MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
March 20, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 5:13 p.m. on Thursday, March 20, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dean A. Rhoads (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Denise Davis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association
John Soderman, Superintendent, Douglas County School District
Mary Ella Holloway, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association; President, Clark County Education Association
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
Dr. James Hager, Lobbyist, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
Karlene Lee, Assistant Superintendent, Research Accountability Innovation, Clark County School District
Kaitlynn Cooper
Meredith Adler
Lauren Easby
Susan C. Hastings, Lobbyist, President, Washoe Chapter, Nevada Classified School Employees Association
Doug Whitener, Director, Student Support Services, Washoe County School District
David Jensen, Director of Federal Programs, Humboldt County School District
Brad Reitz, Assistant Superintendent, Student Support Services Division, Clark County School District
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Chairperson, Council to Establish Academic Standards For Public Schools
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation
Melissa Nikolai, Teacher, Pau Wa Lu Middle School
Senator Raggio:
The Department of Administration has requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 35-1262.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 35-1262: Revises provision concerning disposition of money received from concessions on property within state park or property controlled or administered by Division of State Parks of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 401.)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 35-1262.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CEGAVSKE AND RHOADS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 252.
ASSEMBLY BILL 252: Makes appropriation to State General Fund from Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government. (BDR S-1233)
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration:
The Executive Budget recommends a transfer of $100 million from the Fund to Stabilize the Operation of State Government (rainy day fund) to the General Fund to help balance the budget for this fiscal year; A.B. 252 accomplishes this. Considering the negative effect war will have on our tourism-dependent economy and the fact the Legislature has not yet approved the Governor’s request for temporary increases in certain revenues, I would recommend this bill be amended to transfer the entire balance of the rainy day fund, which I believe is $136,340,000.
Senator Rawson:
If $136 million will be enough for this biennium’s needs, that will be fine, but if not, we will have no mechanism to raise money to balance the budget. To be certain we are not going to jeopardize our credit rating, how much do we need in reserve? How much do we need to raise in the next couple of months?
Mr. Comeaux:
If we transfer the entire amount into the General Fund and revenues match the Economic Forum forecast, we will have an ending fund balance of about $107 million. This is just over 5 percent of the total balance, which is what we require to operate. However, if revenues are negatively affected, we could have an ending fund balance that will be inadequate for operations on a normal basis and there will be no way to raise the money. If we wait too long, there will not be enough time to make adjustments.
The Governor’s original revenue increases projected increased revenue collections of about $83 million for the last quarter of this fiscal year. The increased revenues proposed for the secretary of state’s office cannot be put into effect; the amended projection is about $74 million. We originally proposed returning approximately $45 million to the rainy day fund if we took $100 million out, but that amount has been decreased. It will have to be decreased further if revenues are less than forecasted. To be safe, we need a minimum of $50 million, which does not include a reimbursement to the rainy day fund.
Senator Rawson:
It is important to stress this: if revenues meet forecasts, the State is fine; if revenues do not meet forecasts, the long-term damage to the State’s credit and bond ratings will be hard to recover from. If we double the business activity tax now, we might bring in $20 million. We are almost at the point where we cannot raise enough money to give us the reserve we need. We need to stress to the rest of the Legislature that we have to take action while we are in session.
Senator Coffin:
The taxation committee recently heard a substitute proposal to the Governor’s tax bill. I support Mr. Comeaux’s proposal to transfer the entire balance of the rainy day fund, but taxation is going to have to work extremely hard and fast to raise the money. How do you feel about the new proposal? Will it generate enough money? Session will adjourn before we will know.
Mr. Comeaux:
I do not know. I am not familiar with the new proposal’s projections. Increases in existing taxes can be enacted quickly.
Senator Coffin:
The testimony was not very specific regarding the tax rate and a few other things. I want to know if you have talked with the people making the new proposal.
Mr. Comeaux:
I have not been involved in any discussions.
Senator Coffin:
They need to tell us soon how much money the new proposal can raise and how quickly it can be implemented. We got assurances at the meeting, but not answers.
Senator Raggio:
I am very concerned about the need to use the rainy day fund. It has taken a decade to build the fund; it has been done through prudence and with the expectation we would face this type of crisis at some point. I had hoped we would not have to use it. Fortunately, we did not follow suggestions to use the fund last session, or we would have nothing to use.
My concern is we have no option other than using the fund to get through this fiscal year. I feel it would be extremely imprudent for the Legislature not to begin a plan immediately to restore the rainy day fund. The Governor has a plan in the budget. I do not think there is any doubt the public will support raising taxes if part of the increase goes to the rainy day fund. I do not think the public wants us to act imprudently or without fiscal responsibility, even if it involves a tax increase. I am not going to support anything in the future that does not include some method of reestablishing, as soon as practical, the rainy day fund.
I have inquired whether the lack of a rainy day fund is a factor in determining the state’s bond rating. The state treasurer responded with a letter (Exhibit C). Although a rainy day fund is not a necessity, it is a factor in bond ratings. A better bond rating means more savings when we borrow money or incur debt. I am discussing this because I want to be emphatic that we cannot try to patch the needs of this state and not establish some type of reserve. There are reasons to re-establish this fund.
