do not have any comments or information regarding the Nevada early literacy intervention program. Funding was provided through the DSA to the regional professional development programs to support better reading instruction to students in the early grades. I think there was a separate and full report done on the program.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Could these two programs be combined so there is no duplication?
Dr. Rheault:
From the testimony we heard in the Legislative Committee on Education hearing, I thought it was agreed the two could be combined. There might be a little bit of savings.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think the savings were $1.6 million. Would you report how to combine the budgets, and what the impact would be? There should be fewer faculty. Since we have the savings estimate, I think it has already been done. Would you provide us the number of schools you estimate will be designated as demonstrating need for improvement this year based on the Iowa test?
Dr. Rheault:
We are scheduled to release the names by April 1. I think we know which ones they will be, and I think the school districts also know.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If we change from one test to another as a measurement tool for designating schools as needing improvement, is there any type of hold-harmless provision? Do we recognize there will automatically be a differential?
Dr. Rheault:
It is not a factor used to determine schools needing improvement, by statute. If 40 percent of the students are in the bottom quarter in all subject areas, it will be designated as needing improvement.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many schools do we have statewide?
Dr. Rheault:
We have about 510.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Were nine schools designated as needing improvement last year?
Dr. Rheault:
I believe 12 schools were designated.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would you report what it costs to do this with so few schools? Obviously, the majority are doing a good job. How could we otherwise allocate that money? It would be interesting to see how many schools have been designated, and how much we have spent on it.
Dr. Rheault:
I have a chart showing which schools were designated the first year, and how it expanded to the “bubble” schools, which score low in three of the four areas. The chart goes from the beginning through 2002. I will add this year’s information as soon as possible so you can see the full picture.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I assume there is a synopsis of what helped them move out of the category.
Dr. Rheault:
I think a lot of them credit the research-based programs they have to use as part of the program to qualify for funding.
Mr. Thunder:
It would be helpful if all the additional programs in the DSA were combined and included in budget account 2699, Other State Education Programs, where some other programs already are. That budget account is primarily pass-through money to school districts; there would be one place to look for all the special programs the Legislature approves.
Senator Raggio:
Staff has indicated we are receiving a net increase in federal funding of about $25 million. I do not know what area that is in. The department has indicated there are some areas where federal funding is not sufficient to meet the mandates in House Resolution (H.R.) 1, 107th Cong. (2001). I would request you present to us, as soon as possible, a report of where federal funding associated with the existing mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act is lacking. U.S. Senator Ensign indicated it was the intent of Congress to provide the funding necessary to implement H.R. 1. If there is a problem, he will ask that it be addressed.
Dr. Rheault:
We have been asked to provide a fiscal note by this Friday on the bill that just came out last Friday, so we will have to work with your staff.
Senator Raggio:
I would like the report as soon as possible, because I want to take the Senator up on his promise and ask him to look into it if there is a shortage of funding.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Higher education institutions will probably also be affected, which will impact Title I programs. There may be other unfunded mandates we have not considered. The Executive Budget recommends a single 2 percent salary increase for the biennium. Is it to be paid July 1, 2003? What is the intent?
Mr. Thunder:
During the 71st Session, a 4 percent maximum salary increase in FY 2003 was discussed. We were instructed to build a budget with the assumption that the 4 percent had been paid in 2003; it has not been paid.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Is it a 2 percent increase each year of the biennium, or is it a 2 percent increase once on July 1?
Mr. Thunder:
The funding is there. A commitment was made that, if the budget is adopted, the funding will be there as of July 1 for the 2 percent increase.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
There are no increases budgeted for teachers hired in the second year of the biennium.
Mr. Thunder:
Traditionally, once the starting salary is calculated, it is the starting salary for both years of the biennium for new teachers. New teachers in the second year will have the 2 percent movement on scale.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It is always a lower number since the districts do not generally recognize much previous experience when they bring teachers into the salary schedule.
Mr. Thunder:
The starting salary is not the first step on the salary schedule.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It is the average, which is skewed to some extent. We are one of the few professions in which you could come into a district with 20 years of experience and be lucky to count 5 years; therefore, teachers really do not get the recognition or salary commensurate with their experience, as people do in many other jobs.
Mr. Thunder:
I think it is a problem of information availability; we will not have the average starting salary for the second year until the budget is approved.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Do you anticipate the 2 percent built into the salary schedule will cover that cost once they are hired?
Mr. Thunder:
Yes, for those hired in the first year. In the second year, they actually get more in the step increases.
Dr. Rheault:
I have a one-page summary of a quick survey we did concerning class-size reduction (Exhibit I). In general, all districts support class-size reduction.
Senator Mathews:
I was told this morning that people do not want to embarrass me; when it comes to kids and books, nothing can embarrass me. It is the issue closest to my heart, but some things concern me. Last year, we had one-shot money that was a carryover from 1999. The Office of the Governor promised me that money was coming back and going out to kids in the rural communities for library books. I got a dirty and nasty memo from the Department of Education that I intimated they had spent the money somewhere else. I just want to put this on the record that I am not used to “intimating” anything; I am a woman who will usually tell you how I feel on the spot. In the future, if you have problems with what you have heard I have said, I want you to contact me directly. Do not send e-mails and copies to everyone. This is not a reprimand to anyone, but an expression of concern. If we held that money at the Department of Education from October to March, I am concerned, and I continue to be concerned, and I will continue to pursue it.
James L. Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents:
I am here today to speak as the chairman of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents. If you would like any of us to meet individually with you on iNVest and its background, we could answer questions raised today. I am here to support what the Governor has presented in the Executive Budget, particularly in the area of PERS. We support the class-size flexibility issue, and could report to you Elko’s experience and what we have discovered in other states. We support full-day kindergarten for at-risk students; the iNVest proposal is based on the number of at-risk students, not at-risk schools. Some of the suggestions made today could be adapted very easily.
I am sure you can appreciate that it becomes difficult for us, once an employee comes into a given school and is earning the same dollar amount based upon the needs of one school versus another, to transfer within the district, as well as to other districts. We would like to be able to give some kind of enhancement to maintain those teachers, plus be competitive in math, science, and special education with other districts.
Regarding the textbook issue and $50 per student, the iNVest plan shows books costs about $250 per student at the secondary level. This averages out to about $50 per book; the elementary average is $42 per book. We used an arbitrary figure of about $114 per student for textbooks, which would bring us close to the elementary average, and just a little below the high school average.
We also strongly support the regional professional development program. It is a new twist to include the Nevada early literacy intervention program, but it is workable. The research regarding schools of similar demographics with different levels of achievement focuses on staff development. Our program uses mentors. We encourage your support, either for a combination of the two or keeping them independent.
Our salary proposal is a bit different. The Governor has included a 2 percent increase; the iNVest proposal is higher. In summary, our position is we support what the Governor has proposed, and we ask that you look at it very favorably.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I hope you will be prepared to assist with funding those programs and deal with the public when you go back home. Funding has to be part of the message.
Charlotte Petersen, Superintendent, Humboldt County School District; Vice Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents:
I want to speak to you about a 1-year hold-harmless provision versus a 2‑year hold-harmless provision. I have a handout I originally prepared for my board (Exhibit J) to give you an idea of the impact in rural Nevada. In the 1998‑1999 school year, we reached our peak of 4286 students. Our current enrollment in January is 3451 students. The handout shows what we have done to prepare for the drop in funding. I was new to Nevada during the 2000‑2001 school year; when I did an assessment and realized the issues we faced, I made a massive reduction in force. Staff was cut by 14 percent; programs were reorganized; support staff was reduced; the number of administrators was cut from 19 to 14. We became fiscally responsible. Consequently, we had a good ending fund balance in 2002, in preparation for the continuing drop using a 2‑year hold-harmless provision. We believe our numbers are starting to stabilize.
Looking at the handout, we used FY 2001-2002 as the base. This current year, our DSA funding goes down $765,469. If we have a 2-year hold-harmless provision for 2004, we will lose $1.6 million. If we have a 1-year hold-harmless provision for 2004, we will lose over $2.1 million. Projecting to 2005, I used the weighted number of students in January 2003 for September 2004. You can see the tremendous impact this time change has on a small district. We have done an excellent job of rearranging our district to adjust for loads as teacher counts will decrease as class counts decrease, but going back to a 1‑year hold-harmless provision will impact us significantly.
Senator Rawson:
Are you able to use attrition, or do you actually have to fire people as you scale down?
Mrs. Petersen:
Both. During the original layoff, I had to actually fire people, which caused quite a few grievances. Now, we are trying to use attrition, but if we go back to a 1‑year hold-harmless provision, I will be laying people off again.
Senator Rawson:
The school district has to be one of the largest employers in the county.
Mrs. Petersen:
We are the largest employer, other than the mines.
Senator Rawson:
It is a vicious cycle.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How many school sites do you have?
Mrs. Petersen:
We had 13; we have cut back to 11. I closed two sites as part of this process. I would strongly recommend you look at the 2-year hold-harmless provision. The problem with going back to 1 year is a small district cannot plan. In a letter I previously wrote to the committee, I explained if you took the $535,000 and spread it over a large district like Clark County, it works out to about $2 per student, which is nowhere near the impact it is for us. It is a huge impact for our district, children, staff, and community. We could provide this information for the other districts receiving the hold-harmless provision.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That would be helpful. Going back to Dr. Hager, does the iNVest plan project facility needs for kindergarten?
Dr. Hager:
Yes, we included it; we used portables on a temporary basis.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
If I took the time to sit with you, would you show me a spreadsheet that indicates how many classrooms you would actually have to create at each site?
Dr. Hager:
Yes.
Senator Rawson:
If I am looking at these figures correctly, we have to add about $24 million to the budget if we go to a 2-year hold-harmless provision. I do not think that is budgeted at this point.
Mr. Thunder:
Currently, the difference between a 1-year and a 2-year hold-harmless provision is about $4 million.
Senator Rawson:
Are we budgeted for 1 year?
Mr. Thunder:
The hold-harmless provision has never been budgeted. If it is needed, funding could be available in the DSA.
Senator Rawson:
I see about $16 million for the first year of the hold-harmless provision, and about another $8 million for the second year.
Mr. Thunder:
Are you looking at biennial figures?
Senator Rawson:
Yes, I am.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We do the hold-harmless provision, but we do not budget for it? What is in the budget for it?
Mr. Thunder:
There is nothing in the budget for the hold-harmless provision.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Would you respond to us with a dollar amount that we need to include for the biennium?
Mr. Thunder:
I think it would be approximately $8 million a year for a 2-year hold-harmless provision. Using enrollment projections, we can estimate next year’s numbers and compare them to this year.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It would help us to see how you define it.
Ben Zunino, Superintendent, Eureka County School District:
I have prepared a booklet for today (Exhibit K) which includes the information from the State’s report on Eureka County and my Powerpoint presentation. The first paragraph on page 3 explains the situation we face. This is the first year that Eureka County has been on the DSA in the last 10 years to 15 years. We have saved you a lot of money. The county has been reassessed; in the last year, valuation dropped $200 million. One of the local mines had over $220 million in gross proceeds and paid $0 in net proceeds, which resulted in a $1.5 million hit to the school system. Added to the 75 cent ad valorem tax, that totals almost $3 million, which is nearly double the current budget. We have no way of getting that. The school district has suffered severe cuts.
Senator Rawson:
We have not been briefed in any of the other committees as to what your economy is going through. We know mines are closing. Is this permanent, or is this tied to economics?
Mr. Zunino:
The price of gold is going up, but the mine is shutting down. The life of the mine was projected to be 7 years, and we are coming to the end of that time. They are looking at other deposits.
Senator Rawson:
Do you expect anything to replace this in the future, or is mining played out in the county?
Mr. Zunino:
I do not know that mining is played out, but my concern is that a company can earn $200 million in gross proceeds and pay $0 taxes. Eureka is interesting; most of the people who live there do not shop there. People drive to Reno and Elko to do their shopping, and buy gas in Carlin.
Senator Rawson:
I am trying to look at 10 years from now. Do you expect the economy to rebound, or do you think mining is on its way out?
Mr. Zunino:
I think there may be some short rebounds, but mining is going to play out. There is a limited amount of gold. We did what we could with the net proceeds, and now we do not get that. The ad valorem tax is not stable, considering the drop in assessment values. This situation is not unique to Eureka; it is the same in Humboldt, Lander, and Elko Counties. White Pine County has one mine remaining.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
At some point, discussion of consolidation of the smaller districts may need to happen. How many sites do you still have open?
Mr. Zunino:
Three. We have two in Eureka, an elementary school and a combination junior high and high school, and an elementary school in Crescent Valley. Children there go to school in Battle Mountain after leaving the elementary school. We currently have 50 children in Crescent Valley, including special education students.
Back in the heyday, we built two new schools. We have a $1.2 million bill on the one in Crescent Valley, which has been refinanced. The county did not support a bond issue, so it is not bonded. They took out a loan to build it and we are now having difficulty raising the money to pay for it. We have already started discussions about consolidation with other school districts and the county. I would like to briefly review some of the items in the Powerpoint slides that start on page 5.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The senators have to leave for their floor meeting, but we will stay for your presentation.
Mr. Zunino:
The effects of reduced revenues are shown on pages 7-9. The steps we have taken to deal with our situation are listed on page 10. I have listed remedies to our problems on pages 11 and 12.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We appreciate the dilemmas you face. I have visited your schools and understand your needs. I think we have to begin discussions this session about having the mines pay to relocate people. We advised against some bad decisions made by Eureka. Years ago, Senator Rawson suggested setting up a trust fund. How responsible was it to build new buildings with loans instead of bonding? These are all factors that have to be taken into account. I know most of this was prior to your arrival, but the State cannot continue to subsidize counties. We have had problems off and on with White Pine County; sometimes it was mismanagement, sometimes it was mine closures. We need to think about how we are allocating funds; maybe we need to consider using the money for relocation. There may be other creative ways to make sure the kids are getting a quality education.
Kenneth B. Lange, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
We would like to offer a number of observations this morning. This budget does four things we think are especially notable. First, it maintains important support for key activities that we have identified over the years: professional development and remediation. We have hosted some of the development activities in our Las Vegas facility; it appeared teachers were engaged in a high‑quality process. We have not received complaints about the process, even after asking. We know that targeting money where we need it delivers results; the remediation money continues to be critical.
This budget keeps a promise made during the 71st Session by moving forward the 2 percent salary increase that did not happen in the last biennium. It maintains a practice on the PERS. In 1971, Nevada’s educators gave back money in some cases and bought credit in PERS. Those teachers are now, at best, equal in terms of the amount of money they would have made over their careers which they exchanged for increased benefits. We do not see a problem with creating two separate “classes” of employees between State employees and educators.
In the area of textbooks, it has been noted $50 buys about one high school textbook. Obviously, it is not enough. I know my kids need at least three books. From personal experience, I can tell you the classes in which students are doing the poorest are the ones least supported by textbooks and classroom supplies. The issue of full-day kindergarten relates directly to our concerns that we address early childhood and at-risk students in order to provide a better input at the beginning so we can deliver a better product at the end.
What this budget does not do is advance us to a point where the resources provided match the task given to Nevada’s educators. We have substantial diversity in our school population. We have transiency. Growth is a dynamic all by itself in terms of dealing with funding. Finally, there are the increased standards at the State and federal levels. Specifically, this budget does not counter the inexorable impact of inflation we have experienced over time. It is easy to sit here and look at a document; it is much different when the districts finally get the budget and have to apply the money and realize they are 2.5 percent or 3 percent short. It is a cumulative effect in the budgeting process. The budget makes progress, but it does not provide sufficient support for instructional materials. It does not provide funding for A.B. No. 521 of the 70th Session, which allows us to remove disruptive students from the classroom. We are without that resource and are having to cobble something together in order to meet the requirements of that statute.
While the progress on health insurance is substantial, it falls about 10 percent short of projected estimates. School employees, most notably in Clark County, have suffered from declining benefit coverage, as well as having to pay premiums to maintain current levels of coverage. In Clark County, that represents about $600 per employee, which is substantial on a base of $30,000 a year. In our mind, it represents a pay cut. We are at a point where we can question the class-size reduction assumptions in terms of dropping from 3 percent to 2 percent; we would like to have more dialog on that. We are not sure there is a counterbalance in terms of younger teachers replacing veteran teachers, especially given the turnover rate and the fact that 50 percent of the teachers in Clark County have less than 5 years of experience in the district on scale.
Obviously, we have not funded class-size reduction at its true cost. We continue to erode that number, as evidenced by the waivers. To some degree, the impact of special education continues to erode our ability to provide a full and complete program. Most significantly, this budget does not recognize the contribution made by Nevada’s educators for their efforts over the past 4 years. In fact, it reflects an ongoing, consistent goose egg that we have provided from the Legislative level to the districts in order to fully compensate and help our folks keep pace.
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
This Legislature is faced with challenging issues and competing priorities that are a result of the past and of events outside Nevada. This body was warned in 1989 that Nevada would be at a crossroads someday in the future because the needs of the State were growing faster than revenues. It was a great ride to rely on gaming and sales tax. Years later, we are at that crisis point where a budget shortfall or structural deficit could disrupt our State and rob our future. It is useless to blame the past, but it is important to learn from it.
The events of September 11 have had a profound effect on the Nevada economy. We have yet to fully recover, and with a revenue system that is neither balanced nor recession-proof, we now face a major funding crisis and a crisis of priorities. New businesses look at the tax structure of a state, the quality of life, and the quality of the public school system when deciding where to locate. Nevada ranks number 44 in per pupil spending, and ranks below average in teacher salaries.
Test scores on college entrance exams show gains, and there are an increasing number of students taking them. More Nevada high school graduates are attending community colleges and the University of Nevada than ever before. Nevada ranks in the top 10 states with the largest number of students per classroom in the United States, despite our class-size reduction in first, second, and third grades. In 5 years, 50 percent of the new teachers hired this year will no longer be in the classroom. When the Nevada State Education Association talks about funding our students to the national average, we are including all the needs of education, such as class-size reduction, full-day kindergarten, teaching resources, textbooks, computers, professional development, salary, and benefits.
We have heard from many people that teachers and support professionals deserve a raise as a way to retain the thousands of excellent teachers we already have in place throughout Nevada. Let us, the Nevada State Education Association, define what we consider a pay raise. It is the percentage of money given above the adjustment for inflation. Inflation was about 2.5 percent last year; a pay raise would be a rate greater than 2.5 percent. In the iNVest plan, the superintendents have called for a 5 percent pay raise each year. We agree with the superintendents that the very first thing to improve in Nevada is the base salary of all teachers and support professionals. Before we even talk about enhancements, we need to do the right thing and increase the salaries of all those who are involved in our children’s education. Few have gone into education because of the lucrative salaries. Many are leaving because there are higher salaries to be made with a college degree outside the classroom. Inside education, the way to receive a significant pay raise is to leave the classroom and go into administration.
We wish to reassure this committee that we support the concept allowing enhanced compensation based on skills, knowledge, and responsibilities. In 2005-2006, the No Child Left Behind Act requires every teacher and paraprofessional that works with students in the classroom to be highly qualified. Many teachers and support professionals will have to return to college to get additional classes. Higher standards will require more effort and more money from the individual. How will we attract new teachers and support professionals to our schools when our pay does not even keep pace with inflation? Higher standards need to be matched with higher salaries, not rhetoric. If we do not make significant strides in funding toward the national average during this Legislature, we will have missed an opportunity that may not pass our way again for many years.
I believe the people of Nevada support our public schools and wish to see funding that makes positive changes. What we fix today will not be tomorrow’s problems. We call for taxes that broaden and stabilize the revenue structure and provide the resources necessary to give every child in Nevada a quality education. Responsibility and accountability will continue to increase; so must revenue. If you want to attract new business to Nevada, you must strengthen public education. If you want to diversify Nevada’s economy, you must develop a well-trained workforce from within our own State, which means we must strengthen our public school system. If you want a Nevada that has its best days ahead and not in the past, you must invest in public education during this session. We cannot be deterred from our responsibility to make difficult choices. The courage to do the right thing has never come from a poll; it comes from a commitment to excellence. Provide the public schools of Nevada the resources to give a quality education to every child in every county. Provide the needed increases in salary and benefits that will attract and retain our teachers and support professionals. No parent or employer has ever been satisfied with below-average effort. The Nevada Legislature should never be satisfied with below-average funding of public education.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would call on you and the superintendents to meet and work out differences regarding stipends versus paying people correctly, because there will be a bill to deal with that during this session. I have already disclosed I am a member of PERS. I will remind teachers that all other employees except State employees did give up 7.5 percent out of salary in order to move into the employer-paid group. However, I have to point out that in 1995, we did not treat it in the manner that has been suggested by the Governor, and that is where part of our concern and debate is coming from.
I appreciate everyone’s contribution to the hearing today. Since there is no further business, we are adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Denise Davis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
DATE:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: