MINUTES OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on
Human Resources/K12
of the
Senate Committee on Finance
and the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-second Session
March 7, 2003
The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K12 of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson at 8:10 a.m. on Friday, March 7, 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.
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Bernice Mathews
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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
Assemblyman Bob McCleary, Clark County Assembly District No. 11
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Judy Coolbaugh, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education
Paul LaMarca, Standards/Curricula and Assessment, Department of Education
Stephanie Phenix, Budget Analyst IV, Budget and Planning Division, Department of Administration
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, Clark County School District
Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Financial Officer, Clark County School District
Frank South, Human Resources/Technology, Department of Education
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – OVERVIEW
Senator Rawson:
We will hear from Senator Tiffany first.
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5:
I would like to give you an update on the Statewide Management of Automated Record Transfer (SMART) program. The conversion to SMART was started in 1997 in all 17 school districts. Not all of the school districts had the computers and software necessary for the program installation, so upgrading and automating began with the rural school districts. Some of the school districts had no computers at all or were using a Macintosh-based system, so some of the money had to be used to bring all the school districts to a uniform level of automation. Clark County uses the Schools Administrative Student Information (SASI) system.
The school districts have four different types of systems in operation provided by vendors other than the State. Clark County School District spent about 18 hours per SASI file to convert and close data for the State system. This was an enormous time-consuming project, but the difficulty was with the SASI software, not the SMART system. Part of what we want to do is to require each vendor to provide a data dictionary identical to the one the State uses to avoid further translation problems. Also, the SASI system is an older program, more than 10 years old, and it uses a nonstandard method for collecting information and closing files. We will be looking into ways to make SASI more efficient, to simplify the extraction of data, and to make it more compatible with the SMART system.
When we started the SMART program, we wanted to make decision-making easier and have data available for better school management and accountability. We have done that, but the districts have had difficulty accessing the information once it reaches the state. Every district wants a Web‑based front end, as described in the handout titled “Nevada’s Statewide Education Database” (Exhibit C). We are looking into that.
The next phase in the process is to analyze all data being reported by the school districts to the State, which will be provided to the centralized system. When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) was instituted, the reporting requirements increased the demand for more immediate access to high-quality education data across the K-12 education system, including data regarding students, educators, schools, districts, finances, and programs.
The SMART system is an excellent repository of data, widely accepted and ahead of most of the states that must upgrade to meet NCLBA requirements. The database works, but now we must collect more information. We have spent $20 million on the SMART conversion process and now need an additional level of funding to provide for the NCLBA. The system needs standardization of codes, reduction of cycle time, and modification in order to meet NCLBA requirements.
Senator Rawson:
The committee just received new funding information on the SMART program, and it appears some items will be excluded because they are local school district expenses. I will take questions, but we will probably assign staff to work out the funding requirements in detail.
Senator Raggio:
We have been following the SMART system in the Senate subcommittee on education since 1995. My biggest concern is that the SMART system, which was to be fully operational by March 31, 2003, will not be. The process began in 1995 when the Department of Education (DOE) and the school districts came to us with a proposal. They said if we gave them the software they would give us good data on which to make policy decisions. Well, the districts have everything they requested, and we have nothing at the policy-making level. I understand what you say about the progress, but it is still not clear to me when we will have the information we need. We are looking at something like $1.5 million just for the items you mentioned.
Senator Tiffany:
As a legislator, I had the same concerns. The districts got their student information system on the back of what we gave them. Plan implementation began in 1995 with $1.5 million or $2 million. Conversion in the rural school districts started in 1997 and took 2 years to complete. The State is unable to provide requested data to the Legislature until it has been collected from the school districts. The implementation will be completed by March 31, and you will have your reports then.
Senator Raggio:
I will reserve judgment about the final result. This program started with great expectations, but I have heard many excuses as to why the project is not moving forward.
Senator Tiffany:
I have to agree. It has not been easy to implement a student information system in 17 separate school districts at every grade.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
Sometimes a fresh perspective is helpful. I received a letter from Assemblyman Bob McCleary dated March 7, 2003, which says many states have centralized their systems for a fraction of the cost (Exhibit D). What is holding us back?
Senator Tiffany:
I have spoken with Assemblyman McCleary and believe the statements in his letter were made without full knowledge of the workings of the 17 different school districts or the history of the project. He was not aware that many of the districts were not automated at all and had to be brought up to a basic level before implementation could begin in earnest. His evaluation concerns the next phase of the program, putting the information on a Web-based front end, which is under consideration today.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
To a casual observer, the SMART project looks time-consuming, expensive, and ineffective.
Senator Rawson:
We appreciate Assemblyman McCleary’s opinion, and his suggestions will be carefully considered.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The SMART system has been confused with the SASI system, which is disliked by the users. The SASI system, which is in place in most of the districts, works but is not user‑friendly, is cumbersome, and is not easily accessible. What I seem to hear you saying is we have to live with the SASI systems in place because the cost of putting in a different system would be extremely expensive. The NCLBA requires certain data to be pulled out of the database, and SMART is capable of doing that. But because SASI is cumbersome, we need a Web‑based front end to extract the information needed to be in compliance with NCLBA. Is that correct?
Senator Tiffany:
That is one of the solutions being recommended to make the analysis portion easy for the districts. It is a line item in the budget request.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That would bring the system into compliance with new federal legislation and provide data on all the standards the State requires.
Senator Tiffany:
Correct.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does the $1.4 million come out of federal funds or General Fund technology dollars? Is there money for this out of other programs?
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education:
As it is presented in the budget, the $1.4 million in each year of the biennium is a General Fund appropriation. I do not know whether the funds are available from other sources.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Research should be done into federal funds for this mandate.
Senator Raggio:
I wonder whether the superintendent has fully exercised the authority mandated to him by statute to standardize the data. The relevant section from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 386.650 states:
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall: prescribe the data to be collected and reported to each department … prescribe the format for the data … provide technical assistance to each school district to ensure that the data from each public school in the school district, including without limitation, each charter school … is compatible with the statewide automated system of information and comparable to the data reported by other school districts.
This is a mandate, not an option; it is the responsibility of the superintendent to do these things. This is what I was referring to when I said I was hearing excuses. Am I wrong on this?
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education:
You are right, and the data has been standardized. However, we have learned in the last couple of days that the codes being used by the districts are not the same as those we are using in the DOE due to the different software systems being used.
Senator Raggio:
Is it not the responsibility of the superintendent to recognize that and require the school districts to use standardized codes?
Mr. McLaughlin:
One of the items we are recommending in this budget account will give us the resources to standardized codes. The data and the format are standardized; the codes are not.
Senator Raggio:
The Senate Committee on Education has made repeated requests to the DOE to provide information on the SMART system, and the reports have not been forthcoming. There is serious concern that we will have this same discussion at the next session with no further progress. I hope my frustration is coming through.
Mr. McLaughlin:
I am fairly new to the situation and can certainly understand your frustration. In my opinion, Nevada approached the problem in a good way by allowing school districts to select and change their own information systems, and by listening to the input of their advisory group. The system as it currently exists will be up and running on March 31, 2003, with the understanding that improvements can still be made.
Senator Rawson:
Of the $4 million coming to the State for the NCLBA, $400,000 is dedicated to a Web-based system. Is that accounted for in this budget?
Mr. McLaughlin:
We were instructed to meet with staff to work out the details, along with contributions from the school districts. The project consultant is comparing the SMART data dictionary and the data dictionary the U.S. Department of Education requires for the NCLBA to see where they differ. When that is completed, we can look at allocating federal funds to make the entire system compatible.
Senator Rawson:
I would offer this caution. The State had the best consultants in the world design the Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data Systems for us, and it turned out to be a $150 million boondoggle. This is a minefield for you, and you will need to be careful. Consultants who like to build big systems will give big system advice.
Assemblyman Bob McCleary, Clark County Assembly District No. 11:
I would like to apologize if anyone was offended by the tone of my letter.
I would like to go on the record in opposition to the SMART system as it stands. It started out as a very good idea, and I still support the idea. I have to confess I have lost confidence in those who are carrying this out, and I think we’re just going to spend a lot more money and not get anything for it.
Senator Rawson:
We will continue with budget account (B/A) 2699.
Other State Education Programs - Budget Page K12 ED-12 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2699
Mr. Thunder:
I have two handouts entitled “Nevada Department of Education Governor Recommended Budgets” (Exhibit E), and “Nevada Department of Education Governor’s Recommended Budgets 2003-2005” (Exhibit F). This budget account contains most of the relatively small grants and programs funded by the State, school districts, individuals, or other entities. With a few exceptions, all the programs receive General Fund support.
Senator Rawson:
In the interest of time, we should probably focus on the three programs in this account recommended for deletion. They are local education agency (LEA) library books, public broadcasting, and the National Board Certification Program for teachers. I understand the funds for these programs have been placed in a reserve rather than reverted to the General Fund. There are bills coming up in this session to deal with library books and public broadcasting, and there are federal funds available for teacher certification.
Mr. Thunder:
I need to let you know of an error we made when preparing the budget concerning the National Board Certification Program for teachers. The DOE was working with the legislatively-approved amount of $150,000, and department administrators believed $50,000 of that was available for reversion. The actual base amount was around $51,000. When the $50,000 was taken out, this left about $1400. This is a hole in the budget.
Senator Rawson:
Am I correct in saying we have been offering teachers $2000 to obtain National Board Certification? If $1000 of that is available in federal funds, that should adjust the amounts.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
Federal subsidy money is available. However, the funds do not come directly to the State, but are provided by the U.S. DOE to the national board to be dispensed in grants. They reserve a specific amount for each state. In the past we have been able to get our allocation plus unused funds from other states. Last year, this amounted to approximately $1000 per teacher. The federal money is not tied to whether or not the teacher passes the test. We had 68 applicants last year, and we were able to give each teacher $1000 up front, leaving about $1300 for each teacher to be reimbursed. This year, the first year we reimbursed teachers, we averaged about $1254 per teacher in reimbursement, even though they could have received up to $2000. However, the federal subsidy and other scholarship funds are deducted before they are eligible for State funds. State funds only go to those teachers who pass the test; last year only 41 of the 68 applicants passed the test.
If the intent of the State is to subsidize the full amount, we will need at least $51,000 from the General Fund. The cost of the certification process was raised from $2000 to $2300 last year. Regardless of any funding provided by the State, the teachers are already $300 short.
Senator Rawson:
But we would not be giving teachers any more than $2000 for certification.
Mr. Rheault:
In our request for the next biennium, we asked to raise this to $2300.
Senator Rawson:
The request is noted. Can we handle the other two programs scheduled for elimination, public broadcasting and library books?
Mr. Thunder:
The rationale for eliminating public broadcasting funding was that the DOE only serves as a pass-through for the funds. There is a bill to restore funding to $300,000. Regarding library books, in the first year of the current biennium, money in the amount of $250,000 was carried forward from the prior year, plus $360,000 was made available for the current year. These funds were distributed to the school districts. When guidelines were received for budget reductions, the money was held in the second year and taken from the department in the second year of the current biennium. It was a judgment call whether to leave the program in and request funding for this biennium.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The budget division put money in reserve for the three programs, and it will not cost anything to restore the funding. Is that correct?
Mr. Thunder:
That is correct for two of the programs. There would not be funding for public broadcasting.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Funding for public broadcasting is there for the first year of the biennium but not the second year. Normally that would be for at least $300,000, as we have done in the past. Funds for the LEA library books would be available in the amount of $629,000 in the first year of the biennium, and $329,000 in the second year. In public broadcasting, $300,000 would be available over the biennium. The National Board Certification funds would be available to reimburse teachers for out-of-pocket money. By combining federal grant money with the $51,000 held in reserve in the account, reimbursement would be possible.
Mr. Thunder:
The availability of the public broadcasting funds was unclear. I will check the fund status.
I also wanted to point out that peer mediation, which was an issue in the last session, is in this budget at the same amount that was expended. We were given permission to use it in either year, but all of it was used in the first year.
Senator Rawson:
There is an issue with the Classroom on Wheels (COW) program. It is currently funded separately, but it could be rolled into some of the other early intervention programs. If the combination approach is used, a longitudinal study or effectiveness evaluation for the COW program will be required.
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education:
Rolling the COW program into other childhood programs would be conceptually appropriate and correct. It is important to keep in mind that the other program’s primary funding was for a comprehensive early childhood education system with multiple components, which fulfilled certain indicators required by statute. Combining the two would require some adjustment of the original premises of COW to fit a comprehensive system.
Senator Rawson:
We will ask you to look at that. If a language change is required in the statute, we need to know the new language. If a request for funding comes up every year and the COW program is fulfilling an educational need, we ought to be doing some assessment of how effective it is.
Ms. Dopf:
I will be happy to do that. The COW program instituted some pre- and post‑testing this year, but the COW program testing is not the same comprehensive testing used by other early childhood programs to meet statutory requirements.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Perhaps the Regional Professional Development Programs (RPDP) centers could absorb the Leadership in Educational Administration Development (LEAD) program, and the requested funds of $80,000 in each year of FY 2003-2005 could be reverted.
Mr. Rheault:
The programs do not do the same thing.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I am not impressed by what the LEAD program does. The RPDP includes training for administrators. Maybe they could absorb that rather than us having to have it separate.
Mr. Rheault:
I will let the LEAD project leaders know your thoughts on this.
Proficiency Testing – Budget Page K12 ED-25 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101‑2697
Mr. Thunder:
This budget accommodates all State-funded testing programs for students given by the DOE. The four main test programs are the norm‑referenced test (NRT) for grades 4, 7, and 10, the High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE), the criterion-referenced tests (CRTs), and writing tests for grades 4, 8, 11, and 12. The NRT test program was originally called the Terra Nova, but it is now the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. There is a small request for funds in this budget for administrative expenses for the Commission to Establish Academic Standards.
Paul LaMarca, Standards/Curricula and Assessment, Department of Education:
I have a handout entitled “Current State Assessment System and the Governor’s Recommended Budget (Budget 2697)” (Exhibit G). This handout gives a summary of some of the key categories in this budget account and addresses some anticipated questions regarding budget account 2713 with respect to changes in assessment prompted by the NCLBA. Page 1 shows the Governor’s recommended budget. Under the standards CRTs for grades 3, 5, and 8, there is an additional budget requirement of$500,000 in each year of the biennium. This was an omission.
Senator Rawson:
We need to ask if you have reviewed it carefully. If you still see a serious need, we will ask the budget department what we can do about it.
Mr. LaMarca:
We believe the request is very important. As you can see on page 2 of the handout, the system has to meet the federally‑mandated requirements of the NCLBA. The State will have a maintenance-of-effort requirement. The $500,000 for the 8th grade CRT will still be a requirement. The federal funds available in B/A 2713 can supplement what the State currently expends for these testing programs, but they cannot replace it. Without the $500,000, there will be no funds available to continue the development of standards-based assessment at the grade 8 level.
Senator Rawson:
Does the budget office agree there is a shortfall? Do you plan to make any budget adjustments to take care of that?
Stephanie Phenix, Budget Analyst IV, Budget and Planning Division, Department of Administration:
This is the first I have heard of a shortfall. The numbers will be reviewed, and a meeting with the director will be arranged to determine if funds are available to cover the shortfall.
Senator Rawson:
We will ask the DOE to work with staff so we are kept informed of that. I suspect there will have to be a budget modification.
Mr. LaMarca:
Page 2 of Exhibit G gives a thumbnail sketch of one way to accomplish the assessment system under NCLBA, and how federal funds will contribute to the State funding structure. The agency’s recommendation is to build CRTs in grades 4, 6, and 7. The summary table on that page shows the State maintenance effort requirement in grades 3 through 8 and the federal supplement paid for out of federal assessment money. We have also identified a very conservative budget based on limited information for funding the NCLBA system, with respect to the recommendations in Senate Bill (S.B.) 191.
SENATE BILL 191: Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34‑635)
Mr. LaMarca:
On page 3 of Exhibit G, the yellow areas are what the State can fund, the green areas are federal funding, and the red areas are unknown. This means federal funding may be available to fill the hole, but some State funds may also be required.
Senator Rawson:
Senate Bill 191 will probably save a little in testing dollars. The DOE funding charts need to be carefully studied.
Senator Raggio:
There has been some discussion on augmented NRTs, which is a concern to some of the districts. Senate Bill 191 will be looking at whether that should be the method of assessment and compliance with the NCLBA.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
What is actually required by current federal legislation is the CRT in grades 3 through 8. Is that true?
Mr. LaMarca:
Federal legislation requires standards-based assessments.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are we going to use the NRT for that?
Mr. LaMarca:
That is what the debate is. Originally the federal law ruled out the NRT as an acceptable alternative testing instrument, but in subsequent legislation the augmented NRT was approved as an option.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
So the NCLBA requires the National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) test, even though they allow parents to opt out, so the sample will not be valid. Is the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) also required in grade 10?
Mr. LaMarca:
The NCLBA requires some form of test. We anticipate using the HSPE to meet assessment standards. The PSAT meets some purpose other than NCLBA requirements.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would like to see what exactly is required by the NCLBA, what funds they provided to pay for those exams, the timelines for the testing programs to be in place, and what other tests the State is requiring that might be duplicates. It is ludicrous to require 19 exams. At some point, testing takes away from instructional class time. An overlay of any additional tests each district requires should also be provided.
Improving America’s Schools – Titles II, V, & VI – Budget Page K12 ED-30
Budget Account 101-2713
Mr. Thunder:
This budget dovetails into the proficiency testing budget. This budget account and the next one (B/A 2712) are the two main budget accounts covering the NCLBA legislation requirements. It includes the Title VI State Assessment Grant, the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant, Educational Technology Grants, and the Title V Innovative Education Grant. In addition, since this budget was submitted, we have added requests for three additional full-time equivalent (FTE) positions funded out of State Assessments and Related Programs Grant. The request for additional funds has been discussed and approved by the budget office. These FTEs, which were not included in the Executive Budget, are necessary to carry out the provisions of the NCLBA. Federal funding is available for these positions.
Senator Rawson:
The budget office will need to provide an official amendment to the budget if they are approving those three positions. We will wait to hear on that.
Senator Cegavske:
At the 71st Legislative Session, you indicated the grant‑writer position was unfunded. Staff have researched this and indicate it is a 0.5 FTE position funded by federal money. I also asked them to find out how many grants we applied for. They calculate the State applied for 10 out of 87 available grants, causing concern that federal grant funds and foundation money are not being vigorously pursued and the State could be losing dollars that could be utilized. Sometimes it is better for individual school districts to apply for the funds, but the DOE needs to provide support and assist the districts in securing grants.
Mr. Thunder:
The grant-writer is a full-time position. When it was moved from half-time to full-time, the DOE stated the position was unfunded because no specific funding source was designated. The difficulty in using federal funds, in almost all cases, is the grant-writer position is not an acceptable use of federal money. The position is currently being funded through the educational technology grant funds. The position is used to research grants, but the primary purpose of the position has to be to fulfill the requirements of the grant. All of the grants offered are reviewed, but for a variety of reasons the State is ineligible to receive many of the grants. Another problem in obtaining grants is many are geographically- and demographically-specific. I have not seen the list of grants you refer to. I would be happy to review the list and give you our rationale for applying or not applying for each of those grants.
Improving America’s Schools – Title I – Budget Page K12 ED-66 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2712
Mr. Thunder:
This is the other primary budget account containing NCLBA programs. We will be changing the title, since “Improving America’s Schools” refers to a former federal program. This budget account includes almost all the Title I programs, including the basic program, migrant, neglected, and delinquent, Even Start, comprehensive school reform, and Fund for Improvement of Education and Program Improvement. All of these programs existed previously. Some have been revised, some increased, and some decreased. The one completely new program in this budget is the Reading First program. The application for grant funds was submitted many months ago, and approval should be forthcoming. The first year of the program will not be lost even though the school year is well advanced, because federal funding for this program has a 27-month life. Funds not expended in the current year can be brought forward. The estimated amounts for the next fiscal year have been released, and this program funding will increase by over $400,000. We currently have authority for five positions to be paid out of this account. This includes one position for the Reading First program that was requested from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC). We have permission to fill the position, but we are waiting for the program to start.
Senator Rawson:
It looks like there is duplication between the Reading First program and the Nevada Early Literacy Intervention Program (NELIP). With the availability of federal funding for the Reading First program, is it necessary for the NELIP to continue appropriation requests at the levels recommended? Consolidation of the two programs, which accomplish the same purpose, needs to be considered to realize a General Fund savings.
Mr. Thunder:
Both programs will be evaluated to see whether there are any non-supplant and compliance issues involved. The new Reading First program replaces the Reading Excellence Act program.
Senator Rawson:
These programs develop because a need is perceived, but continual evaluation of the programs is necessary to assure goals are achieved without duplication.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Can you confirm that we will get the Reading First program grant?
Senator Rawson:
As I recall, we have applied for it several times and never received it.
Mr. Thunder:
As I understand it, the money has been allocated to Nevada, and finalization of the funding depends on acceptance of our application. We are getting extremely close. I would say it is 90 to 95 percent approved.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Are we just not writing the grant request properly?.
Mr. LaMarca:
The Reading First program, like many programs associated with the NCLBA, had no support of regulation early on. The grants the State has submitted are very good, but the problem is a matter of information exchange and issues of evaluation. Some of the issues are unknown and become defined as progress is made in the application acceptance process. It is not a competitive grant, so the State will receive the funds when the federal agency gives approval. I agree that we are very close to approval.
Senator Rawson:
Please keep the committee advised on the progress. Our intent is to see the program’s purposes fulfilled.
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, Clark County School District:
I have a handout entitled “How the Dollar is Spent” (Exhibit H). I will be talking about three things: what we have done to save money, what we are going to do to save money, and critical issues we need to bring to your attention.
In 3 years, the district has cut $97 million from the budget, even though during the same time period the district has grown by 38,000 students and has built 37 schools. Some of these cuts streamlined our operations and forced the district to run more efficiently, but some of them were very difficult to make.
The pie chart on the first page of Exhibit H shows the preliminary operating budget for FY 2003-2004. Administration costs account for only 3 percent of our costs. This also includes payroll clerks, secretaries, auditors, and everyone who works in the central office. Class-size reduction is up $22 million over the last 3 years. We have cut custodial maintenance, transportation, and supplies by 7 percent. The central office administration has been reduced over 10 percent. The total cut of $97 million equates to about 755 eliminated positions. The district has grown in size, but vacant positions have not been filled.
Another item we have evaluated for efficiency is energy use. Employees reported for work at 5 a.m. last summer so the buildings could be closed by 1 p.m. at the start of the peak energy use and cost period. The change in working hours saved the district over $2 million. Other cuts have been made in the district, including out‑sourcing of the warehouse and delivery system, elimination of photography services, high school transportation hubs for buses, reduction in the number of district vehicles being taken home, and mobile maintenance. These items will save the Clark County School District millions of dollars. We started a mobile maintenance unit to go to the schools for a 1-week period to fix everything at the facility. This procedure has reduced the backlog of repairs. Further, mass transit bus tokens are given to alternative school students rather than transporting them on school district buses.
The district had the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) complete a study on transportation to recommend ways to further increase efficiency and provide cost savings. We also brought in two outside contractors to bid on food services and custodial services. In both cases, because of the cuts the district had already made to the budget, the outside contractors could not produce a lower bid. A Price‑Waterhouse study was also completed to find areas where improvements could be made on construction audits. Those suggestions have been put into place.
Our plans for future budget savings include eliminating the practice of providing vehicles for administrators, which will save over $1 million. We will still reimburse administrators for mileage, but we will not be in the car business any longer. We will greatly reduce the provision cell phones, and those who must have a phone will receive a stipend. As a result of the UNLV study, the district will do a pilot program to privatize transportation in one region and to put another region completely on mass transit. We are currently waiting for bids on these projects.
We are currently developing two different budgets, one for the worst-case scenario and one with a deficit, and hosting town hall meetings on this subject to get the community involved. At the first one last week, over 700 people attended. We plan to have three more next week.
We recognize we are in tough economic times, but we also believe the invest plan is essential to improving student achievement, even though it is not the time to fund that. We support S.B. 190, and the district will work with other superintendents to support similar legislation.
SENATE BILL 190: Makes appropriation for creation of certificate program and provision of stipends to certain teachers. (BDR S-894)
Another critical issue is the district has 30 schools that are on the “needs improvement” list. The district is working with the schools to improve the schools’ ratings and hopes to be able to show this group some positive results.
The increase in the English language learners (ELL) population has been dramatic. The district now has 45,000 ELL students. When evaluating proficiency test scores, omitting the ELL and special education students, the rest of the students and schools were in the high 60th percentile. A good provision in the NCLBA is disaggregation of student population groups to evaluate specific performance data for that sector of the school population. The district will now require algebra for all ninth graders, since approximately 20 percent of the mathematics proficiency test is based on algebra. Last year we had 29 percent of eighth graders in algebra, and 85 percent of them received a C or better in that class.
The district has a successful literacy initiative, which mandates all students will read by the end of the third grade. All first and third grade teachers have been trained to be literacy specialists. In the coming school year, all tenth graders will be able to take the PSAT. This will help us to get kids to raise the bar a little bit.
The district has instituted a new teacher appraisal system, which uses objective national standards to evaluate teacher performance. This system eliminates the subjective administrative value judgments that had been previously used. A similar appraisal system is being developed for all the districts’ administrators.
Senator Rawson:
We appreciate your efforts to handle these matters on a local level, rather than simply telling us why you cannot meet your responsibilities. I imagine some of these cuts have not made you popular in some circles.
Senator Cegavske:
One of the biggest issues in Clark County is supplies for teachers. There is money set aside for this in your budget, but apparently it is not enough to meet the needs of the classroom. I have asked staff to find a suitable amount per classroom for supplies. One state is issuing special license plates to provide a pool of funds for school supplies. A similar program was tried in Nevada, but did not succeed. I am interested in finding a way to overcome that. The amount for classroom supplies should not be determined by the Legislature, but should be made at the local level. Can you give me an idea of what you are doing to correct this problem?
Mr. Garcia:
The Executive Budget proposes a $50 per-student increase in classroom supply funds, which will be helpful in resolving this issue. In the town hall meeting we just had, teachers and others said they do not have enough money for classroom supplies currently and do not know how they will cope with additional cuts. It is a very big concern of ours.
Senator Cegavske:
Do teachers have to apply for reimbursement for their own expenditures for supplies? What is the process?
Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent/Chief Financial Officer, Clark County School District:
It varies from school to school. The district has applied for and received some federal administrative match funds from Medicaid for services provided on an outreach basis. The superintendent has committed the majority of those funds to schools for teacher supplies. It might amount to $50 to $100 per classroom annually. If the Legislature confirms that additional $50 per student, we will be able to allocate $300 to $400 per classroom for supplies.
Senator Cegavske:
Does that include textbooks or is it just for tape, scissors, rulers, pencils, and so on?
Mr. Rulffes:
The funds are reserved for classroom instructional materials.
Mr. Garcia:
In the past 3 years, we have made a 10-percent reduction in administration costs, but I wanted to let you know we are requesting an additional 10 percent for next year. I also wanted to mention that our biggest dilemma is the need to hire 1400 to 1800 new teachers for the coming school year without knowing which budget we will have. Our worst-case scenario budget requires a decrease of 2000 employees. This makes it very difficult to start the hiring process, and we may not have the time to hire all the teachers we need.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Did you say Medicaid match dollars are going to be used to fund classroom supplies? Is that acceptable?
Mr. Rulffes:
We do this currently. Administrative matching funds are generated by teachers, school nurses, and school administrators who devote a portion of their time for outreach services to students. This money comes back to the schools.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does Medicaid allows this money to be used for classroom supplies, rather than to offset Medicaid dollars?
Mr. Rulffes:
The funds are not for Medicaid services but for time spent with students. There is a separate Medicaid match program for services provided for special education students, and the Medicaid funds are returned to special education.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Have you made any progress in putting bar codes on large equipment to make sure it stays at the school for which it was originally purchased?
Mr. Rulffes:
Yes. The school board revised its capital asset policy in conjunction with State guidelines, new federal guidelines, and accounting standards. Several schools have portable wands for periodic inventories. The district has a much better inventory reconciliation than in previous years. We did not have massive losses before, but accurate inventories were not being done on a regular basis. This is a time-consuming process, especially in the high schools.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Does the school board have a policy that items purchased for a particular school stay at the school, even if personnel transfer to different schools within the district?
Mr. Rulffes:
There is no school board policy covering that issue.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You might want to consider that. How many vehicles are in the district’s fleet other than buses?
Mr. Rulffes:
The district has 200 to 300 vehicles in what is called the “white fleet,” including vans and cars for administrators, school police, and attendance officers.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Has the district considered using employees’ private vehicles and reimbursing them for mileage? You commented on that, but I was not sure how far it has progressed.
Mr. Rulffes:
The reimbursement system will start effective July 1, 2003.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I appreciate your presentation. We do not always realize what cuts the districts have made. I would like to hear the same information from Washoe County and some of the others. I have a special interest in transportation issues and would like to see more use of public transportation at the high school level at least.
Senator Rawson:
We are being told to cut the budget to the bone. There must be waste in a budget as big as this, but it is very difficult to find it. The 3 percent administrative expense in your district is lower than I expected, and you say you have another 10 percent cut scheduled. It needs to be noted these are not classroom cuts, but a conscientious effort to pare the budget down in the most efficient way possible. It is still a very large budget, and people will still find specific examples of waste. Much of that is under local control and should be looked at by the school board. However, I am pleased overall.
We will return to consideration of budget account 2673.
Mr. Thunder:
With more and more schools being identified as “in need of improvement,” one more Administrative Assistant II position is requested to help with remediation. This is the only new position we have asked for in all our budget accounts.
Senator Rawson:
Could this new position be funded with federal dollars?
Mr. Rheault:
Federal funding was considered, and we will look at it again. However, we are limited to 3 percent in most of the federal funding, and the rest is pass-through. The only federally‑funded budget with some flexibility in it is the $4.4 million provided for assessment. Most of the staff working in remediation were paid out of limited administrative funds, which is why State funding is requested for this position.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Could the program consultant and the programmer positions be combined, since the plan itself has been consolidated? This would reduce the need for State funding, and the position could be funded with the $2.6 million the district does have available in federal funds.
Mr. Thunder:
We will look into the situation and report back.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I am referring to combining the SMART position with the Administrative Assistant II position being requested.
Senator Rawson:
The contract the district has with the SMART program vendor is coming to an end, and perhaps some consolidation would be possible. We will look into that.
Teacher Education and Licensing – Budget Page K12 ED-17 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2705
Mr. Thunder:
This budget account is intended to be self-supporting. General Funds have been removed from this account with the exception of $100 necessary to meet the self-funded requirement. Funding is provided by fees from teachers and other professionals for licensing.
Mr. Rheault:
One question that has arisen on this budget is the increased fingerprinting fee from $39 to $45. The increase is not reflected in the budget because the fingerprinting fees collected go directly to the Criminal History Records Repository. It is an issue that will have to be considered by the Commission on Professional Standards in Education, which determines licensing fees. We issue approximately 5000 new licenses every year. If fees are not raised the difference would have to come out of the current budget, which would be about $30,000 a year. The cost of licensing has not increased since 1999, and staff have been kept at 1999 levels. We have been trying to build a large enough reserve to upgrade to a full imaging system for all documents in the licensing branch. There is currently about $199,000 in the reserve. We want to keep $100,000 because the full imaging system will cost $200,000.
Senator Rawson:
It appears the budget was based on the expenses, and then a reserve was added. I would like to see a worksheet projecting the number of licenses and fees so we can evaluate the possibility of a revenue shortfall.
Mr. Rheault:
We will be happy to provide this report. This is a budget I monitor very closely.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
When you do that report, please break it out by initial renewal and endorsement so we can evaluate areas that will be impacted. As you do your phase-in for your in-house database to save money from what the Department of Information and Technology charges, will it interface with NCLBA requirements for tracking teacher licensure?
Mr. Rheault:
Yes, that part will interface. The part that will not interface is the highly qualified teacher definition under NCLBA, because a number of areas a teacher can be highly qualified in are not tied to licensing. That might have to be a separate component.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Can the Commission on Professional Standards in Education develop better controls for monitoring teacher assignments to ensure teachers are instructing in their qualified and certified fields?
Mr. Rheault:
Part of that concern would be addressed under the NCLBA because every current teacher has to meet the highly-qualified definition, and documentation is required to ensure compliance. The primary concern is for the status of teachers who have been in the system prior to 1991, because NCLBA states the highly‑qualified definition can be attained by having a Bachelor of Arts degree and a pass grade on the State subject matter test. Even those teachers will have to go back and document their status at every school level. We have developed a draft State standards list for teachers who have been in the system over 12 years. The NCLBA specifically disallows experience as the only factor in the highly-qualified definition. Other criteria are required, such as national board certification or continuing education units in subject areas.
Education Support Services – Budget Page K12 ED-39 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2720
Mr. Thunder:
The action of the 71st Session of the Legislature was very helpful for this budget account. The State portion of indirect costs is appropriated directly into the account, and then the account is reconciled at the end of the year. This new procedure has eliminated many cash-flow problems experienced in the past.
Nutrition Education Programs – Budget Page K12 ED-48 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2691
Mr. Thunder:
This is a large budget covering the great number of meals served daily to students statewide. Food Distribution, School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, and State Administrative Expenses for Child Nutrition are the major programs included in this budget. Each of the programs requires monthly payments, and all have a variety of accounting procedures for calculating the reimbursements. The department has established a Web-based system for submitting the claims to automate and expedite reporting, which will be federally funded.
Individuals With Disabilities (IDEA) – Budget Page K12 ED-61 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2715
Senator Rawson:
The department has pared down expenditures in this account, but it is difficult to determine how many students will require out‑of‑state schooling. The department has requested a small reserve of $192,000. Requesting an appropriation from the IFC as the need occurs to cover the amount should be considered an alternative to maintaining a reserve.
Ms. Dopf:
This budget account now includes NRS chapter 395 relating to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA budget was originally over $1 million for out-of-state education services for over 34 youngsters, and the amount has been substantially reduced. The department still requires some form of reserve because of the volatility of the education needs that must be met by even one student receiving assistance in this program. The law requires the placement be made at the time of need and agreement. Receiving funds from the IFC may not be as immediate as making a transfer from reserves. The amount requested in the reserve may be negotiable, but the unpredictability of needed funding requires some reserve. Additionally, placement costs are paid 50 percent by federal funds and 50 percent by State funds in this account.
Senator Rawson:
Staff will look at suitable wording to make an approach for augmented funding to the IFC, and a reserve amount will be considered for the account.
Senator Cegavske:
Have we obtained 15 percent federal funding or 13 percent? I know we are not close to the maximum of 40 percent.
Ms. Dopf:
The 40 percent mark is based on per-pupil expenditure, which is a federally determined level. When reference is made to the per-pupil expenditure funding, the State is at 15 percent. However, when referring to costs provided in the grant for special education, the State receives federal funding of 13.5 percent.
Senator Cegavske:
Does the State still have 10 years to bring the funding amount up to 40 percent?
Ms. Dopf:
There are several federal bills being discussed regarding these funds. One bill suggests 10 years, but the time periods in all the bills are extremely varied. The amount we receive next year will only move us slightly forward in the percentage level.
Mr. Thunder:
Most of the departments’ federal programs have received notice of the grant amount for next year. Documents have been prepared showing those amounts. In many cases, there are significant increases in the grant funding, and most of the increases will be shown as aid to schools.
Occupational Education – Budget Page K12 ED-71 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2676
Mr. Thunder:
This grant has a requirement that federal funds allowed for administration (5 percent) must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis with State funds. In addition, the State is required to meet a maintenance-of-effort provision from one fiscal year to the next. The Executive Budget recommends $356,104 in FY 2003-2004, and $362,620 in FY 2004‑2005 to comply with the State match requirement. The federal set-aside for administration was $343,917, which is less than the General Fund match because some of the positions are shared 50-50 with federal agencies. The State is obligated to pay its half of the salaries for its share of the positions.
Senator Rawson:
Will it be necessary to make any adjustments to the budget?
Mr. Thunder:
No, it will not.
NDE Continuing Education – Budget Page K12 ED-75 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101-2680
Mr. Thunder:
The matching requirement for the State in this account is 25 percent, which is more than shown in the budget. That would come out to approximately $700,000. The General Fund appropriation requested in FY 2004 is $465,072, and in FY 2005 it is $465,281. We anticipate the balance of that match will be met by the community colleges system.
NDE Gear Up – Budget Page K12 ED-82 (Volume 1)
Budget Account 101‑2678
Senator Rawson:
It looks like the administrative expenses in this budget are at least 25 percent or more, and there is a great deal of in-state and out-of-state travel in this. I do not know if administrative costs that high are acceptable under the federal guidelines. Do we need to deal with this?
Mr. Thunder:
We will verify that. I would like to point out that half of this grant is to be invested to provide scholarships (Exhibit I). We have set up B/A 2679 as a holding account to earn interest on these funds.
Senator Rawson:
I would also like to look at one of the enhancement decision units for replacement of equipment. This program was implemented fairly recently, and we authorized three computers and printers. Please verify that equipment is necessary.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page K12 ED-84
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
How does the Gear Up program work with the one the university system has through its enrichment program?
Frank South, Human Resources/Technology, Department of Education:
I think you are referring to the Trio program.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
There are three: Trio, Upward Bound, and Gear Up.
Mr. South:
These are separate funds for separate activities. The coordinator of Gear Up meets regularly with the administrators of the other programs to make sure we are integrating and collaborating. There is some overlap in the programs, but there is a major effort to get the most out of all the programs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
From my observation, the college program appears to run more efficiently and is better coordinated. The programs should be administered by the agency that can best deliver the program successfully.
Mr. South:
We have a State Gear Up council, and all sub-grantees participate on the council to facilitate communication and coordinate activity.
Senator Rawson:
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 10:01 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lynn Hendricks,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
______________________________________________
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
DATE:________________________________________