By statute, we must have a 5 percent reserve when we approve our budget in order to operate state government at a normal level for a few months. The reserve does not take emergencies into account. Mr. Comeaux is exactly right; our revenues depend on tourism. We do not know if the downturn will be 1 percent or 5 percent, but we know revenues will be lower. Travel will be curtailed; international travel will be curtailed drastically. Fuel prices will impact those who drive. We need to be prepared.
We have been discussing taxes, revenue plans, and budget cuts for 2 months, which I think is good, but now we have to deal with the needs of this state. We only have about 3 months until the end of the fiscal year. We have three tasks: make up the shortfall we have this fiscal year; fund the budget for the next 2 years in the face of a growing emergency in this country and internationally; and create a long-range plan to fund the needs of this state. We are not talking about wasting money; we are talking about meeting the needs of the fastest growing state in the country.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
FitchRatings is a firm that rates the creditworthiness of a state, city, or municipality, which affects bond ratings. On November 21, 2002, a number of criteria used to determine creditworthiness was listed. One thing specifically mentioned was, “Maintaining an operating reserve or rainy day fund is perhaps the most effective practice an issuer can use to enhance its credit rating.” The state treasurer has indicated his concerns in his letter.
I have a comparison (Exhibit D) of a scenario using the original recommendations in the Executive Budget, including tax increases, and a scenario which includes a $134 million transfer from the rainy day fund, repayment of outstanding General Fund advances, increased repayments from state personnel, and an $11,000 increase in the state recovery from the statewide cost allocation. I want to point out if a transfer is not made from the rainy day fund or if no new taxes are raised, the State will have a negative ending fund balance of $30.5 million. If $134 million is transferred from the rainy day fund, everything else recommended in the Executive Budget remains at recommended levels, and budget reductions including $62.2 million of estimated reversions are implemented as proposed, the State will end the fiscal year with $105.2 million in the General Fund; this is approximately $71,000 greater than the 5 percent minimum ending fund balance.
Senator Raggio:
Does the law require a balance of $105 million?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
We are required to have a minimum balance of 5 percent of ongoing operating appropriations. If anything negative happens, the State will drop below the 5 percent minimum.
Senator Rawson:
I emphasize again that a message has to go out to our taxation committees. We need to raise a minimum of about $50 million now; every day we wait makes it harder to raise the money we need. I can imagine scenarios where the decrease in revenues is greater than 10 percent.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Without tax increases, total operating and supplemental appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2003 are about $2 billion. The Governor’s recommended funding for FY 2004 is approximately $1.9 billion. In FY 2004, existing revenues projected by the Economic Forum are about $1.9 billion. General Fund operating expenses this fiscal year exceed the projected revenues in FY 2004 by about $61.5 million if all supplemental appropriations are approved.
Senator Raggio:
I will accept a motion to amend the bill to $135 million, which will leave about $1 million in the rainy day fund.
Senator Mathews:
I thought we only had $134 million in the fund.
Senator Raggio:
There is $136.5 million in the fund.
Senator Rawson:
This is one of the hardest votes I have to make because I absolutely believe in a rainy day fund. It is doing what it was intended to do, but we have to replace it.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 252.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RHOADS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Raggio:
We will now open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 191.
SENATE BILL 191: Makes various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (BDR 34‑635)
Senator Rawson:
A number of small districts have explained the problems with the staging of the testing. Testing is important, but do adjustments need to be made in the schedule?
Senator Raggio:
For the benefit of those not at the previous meeting, one of the provisions of S.B. 191 is to conform to the requirements of House Resolution (H.R.) 1, 107th Cong. (2001), the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), and extend most of the requirements to the State.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
At the first hearing, we talked about the savings clause contained in H.R. 1, Section 1116(d). We discussed the impact of the law as it related to the implementation of S.B. 191. Our March 20, 2003, memo (Exhibit E) explains NCLBA does not limit employee rights or collective bargaining agreements. We believe some of the provisions in S.B. 191 go beyond the requirements of NCLBA; they are listed in “NSEA’s Proposed Amendments to S.B. 191” (Exhibit F).
Senator Raggio:
I will ask research and legal to analyze these proposals.
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, President, Nevada State Education Association:
My comments are contained in my written statement (Exhibit G). It is our belief that, in Title I schools, there will not be sufficient money to take care of needs, including transportation, supplemental services, and school choice. As time goes on, there are more serious consequences for schools that do not meet adequate yearly performance standards, such as extending the school year, longer school days, hiring outside experts, or changing curriculum. None of these options are funded. The Title I funds intended for school changes are supplied only for the first few years of the needs improvement plan; anything beyond is an unfunded mandate. We do not want to see Nevada take that route.
We want to be clear regarding testing. We wholeheartedly endorse the “Nevada Assessment and Accountability in the Era of ‘No Child Left Behind’” (white paper) (Exhibit H) from the Nevada Association of School Superintendents and the Nevada Association of School Boards. We believe accountability is extremely important and we support the use of the criterion referenced test (CRT) aligned to Nevada standards for Grades 3 through 8. We support the use of the norm referenced test (NRT) for comparison to other states. The CRT should be used for adequate yearly progress (AYP) purposes. The testing schedule should be NRT in the fall and CRT in the spring.
The final issue regards highly-qualified teachers. Licensure requirements become effective in 2006. Teachers hired before 1991 did not have testing requirements when they applied for licensure, so NCLBA created the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation regulation. We want S.B. 191 to ensure Nevada’s Department of Education will have the authority to license veteran teachers.
Senator Mathews:
In regard to the white paper, can you assure me the rural counties will be able to meet the deadlines for testing?
Mr. Hickman:
As far as I know, there should be no problems getting the timeline implemented. If our recommendation is followed, the CRT will be given in the spring.
Senator Mathews:
I just need some assurance that, if we adopt the white paper, the timeline can be met.
Mr. Bellister:
I am not prepared to answer that question at this time, but I will get an answer for you.
John Soderman, Superintendent, Douglas County School District:
We asked that specific question at our last superintendents’ meeting; we were assured by Clark County and the rural counties that the timelines for a spring CRT could be met, as we understand those timelines.
Senator Raggio:
When are new contracts issued?
Mr. Hickman:
It might vary by district, but I believe notification is May 1.
Mr. Bellister:
Teacher contracts have to be offered on or before May 1 of each year.
Senator Raggio:
Licensure requirements take effect in June 2006. If a teacher is not determined to be highly qualified, and he or she has already signed a contract prior to June 2006, where does that leave the teacher and the district in complying with the provision to be highly qualified?
Mr. Bellister:
The date in S.B. 191 is inconsistent with the date in H.R. 1. Federal regulation specifies teachers have until the end of the 2005-2006 school year to become highly qualified. Senate Bill 191 states teachers have to become highly qualified by January 1, 2006. Someone could be denied the opportunity to meet the requirements.
Senator Raggio:
We will look at this further because it does pose a problem. To answer any potential questions about testing, only the CRT portion of the augmented NRT is going to be used for AYP.
Mary Ella Holloway, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association; President, Clark County Education Association:
I am here to discuss some of the amendments to S.B. 191 proposed by the Nevada State Education Association. I have also submitted my comments in a written statement (Exhibit I). I urge you to accept the proposed amendments.
Senator Raggio:
I would like staff to explain the timeline issues.
H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
We were asked to prepare a timeline showing the accountability process, with all the deadlines required by NCLBA, for a fall testing schedule and a spring testing schedule (Exhibit J). The fall testing scenario is very similar to what occurs now under the Nevada Education Reform Act. Test scores are received in December, school designations are made in January, and school support begins during the year. Report cards, school improvement, and planning occur from February to August. Full implementation of school-wide improvement plans would take place during the start of the next school year. Using the spring scenario, the accountability process is compressed into the final portion of the school year. The earliest that school remediation can start is January, with full implementation planned the following school year. By testing in the fall, improvement plans and professional development can be completed during the summer and implemented at the beginning of the school year. If testing is done in the spring, full implementation will not occur for 1.5 years.
Senator Raggio:
I would ask the school district superintendents and the State Board of Education to look at this timeline and tell us whether you will be able to meet all the deadlines for school improvement, accountability reports, professional development, and notice to parents about school choice if spring testing is chosen. I also want to know if the deadlines can be met for the same cost if spring testing is chosen. I think it will be a challenge.
At the last hearing, I believe I stated H.R. 1 applied only to federally-funded Title I schools. I have asked for clarification as to which components of S.B. 191 are applicable to which schools.
Senator Cegavske:
Returning to the testing timeline, if you test in the fall, when do you receive the results?
Mr. Sturm:
I think our current contract specifies a 35-day turnaround.
Senator Cegavske:
I had hoped the new legislation would provide a faster turnaround time; I am concerned about how long it takes for us to utilize the results.
Mr. Sturm:
We understand the three major test vendors have some capacity concerns about meeting current timelines since all 50 states face the same issues.
Senator Cegavske:
Could it take longer than 35 days?
Mr. Sturm:
It is whatever our contract specifies.
Senator Cegavske:
I have some real concerns about the turnaround time. We spend a considerable amount of money on testing and we are not able to utilize the results in a timely fashion to help students and teachers.
Senator Raggio:
We have had some disappointing performance from vendors in the past.
Senator Coffin:
Have you factored in differences between NCLBA and S.B. 191?
Mr. Sturm:
Most of the deadlines shown on the timelines are from H.R. 1. Some requirements are for all schools; states have the option to apply some provisions to all schools or a group of schools. Many things are supposed to be done prior to the beginning of the next school year, such as the notice to parents about school choice and the school improvement plan.
The “dot chart” (Exhibit K) covers the major components of S.B. 191. Federal law requires a single system of accountability; the states have some flexibility as to what is in the accountability system, but they are required to do AYP reports for schools, districts, and the state, including subgroup levels. Consequences for low performance are listed, along with schools affected.
Senator Raggio:
Are school choice and supplemental services for Title I schools required by H.R. 1?
Mr. Sturm:
Yes. It is a bit unclear about technical assistance, but I think it has to be provided to all schools needing improvement.
Senator Coffin:
Since that issue is uncertain, is it included in the fiscal note?
Senator Raggio:
We just got the fiscal note today.
Mr. Sturm:
Support teams are required by S.B. 191 for all schools in need of improvement; H.R. 1 requires them only for Title I schools. After discussions with the Department of Education, the level of intervention will be subject to what is available and reasonable for funding. Both laws call for required restructuring for Title I schools only. Approximately 100 of the 500 schools in the state received Title I money.
Senate Bill 191 requires state, district, and school improvement plans for all schools. Under H.R. 1, the State is required to make a report to the secretary annually, but it is not the same report required by S.B. 191. District plans are required for districts failing to make AYP.
Senator Raggio:
Do all districts receive Title I funding?
Mr. Sturm:
Yes, all 17 districts receive Title I money. School improvement plans are already mandated for all schools under the Nevada Education Reform Act; I believe H.R. 1 requires them only for schools not making AYP. Both laws require statewide assessments for all schools. Federal law allows states to choose between CRTs and augmented NRTs, and the issue of testing in the spring versus the fall is not addressed.
Under S.B. 191, certified paraprofessional requirements apply to all schools, while H.R. 1 requires the districts to ensure that their paraprofessionals in Title I schools are qualified under the definitions of H.R. 1. The requirements for middle school teachers and the highly-qualified designation have already been discussed.
Senator Raggio:
Is the highly-qualified designation required for all schools under H.R. 1?
Mr. Sturm:
All schools are required to have highly-qualified teachers by the end of the 2005‑2006 school year under H.R. 1. Senate Bill 191 requires that teachers are determined to be highly qualified in January before contracts are issued.
Senator Raggio:
Does licensing of middle school teachers apply to all schools under H.R. 1?
Mr. Sturm:
Yes. The ratio of experienced teachers is required for Title I schools only under H.R. 1. Senate Bill 191 will extend this to all schools in need of improvement. The System of Accountability Information is going to be required for all schools, as well as the possible designation as a persistently dangerous school.
Senator Raggio:
Please keep in mind this is not the place to argue whether H.R. 1 is good law. We have a mandate to comply with its provisions.
Senator Mathews:
Do you have a sheet that indicates which items are required by H.R. 1 versus S.B. 191?
Senator Raggio:
Would staff prepare a chart for the committee showing what is mandated for all schools by H.R. 1?
Senator Coffin:
I know none of us liked introducing this bill. The education committee did not hear it; apparently, we are the only committee who will hear it.
Senator Raggio:
We cannot change the federal requirements.
Senator Coffin:
We cannot change them, but we can say we do not like them.
Senator Raggio:
In the meantime, we have to comply.
Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education:
I would like to clarify the fiscal notes and make some suggestions. The question was how much would it cost a district to implement S.B. 191? In good faith, districts took different approaches as to what that meant. After talking with them, it became clear to me that they interpreted the question to mean how much would it cost to successfully implement S.B. 191? Successfully goes beyond just the letter of the law and includes things such as tutoring, technology, and paraprofessionals.
Senator Raggio:
To what extent is federal funding available?
Dr. McLaughlin:
I would like to discuss a plan with all the superintendents and bring back a suggestion as to the minimum cost of implementing the law.
Senator Raggio:
It sounds like we have to divide it up. First, what is necessary to implement the requirements of H.R. 1, how much federal funding is available, and what is lacking in federal funding? Second, how much will it cost to implement the additional components of S.B. 191 which the Legislative Committee on Education felt were appropriate recommendations?
Senator Coffin:
Have the school districts talked with each other already? I see Washoe County’s fiscal note is approximately $26 million for the biennium, not including the $1.5 million for this year, and Clark County has about $70 million per year; this is not comparable to the school population.
Senator Raggio:
I think we raised that issue the last time. The fiscal notes had a wide range.
Dr. James Hager, Superintendent, Washoe County School District; Chairman, Nevada Association of School Superintendents:
Clark County and Washoe County did discuss the issues together, and had “support conversations” with the smaller districts to help them get their information together. There are unique differences between Clark and Washoe counties, but if you look at dollar amounts and size differences, the two counties are actually pretty close. We agree with Dr. McLaughlin that the districts need to sit together. We answered the fiscal note questions put to us as best we knew how, but if we did it collectively, we could give you a far better answer.
Senator Raggio:
I would suggest you do that, and also consider different funding scenarios. We do not know how much revenue we are going to have.
Anne K. Loring, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Association of School Boards:
The Nevada Association of School Boards, along with the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, supports the white paper, particularly in the area of annual spring CRTs in Grades 3 through 8 for math and reading and fall NRTs in Grades 4 and 8. We believe this will support the strongest accountability program possible for Nevada and meet the requirements of NCLBA.
Mr. Soderman:
Speaking for the superintendents, we support the white paper. We believe that, as written, with its goal of improving instruction and accountability, it is the direction S.B. 191 ought to take. We do not support any areas where S.B. 191 compresses timelines or is stricter than NCLBA, except for requiring all schools, not just Title I schools, to have school improvement plans. What purpose is served by making already stringent requirements of NCLBA more stringent, resulting in schools being labeled as needing improvement earlier and in greater numbers? Where will the support and funding come from? Why would Nevada want to accelerate the process and have a higher percentage of schools labeled inadequate?
We understand there are five questions raised by the white paper in the areas of accountability, cost of test development, time of test development, and amount of testing time for students. We will also contrast our plan with the augmented NRTs proposed in S.B. 191.
Accountability at the classroom level is best achieved with spring testing using CRTs. Content standards focus on end-of-grade expectations; CRTs in the spring measure the degree to which the teacher taught the prescribed curriculum and the level of student achievement. Assessment will follow instruction and reports will give more up-to-date representations of student achievement. Using NRTs in Grades 4, 8, and 10 will provide accountability in terms of comparing Nevada to other states, and provide checks on our assessment system.
Fall tests measure teaching from various teachers the year before, what knowledge students gained or lost over summer months, and the degree to which the current teacher reviewed the previous year’s content. Review time is detrimental because of time lost for learning the current year’s curriculum, and accountability is all but lost because test results are always a year old. If we want to measure what was learned in eighth grade, which would seem to be consistent with NCLBA requirements to test students in third through eighth grades, we would need to add a ninth grade test in the fall at additional cost and testing time. Tests also need to be traced back to schools; the first test in middle school reflects what was learned in elementary school.
Senator Raggio:
What concerns us is, if you do the testing in the spring, the students are moving to the next grade. Do both the urban and rural school districts have the ability to locate all the students in a short amount of time and provide teachers with the testing results? You have to determine what the curriculum needs are.
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:
One of the requirements for test vendors, regardless of the test, is the results be provided electronically so they can be entered into the student information system within the school district. The goal is for teachers to be able to access the results through a section of the system called student test history.
Senator Raggio:
If the test is done in the spring, is the “fall” teacher or the “spring” teacher going to see the results?
Dr. Merrill:
Both teachers will have access. If the results come back before the end of the school year, the “spring” teacher will have access to the results, as well as the “fall” teacher, because the result is tied to the student.
Senator Raggio:
The “spring” teacher is not going to see those results.
Dr. Merrill:
To clarify, the results are tied to the students, not to the teacher. As soon as the results are in, the teacher can see them.
Senator Raggio:
I posed the question because I think it is a problem. I am also concerned about parents. How much time is a parent going to have to make decisions if testing is done in the spring and results are not received until the end of the school year, or possibly after the end of the year?
Mr. Soderman:
We have looked at the notification of parents in order to provide school choice; we have considered Web-based results posting, among other things.
Senator Raggio:
If testing is done in the spring, how much time is a parent going to have to exercise the option for choice? I think it is going to be a very short period of time.
Mr. Soderman:
It would be shorter than the testing timeline here suggests.
Senator Raggio:
It would be almost nonexistent, which is what we are concerned about. This is an important consideration now and in the future. I hope you address this issue when we meet again; it should not be verbiage that does not mean anything. Parents are going to need time to make decisions about exercising their options and selecting a school. Giving them only a few days to decide is not adequate, which is why I am taking a tough stance on this issue.
Mr. Soderman:
We should develop our own timeline so you can see our proposal.
Senator Rawson:
Has anyone discussed giving the tests before Christmas break?
Mr. Soderman:
We looked at testing in March, but the advantage of any spring testing is you are testing what has been taught during the year. We believe this is better than testing what was taught the previous year.
Karlene Lee, Assistant Superintendent, Research Accountability Innovation, Clark County School District:
Earlier today, we talked about a timeline based on testing in March. I discussed concerns about parent notification and adequate time periods for parents to meet with school officials and make decisions. Based on March testing and a 35-day turnaround for results, we could notify parents in early May.
Mr. Soderman:
Fall testing does not meet the value-added criteria of the white paper or the concept document of the original Legislative Committee on Education. I do not have “hard” costs due to time constraints and a number of assumptions that have to be made. Federal law requires that we continue to give the current tests until we bring the system in line with NCLBA; we have to continue what we are doing until 2005.
Senator Raggio:
At our next meeting, please explain how this will work for year-round schools and whether the reporting requirements will meet H.R. 1 requirements.
Mr. Soderman:
We are very cognizant of reporting requirements for year-round schools and we will address those issues. Returning to costs, we might get some cost benefit from the use of currently developed CRTs in Grades 3, 5, and 8; this leaves tests for three grades to be developed. If the tests have to be entirely redone, the cost would probably not be different from developing an augmented NRT. We understand NCLBA allows funding for costs related to CRTs but not NRTs. We do not know what funding might be available for augmented NRTs; we think the augmented portion would be funded, but not the NRT portion.
Senator Raggio:
The committee thought there would be savings using the augmented NRTs.
Mr. Soderman:
We do not think so, based on discussions with other superintendents. Moving on to the development timeline, the State has no choice, regardless of the options we choose. We have to be ready by 2005 and we will be. We believe the timeline will be the same for either CRTs or NRTs, unless there are savings from work already done.
We will refine reporting timelines thoroughly. We do not support requirements more stringent than already required by NCLBA. The State Department of Education did a section-by-section analysis of S.B. 191; some timelines are in question. We believe we can meet the timelines, but we will re-examine them. We support the call for all districts to have school improvement plans, not just Title I schools. We understand the law to say that once a school is designated as in need of improvement, there is a time period allowed after parent notification to develop a school improvement plan; the plan does not have to be in place when parents are notified.
The final issue is testing time for students. Any tests that do not give us usable results are a waste of time. We are conscious of the time used for testing instead of teaching. I have a comparison of the Maryland Department of Education’s September 2002 special bulletin regarding augmented NRTs and current Nevada practices (Exhibit L). Total testing time for Nevada students in Grades 3 through 8 is 1562 minutes. The CRTs cover math and reading; the NRTs in Grades 4 and 8 cover reading, language, math, and science. We believe we should continue the full battery of NRTs because science will soon be required by NCLBA. Maryland’s augmented NRTs require 2160 minutes of testing. The difference of approximately 600 minutes represents about 2 days of school. Federal law requires CRTs for AYP. We believe NRTs in Grades 4, 8, and 10 adequately compare us to other states and provide a check for our own system.
Senator Raggio:
At our last meeting, we discussed the issue of testing time. As I recall, the white paper requires three more tests than are required in S.B. 191. If you are telling me three additional tests do not cost anything, I will be surprised.
Mr. Soderman:
I would not tell you that.
Senator Raggio:
Our staff talked with Martin Kehe at the Maryland Department of Education. They are implementing the augmented NRT, and NRT items are not being eliminated. The test is not excessively long; it is shorter than the current test. They have developed enough CRT items to produce four forms of the math test and six forms of the reading test. It is designed to take 90 minutes each day over a 4-year period. You might want to confirm the information you have. This is not a novel idea from the education committee; it is being done. I am not saying you are not right, but I am telling you there are other possibilities.
We also hear a lot of concern about days of testing. We are all mindful of the fact that testing does not take the entire day. We all want adequate time for instruction, but we also need to do an adequate assessment. Some things we are required to report and some things we need to know for our own accountability. I hope no one is here to argue that we do not need some type of assessment. I know some parents feel their children are tested too much. I do not think that is a valid opinion. We want to do what is necessary and what is appropriate and not take away any more instruction time than needed.
Mr. Soderman:
I had heard about the different testing schedule, but no one could find any more information today. If we are going to be data driven, which we should be, the data should be useful. The testing system and scores in the white paper are what we support.
Senator Raggio:
By working together, maybe we can modify the white paper and the bill. We need to work toward getting the best result.
Dr. Merrill:
Earlier this week, we delivered technical questions and proposed amendments to you (Exhibit M). We have copies here tonight to introduce into the record.
Kaitlynn Cooper:
The voices of the students as major stakeholders in NCLBA have been silent for too long. We are here today to put faces and names to the term “child.” We are the statistical numbers on the printout that builds the data which is disaggregated to yield AYP. Testing too soon will decrease high test scores; testing at the right time will increase high test scores. The CRTs given in the fall will test student standards of the prior school year, while CRTs given in the spring will test students on what they have learned over the past 9 months. As a student, I know this.
Meredith Adler:
We know the end goal is for all students to make AYP; that includes all students, regardless of their learning limitations or language gaps. I am a twin, and I have been identified as gifted. It is easy for me to quickly demonstrate to you what I know. My twin brother, who has dyslexia, has struggled with reading his entire life. It will take him longer to show you what he knows, but I can assure you, he has the same knowledge.
Today’s educators know each child has a different learning style and that brains are even “hardwired” differently. Because they recognize this, they individualize instruction. Do you really want to know what we know, or do you just want high test scores? What would you say if we showed you there is a testing instrument that could yield both and still meet our individual learning styles?
Lauren Easby:
Federal law clearly designates a CRT as an acceptable assessment to measure student achievement. A CRT is not timed, it meets individual learning styles, and it is directly aligned to the state standards. As a result, it yields the most accurate assessment of the progress that we, the students, have made. We really want to do our best. We are not only looking at what you are going to get from the test results; we need the best tool to achieve the highest rate possible. For example, if you want to build a house and a nail gun is available, are you still going to use a hammer? Do you have the best, most cost-effective tool to get the job done? An augmented NRT is like using a screwdriver to build a house. It is a tool, but it is not the best tool for the job.
Ms. Adler:
An augmented NRT is not the most efficient tool because it combines two tests that cannot be combined. An NRT is timed and based on a bell curve. It does not take into account student differences; it is not aligned to standards, meaning a second test will have to be administered, which will take more time and require more taxpayer money.
Ms. Cooper:
Our request is simple. Give us the best chance to show our best skills. We are asking you to consider the instrument you are using for assessment. Please remember that trying to combine an NRT and a CRT in an augmented NRT is like the suspension of oil and water in a jar; you can shake them and try to combine them, but they will separate and remain completely different.
Susan C. Hastings, Lobbyist, President, Washoe Chapter, Nevada Classified School Employees Association:
I am here to speak to the concerns of paraprofessionals affected by this act. I think you will be hearing testimony from the school districts that they adequately monitor the certification and requirements of paraprofessionals; the classified employees would concur with that. We would also state our members who are already severely financially strapped in this economy do not need or desire any duplication of effort or fees in the certification of paraprofessionals. We feel the local school districts are capable of adequately assessing that.
Doug Whitener, Director, Student Support Services, Washoe County School District:
David Jensen and I are representing many of the special education directors in northern Nevada. We are concerned about the paraprofessional provisions in this bill, because many paraprofessionals work directly with disabled students. We believe S.B. 191 exceeds H.R. 1 in terms of requirements. The federal law requires highly-qualified paraprofessionals in Title I schools; S.B. 191 requires qualified paraprofessionals in all schools. To qualify, a person must have 2 years of college, an Associate of Arts degree, or pass a test. The focus of H.R. 1 is on paraprofessionals receiving licensure for instruction, while S.B. 191 includes people such as library aides and behavior instructors.
The problem with certification is we are already experiencing difficulties employing paraprofessionals; we are concerned we will not be able to find the qualified paraprofessionals needed to satisfy S.B. 191. We will also be in trouble in terms of Public Law 105-17, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997; when we cannot find paraprofessionals, we are in jeopardy of due process by not providing children with a free and appropriate education. We are concerned about filling the positions and the cost to do so. As you increase the qualifications, you generally have to increase the amount of money paid.
David Jensen, Director of Federal Programs, Humboldt County School District:
I would like to address the issue of workforce availability. At a meeting today of northern Nevada directors of special services, we estimated 70 percent of our current paraprofessionals are operating with a high school diploma. When we look at the current legislation, H.R. 1 and S.B. 191, we see a significant impact.
Senator Raggio:
Which Title I schools do you have in Humboldt County?
Mr. Jensen:
We have Winnemucca Grammar School, which is a targeted assistance school, and McDermitt Combined School.
Senator Raggio:
Will they have to qualify?
Mr. Jensen:
Under H.R. 1, those are the only two schools impacted. Under S.B. 191, we will have to apply the mandates broadly. This will have a significant impact, not only on remote rural school districts, but also on the Washoe County and Carson City school districts.
Senator Cegavske:
How much are paraprofessionals paid now?
Mr. Whitener:
It varies by county. In Washoe County, it varies because of the plan chosen. I will estimate Washoe County pays $7.50 to $8.00 an hour for a teacher’s aide.
Senator Cegavske:
Are teacher’s aides paraprofessionals?
Mr. Whitener:
Yes. If teacher’s aides are required to have 2 years of college, they will probably move up the salary schedule toward teacher’s assistants because of their enhanced qualifications and be paid about $10 an hour.
Mr. Jensen:
In Humboldt County, our starting aide salary is $10.75. If we insist they meet these requirements, they will be asking for more pay.
Senator Cegavske:
Do you provide training for them?
Mr. Whitener:
Yes.
Senator Raggio:
During the interim, the committee heard this and became concerned that if it was required in the Title I schools, parents would ask why it was not required in all schools. There is also the issue of portability; our hope is that requirements will be uniform throughout the state. It is hard to say a mandatory requirement is good for one school and not another.
Senator Tiffany:
Does the aide pay, which is about $10 an hour, include benefits or retirement?
Mr. Jensen:
No, it does not.
Senator Tiffany:
Are they considered part-time workers?
Mr. Jensen:
We hire aides to work anywhere from a couple of hours a day to 6 or 7 hours a day.
Senator Tiffany:
Could some aides be part-time workers?
Mr. Jensen:
Yes. We do pay PERS, health and life insurance, and other benefits for some of our aides.
Brad Reitz, Assistant Superintendent, Student Support Services Division, Clark County School District:
We support Washoe County’s recommendation and the extensive review they have done. We believe going beyond the requirements of H.R. 1 will be difficult for many schools. Paraprofessionals are one area of concern; different testing requirements are another concern. An area we have not talked about is programs in the juvenile justice system. We are adding the accountability system to those schools, but they are exempted in H.R. 1.
Senator Raggio:
Are we talking about Elko and Caliente?
Mr. Reitz:
Schools such as the Spring Mountain Youth Camp and the juvenile detention center are also in the juvenile justice system. You are trying to put a system in place to ensure accountability, but you do not test the same child from year to year. We want to measure their progress, but we also want to have a good comparison group. We urge you not to go beyond the requirements of H.R. 1.
Senator Cegavske:
Who is going to pay the costs for the 10th grade testing? Could we get a list of the differences between the PSAT (preliminary scholastic aptitude test) and PLAN tests?
Ms. Lee:
I just want to reiterate Clark County supports the white paper.
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Chairperson, Council to Establish Academic Standards For Public Schools:
I am here to inform you of the position the council has taken with regard to assessments. Part of the charge of the council is to make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding assessments related to academic standards. We have reviewed information and made recommendations where appropriate. The council believes maintaining the CRT is important to the success of standards implementation and, ultimately, student success. We recommend the CRT be maintained for the purpose of identifying student strengths and weaknesses and assisting with instruction. We recommend continuing with the NRT for accountability purposes. We realize the requirements of NCLBA are monumental and there are many decisions that must be made to fully implement the law. Nevada has made great strides since the Nevada Education Reform Act was passed in 1997, so we believe supporting the continuation of the CRT is the right thing to do for Nevada’s students and it is the best decision to meet the intent of NCLBA.
Senator Raggio:
Is that the position of the council on the bill as a whole?
Ms. Smith:
We have a very limited legislative agenda; we only had one piece of the bill.
Senator Raggio:
Do you have a stand on any of these other issues?
Ms. Smith:
No, we do not.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We feel NCLBA represents the final federal takeover of education in Nevada. It takes away your responsibilities as state legislators with respect to education. It is a federal mandate which you do not have to accept. If you reject the mandate and funding, we will be better off in many ways. We cannot get federal policy on education changed, but we can come to the Legislature with our concerns. We have no representative government involved in NCLBA. Why are you, as our legislators, giving away your power to the federal government? You should reject this federal mandate and maintain this in the state. There is no federal constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education; that issue was left to local and state legislators so we could influence policy. I encourage you to assert your sovereign authority as state legislators and reject this final federal takeover. This mandate will cost an incredible amount of money and will not likely result in a better education.
One issue of particular concern to me is privacy. On page 73, Section 55, line 17 of the bill, “a system of unique identification for each pupil” is mentioned. We continue to be concerned about the type of tracking this bill calls for. It is important that we ensure family and student privacy rights are protected as we track them over time and that this information is not available to people who should not have it. It is also important that children not be labeled and become unable to escape their label as they are tracked.
Senator Raggio:
On page 74, it says regulation must be adopted that does not pose a threat to the confidentiality of an individual pupil.
Ms. Hansen:
We want to be sure confidentiality is of utmost importance in people’s minds. We are also concerned that a school board can be abolished. The federal government is now mandating we lose representative government by allowing this act to abolish a local school district. What happened to Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which guarantees representative government in the states? This violates the constitutional mandate for representative government; it takes away our ability to be represented by you, instead of Congress.
Senator Raggio:
I assume these arguments were made to Congress when the bill was being considered.
Ms. Hansen:
Yes, but we think you have more wisdom than Congress. We remind you that you are our sovereign legislators, and you can reject this bill and its federal mandates.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation:
I would like to enter a statement from Sherri Lakin into the record (Exhibit N). I also have an article from the Reno Gazette-Journal (Exhibit O). I have homeschooled my child her entire life. In fourth grade, she tested at an eleventh grade reading level. I estimate it cost $90 a year for her education. Education is not about how much money is spent; it is about good curriculum and content. I urge you to reject S.B. 191.
Melissa Nikolai, Teacher, Pau Wa Lu Middle School:
I agree our schools are in need of improvement. Our teachers must be held accountable and administrators must have a plan of action to implement change in our system. I rise to the challenge of teacher accountability, but teachers cannot fix these problems on their own.
The students who testified earlier were wonderful, and I have some wonderful students also. I am sure every parent here is fantastic, but many of our students come to us ill-prepared for the expectations of school. Many students struggle with reading; they do not value education; they do not have coping skills; they are emotionally challenged in their ability to problem solve, set goals, be aware of consequences, take responsibility for their actions and to function in a socially appropriate manner. Many kids come to me in eighth grade completely hardened and numb to any efforts I make to inspire, challenge, or teach them.
By your definition, I am a highly-qualified professional. I have 8 years of teaching experience; my major is in English, my minor is in special education, and my master’s degree is in literacy. I have taken every workshop, class, and in-service meeting related to my degree to improve my teaching. I have read every related book I can find. I continually work to discover ways to reach every student to ensure that no child is left behind. Even being so highly trained and committed, I cannot do it on my own. Teachers, no matter how good, cannot give every child all of what they need. Some children come to us so broken, so unprepared, so lacking in self-worth, motivation, and dreams that we cannot make the difference for them all. That does not mean I am going to stop trying, but that means I would rather have legislation instead of feeling punished because we cannot transform test scores. I would rather have legislative support that shows you believe in our profession and you care about the individual child behind the standardized score. Fund professional development so we can continue to develop our skills as teachers in a way that is worthy of the term professional. Better yet, hold parents accountable for their responsibility to raise young citizens.
Senator Raggio:
That is the big problem. I created a bill once for a parent report card but everyone was against it. I want to commend you. My daughter is a fourth grade teacher; I hear this speech weekly. Everyone has an excuse for why parents should not be held responsible. The biggest problem in America today is lack of parenting. We can only do so much. How do you make parents become interested? How do you get them to attend teacher conferences and parents’ nights? We all agree with you. Most of this bill is the result of a federal law with which we have to comply. We need assessment, testing, accountability, and funding. If you can give us a plan to get every parent to do their job, we will not have these problems.
I expect staff, superintendents, and the Department of Education to work together on the items we have discussed. Ray Bacon has submitted a handout for the record (Exhibit P). Since there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Denise Davis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: