MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Senate Committee on Finance
JOINT Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources
Seventy-Second Session
May 1, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources, was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator William J. Raggio
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst
Linda Smith, Committee Secretary
Connie Davis, Committee Secretary
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – BUDGET CLOSINGS
TEACHER EDUCATION AND LICENSING (101-2705)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-17
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said Budget Account 2705, Teacher Education and Licensing, was primarily supported by revenue received from licensing fees. Revenue was also received from competency testing program fees. One closing issue in BA 2705 was the $100 state General Fund appropriation that provided the Department of Education (NDE) continued access to the Interim Finance Committee. For the FY2003‑2005 biennium the account was recommended to close with a licensing fee reserve of $44,750 in FY2004 and approximately $59,000 in FY2005 and a testing fee reserve of $52,559 in each fiscal year of the 2003‑2005 biennium. Ms. Braun said the budget account currently appeared to be fully self-supporting and the Subcommittee needed to determine whether to eliminate the state General Fund appropriation of $100 in each fiscal year that would eliminate access to the Interim Finance Committee. Ms. Braun noted the NDE had indicated the removal of the $100 General Fund appropriation would be a significant liability.
Ms. Braun referred to other closing items for BA 2705:
Ms. Braun said the technical adjustments included revising computer costs and removing salary costs for a .01 full-time equivalent position (FTE) that was inadvertently left in the budget account when a .50 FTE position was merged with a .51 FTE position during the 2001 Legislative Session.
Ms. Braun said if the Subcommittee elected to close BA 2705, staff requested approval to make any adjustments required to align transfers from the Education State Programs budget account to BA 2705.
Senator Rawson recommended leaving the $100 General Fund appropriation in the budget for each year of the biennium even though BA 2705 appeared to be self-sufficient.
Senator Rawson recalled the Subcommittee had taken action related to the Statewide Management of Automated Record Transfer (SMART) system during a prior meeting. Ms. Braun said the Subcommittee had discussed the new System for Accountability Information in Nevada (SAIN), formerly the SMART system, and that particular budget would be closed during the May 8, 2003, meeting of the Subcommittee.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING A LETTER OF INTENT, TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND LEAVING THE $100 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION IN THE BUDGET FOR EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM TO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO RETURN TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE IF REQUIRED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Cegavske said the Criminal History Repository charges had been discussed in a prior hearing and she asked for an overview of the history of background checks and fingerprinting services provided by the various agencies and an explanation of the various fees.
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said Clark County had been issuing work permit cards, and the $75 fee to issue the cards was set in statutes. The fee had been predicated upon a charge from the Criminal History Repository of $39 to cover the background check and the FBI check. The Department of Public Safety increased the fee from $39 to $45. Because the fee was set in statutes, Clark County had no way to increase the fee and had to absorb the $6 increase per card. The Gaming Control Board budget, as closed by Senate Finance, would allow the Board to establish the fee in regulation rather than statutes. The Board could then set the fee based on what it would cost to perform the background checks and issue the license.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, NDE, said the $100 licensing fee included $61 for the cost of staff to process and issue the license and $39 for the FBI report and state repository. The increase in the Criminal History Repository fingerprinting fee would raise the current fee from $39 to $45, increasing the $100 fee to $106. Dr. Rheault said he would be presenting the $6 fee increase to the Professional Standards Commission in May 2003 and did not anticipate any problems.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani restated the motion and asked for a vote of the Subcommittee.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES (101-2720)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-39
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said Budget Account 2720 included general accounting and other administrative activities within the NDE. The account was funded through indirect costs charged against other accounts within the Department based on administrative expenditures in those accounts. To facilitate cash flow and ease of accounting, the indirect costs attributable to accounts supported by the state General Fund were funded directly in BA 2720 through General Fund appropriation, rather than being funded in the individual budget accounts for transfer to BA 2720. Mr. Atkinson said the indirect cost rates were based on the prior year amounts and implemented in the next year. The indirect cost rates that were in place for FY2003 were used to estimate the budget for the next biennium. For FY2002, the indirect cost rate for restricted programs was 17.6 percent; for unrestricted programs the indirect cost rate was 22.4 percent. Mr. Atkinson referred to two decision units:
Mr. Atkinson recommended the budget be closed as adjusted with the caveat that adjustments might be required to align the transfer of costs that supported partial positions and, based on the closing of other General Fund accounts, the indirect cost attributable in those accounts might have to be adjusted.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAMS (101-2691)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-48
Ms. Braun said Budget Account 2691 was funded primarily with federal funds based upon enrollment counts within nutrition programs throughout the state. There were no closing issues within the account. Technical adjustments were made for training and revised computer costs. Staff requested approval to make adjustments to align transfers from this account to Staffing Services, BA 2719, and School Health Education, BA 2611.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES (101-2715)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-61
Mr. Atkinson said Budget Account 2715 included the federal “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)” funding and the NRS 395 program, which was the out‑of-district placement of children requiring individualized special education who could not be accommodated in their home district. Mr. Atkinson noted the General Fund expenditures for the NRS 395 program in FY2002 were $192,410. Based on year-to-date expenditures in FY2003, the anticipated expenditures were less than the prior year. Mr. Atkinson explained the cost of placements depended on the number of children placed in the NRS 395 program. The Governor’s budget recommended a General Fund appropriation of $325,000 in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium for the NRS 395 program with authorization that the funding be available in either year of the biennium.
Mr. Atkinson said decision unit E-600 reserved approximately $100,000 of the General Fund amount for reversion. Staff recommended that the reserve be eliminated and the General Fund support in the account be reduced to the level of the actual expenditures in FY2002, $192,410. The reduction would result in a General Fund savings in the amount of $132,590 each year. The NDE could move the appropriation between the two years, if necessary, if the costs exceeded the anticipated amount. In the second year the NDE could return to the contingency fund if there was a problem in the account. The federal IDEA grant had been adjusted to the anticipated amount, which was based upon the most recent grant award. The computer equipment had been adjusted to the most recent pricing provided by the State Purchasing Division. Mr. Atkinson said staff recommended the account be closed as adjusted with the caveat that the transfers could be adjusted because of the position costs.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION (101-2676)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-71
Ms. Braun said the Occupational Education budget was primarily supported by federal funds made available under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. There were no major closing issues in the account. Staff had made some technical adjustments. Information had been received from the NDE indicating the federal funding would be increased in the amount of $968,728 in each fiscal year of the biennium for the Carl Perkins Basic Grant and an additional $80,135 in each fiscal year of the biennium for the Technical Preparation Grant. Staff had made the appropriate adjustments to reflect the total increase in federal authority of slightly more than $1 million in each year. Technical adjustments had been made for the replacement of three computers and software.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
NDE GEAR UP (101-2678)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-82
Ms. Braun said the state was awarded the GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) federal grant in the fall of 2001. The grant period was from FY2002 through FY2006. There was a closing issue related to aid to schools. The Executive Budget recommended approximately $1.2 million in federal funds each fiscal year of the biennium to continue the program. Of the $1.2 million, only 78 percent was recommended for aid to schools. Program administration included:
· Personnel costs for 3 FTE positions
· $4,000 in each year of the biennium for out-of-state travel; a 49 percent increase over the amount spent in FY2002
· $10,000 in each year of the biennium for in-state travel; a 68 percent increase over the actual amount spent in FY2002
· Operating costs were increased to $22,500 in FY2004 and $21,438 in FY2005; a 42 percent and 35 percent increase, respectively, over the actual amount spent in FY2002
The Subcommittee had requested verification that grant requirements would allow the NDE to expend 22 percent on administration of the grant. Ms. Braun said LCB staff had contacted the U. S. Department of Education and obtained information that the administrative costs would be authorized under the GEAR UP grant; there were no restrictions placed on administrative charges. Ms. Braun stated the Subcommittee might want to request that the NDE provide semiannual reports to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) during the interim concerning the accomplishments of the program, including a status report on the review of the schools, which was required by the grant. Decision unit E-710 in The Executive Budget recommended funding for replacement of three computers. The Department already had three computers authorized during FY2002. Because the grant would end in FY2006, staff recommended deletion of decision unit E-710. Ms. Braun noted some one-time costs and corrections were also made to The Executive Budget.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said in order to better coordinate funding, she was continuing to look for a way to capitalize on the two GEAR UP grants—one through the Center for Enrichment at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, as well as the one within the NDE. The Chair said she would like to hold the GEAR UP budget open until the next scheduled meeting of the Subcommittee.
Senator Cegavske and Chairwoman Giunchigliani had a brief discussion on the use of college students in the GEAR UP program. The Chair indicated there had been some concerns that perhaps the funding used for the summer programs had not been well spent. She thought perhaps the dollars could be matched and there would be more accountability. Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood only federal dollars were used for the college students who participated in the program.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the NDE budget hearings and indicated that Budget Account 2679, GEAR UP, would be held until the next meeting of the Subcommittee on May 8, 2003.
DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT
WORK SESSION
FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN
Ms. Braun said the Governor’s intent was to implement full-day kindergarten in approximately 30 percent of the schools during the 2003-2005 biennium and increase the percentage of full-day programs in future biennia until statewide full-day kindergarten was achieved. During the March 28, 2003 hearing, the Subcommittee appeared to reach agreement in the following areas:
Because of the current financial situation, Senator Rawson indicated his preference for the pilot program for kindergarten included in the iNVest proposal, which was a comprehensive plan. Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed with Senator Rawson and noted full-day kindergarten was necessary, particularly for at-risk students.
Senator Raggio was not certain it was wise to implement any type of full-day kindergarten program at this time. He suggested placing the kindergarten pilot program on the Subcommittee’s priority list.
Assemblyman Hettrick supported Senator Raggio’s position to not fund full-day kindergarten at the present time due to the current fiscal situation.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the Senate and the Assembly would be voting separately on the issue of full-day kindergarten.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO EXCLUDE IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE SENATE PASSED THE MOTION WITH SENATOR MATHEWS VOTING NO.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO INCLUDE THE PILOT FOR FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN UTILIZING THE COMPETITIVE STATE GRANT MODEL.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE ASSEMBLY PASSED THE MOTION WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK VOTING NO. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
Senator Rawson asked if the Assembly motion excluded the cost of portable classrooms for kindergarten, and Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered affirmatively.
Senator Raggio clarified that the Senate motion would include full-day kindergarten on the Senate’s priority list.
CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION
Mr. Atkinson said The Executive Budget included $108.7 million in the first year of the biennium and $114.7 million in the second year of the biennium to continue the Class-size Reduction (CSR) program; the amounts would continue the current pupil-teacher ratios of 16:1 in grades 1 and 2; 19:1 in grade 3; and 23.5 at-risk kindergarten positions. During the March 28, 2003, meeting the Subcommittee appeared to be in agreement that the 23.5 positions could not be placed in schools that had a ratio below 15:1 or in schools having a poverty level below 50 percent. Mr. Atkinson said a number of options had been discussed, including:
Senator Raggio felt the funding recommended by the Governor for the CSR program was worthwhile.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ADOPT A CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION PLAN TO REQUIRE A PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO OF 22:1 IN GRADES 1-5, ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR RURAL COUNTIES.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Assembly would continue to discuss the CSR issue and thought there would be a separate decision. She appreciated the fact that Senator Raggio was committed to the CSR program. The Chair recognized the law required a pupil-teacher ratio of 15:1 and that had never been funded by the Legislature. She thought the Assembly would like to add kindergarten class‑size reduction in the second year with a ratio of 16:1, maintain the 16:1 ratio in grades 1 and 2, and the 19:1 in grade 3.
THE SENATE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO ADD KINDERGARTEN TO THE CLASS‑SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM WITH A PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO OF 16:1, AND TO MAINTAIN THE 16:1 RATIO IN GRADES 1 AND 2, AND THE 19:1 RATIO IN GRADE 3.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE ASSEMBLY MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK VOTING NO. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
Senator Rawson asked LCB staff to clarify the financial differences between the two motions. Mr. Atkinson said he would provide the requested information to the Subcommittee.
GIFTED AND TALENTED SPECIAL EDUCATION UNITS
Mr. Atkinson said during the prior work session, the Subcommittee discussed the number of special education units listed as a line item in the Distributive School Account budget for gifted and talented programs versus the number of regular special education units that funded gifted and talented programs. The members had indicated some desire to have the gifted and talented line item reflect the actual number of gifted and talented programs funded through the DSA. Mr. Atkinson noted, based on information provided by the NDE, 22.5 units of the 2,402 special education units funded for FY2002 were utilized for gifted and talented programs. Including an additional 22.5 units in the gifted and talented line item would be a reallocation of funding and would not change the total funding amount included in the DSA budget for special education units.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INCLUDE THE 22.5 GIFTED AND TALENTED UNITS IN THE SEPARATE GIFTED AND TALENTED LINE ITEM.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Douglas Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and Fiscal Services, Department of Education, explained that currently school districts made the determination on how the number of special education units would be utilized. Including the 22.5 units as a separate line item would require the NDE having to allocate those units for gifted and talented programs. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she thought it was important that gifted and talented units have a separate line item in the DSA budget.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons and Mr. Goldwater were not present to vote.)
********
STIPENDS AND BONUSES FOR SELECTED EDUCATION PERSONNEL
Ms. Braun said there were three stipend and bonus programs recommended in The Executive Budget:
Ms. Braun said during the March 28, 2003, hearing, the Subcommittee appeared to express support for eligible personnel to receive any and all bonuses, but a final determination was needed. The members should also address the need to establish stipend eligibility requirements.
Ms. Braun said the Subcommittee had expressed interest in not identifying eligible high impact positions but rather to provide some flexibility for the local school districts to determine which positions qualified.
Ms. Braun was concerned the FY2005 appropriation for the at-risk schools stipend was inadequate since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act could result in a large number of schools being identified as demonstrating need for improvement. The NDE estimated the number of schools needing improvement would be:
Ms. Braun explained the Subcommittee had discussed two options in the prior meeting, but had not specifically endorsed either option:
· Option 1—A pilot program included in S.B. 191 would provide $705,000 for bonuses for a maximum of four schools. The amount of the bonus would be $6,000 for a principal, $6,000 for a vice principal, up to $3,000 for each teacher, and $1,000 for unlicensed instructional support.
· Option 2—The NDE recommended identification of 12 schools and 57 staff for a total of 684 stipends at a cost of $1.4 million in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium.
Ms. Braun said there was a third option the Subcommittee might want to consider, which would be a fixed appropriation. If the amount was insufficient to provide a stipend of $2,000 to each eligible position, the NDE could adjust the stipend to an amount that would result in all eligible positions receiving a stipend.
Ms. Braun referred to the teacher signing bonus included in BA 2699, Other State Education Programs, and said during the March 28, 2003, hearing the members did not appear to specifically endorse the continuation of the program. She reminded the Subcommittee that BA 2699, Other State Education Programs, was scheduled for closure on May 8, 2003.
SENATOR RAGGIO RECOMMENDED THAT ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL RECEIVE ANY AND ALL STIPENDS AND BONUSES. THE CRITERIA FOR THE HIGH IMPACT POSITIONS FOR TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS IN AT-RISK SCHOOLS WOULD BE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF TWO YEARS COMMITMENT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE STIPEND. SENATOR RAGGIO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET OF $8.5 MILLION IN FY2004 AND $8.8 MILLION IN FY2005 FOR THE HIGH IMPACT POSITION STIPEND. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUNDING ANNUALLY BASED UPON NEED. THE STIPEND WOULD BE UP TO $3,000 IN THOSE IDENTIFIED POSITIONS AND COULD BE REDUCED TO CONFORM TO THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION.
SENATOR RAGGIO ALSO RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZATION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF $7.7 MILLION IN FY2004 AND $8.0 MILLION IN FY2005 FOR THE AT-RISK SCHOOLS BONUS PROGRAM INCLUDED IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET. IF THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE UP TO $2,000 FOR EACH ELIGIBLE POSITION, THAT AMOUNT COULD ALSO BE REDUCED TO CONFORM TO THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Mathews emphasized her dislike of bonuses and stipends. Not receiving a bonus or stipend severely affected morale. Senator Mathews indicated she could accept the teacher signing bonuses because the intent was to attract new teachers and was a one-time only bonus.
Mr. Hettrick said he understood the intent, but said teachers from his school district had indicated their opposition to the stipends. Mr. Hettrick did not think he could support stipends, but could support the signing bonuses.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she did not think any of the members questioned the intent of the stipends and recognized Senator Raggio’s recommendation was intended to attract and retain veteran teachers in the at-risk schools. However, team effort was the key to success in a school. The Subcommittee needed to discuss what would really attract and retain teachers at a school campus, especially an at-risk campus. The Chair said the Assembly had a bill that provided a retirement service credit, which was more economical, was a better value for the teacher, and would have more of a retention component.
Senator Raggio said he and Chairwoman Giunchigliani must have been listening to different teachers. The Legislative Committee on Education had received a great deal of testimony on the issue, and consistently there was a recognition that incentives were needed, particularly in mathematics, science, and special education. Senator Raggio recognized that high quality teachers were not willing to stay in at-risk schools and were opting out, and less qualified teachers were moving into the at-risk schools. There was a need to retain the higher quality, more experienced teachers in the at-risk schools. Senator Raggio said the teachers he had talked with supported the stipends. He observed that only in education was there no place for rewards or recognition that somebody was in a more difficult situation or a more demanding position. Senator Raggio said the stipends were separate and apart from any possible salary increases for teachers.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said, as a special education teacher and a teacher in an at-risk school for 23 years, her concerns had never been heard. She did not think throwing a stipend at a teacher was the proper incentive. The Subcommittee needed to determine what type of incentive was needed to recruit and maintain teachers in at-risk schools.
Assemblyman Goldwater asked if a stipend would result in a teacher receiving additional PERS credit and all the other credits. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered in the negative.
Barbara Surette, representing the Washoe Education Association (WEA) and the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), said she was a fifth grade teacher in Washoe County School District and would be discussing the incentive issue. From a veteran teacher’s perspective, initially $2,000 might look appealing, however the 1/5 PERS service credit would seem more appealing to both the state and the teacher. Ms. Surette said she had been teaching for 13 years and was nationally board certified. Ms. Surette said she held a master’s degree, was experienced in the classroom, participated in fund raising, participated in school district activities, piloted parent programs, worked with the Hungry Valley Colony instituting an after-school program, and worked with Partners in Education. Ms. Surette felt the experience she brought to an at-risk school was extensive. Her experience had been gained through years of experience in the educational field. Usually there was a revolving door syndrome in at-risk schools. The new teachers needed experienced teachers to act as mentors. Ms. Surette said she was able to stay up on current pedagogy. Ms. Surette indicated a bonus was okay, but said she could teach a Chapman University class within Washoe County School District one time a year, recruit 30 teachers that needed credits, and earn $2,000.
Senator Raggio asked if Ms. Surette felt the bonus she received upon becoming nationally board certified was justified. Senator Raggio thought Ms. Surette had made the case that it was tougher in the at-risk schools and there was a need for more qualified teachers in the at-risk schools. Senator Raggio thought he and Ms. Surette were discussing the same thing. Ms. Surette agreed, but reiterated she would prefer a PERS credit to a stipend. Senator Raggio said there was a certain segment that thought mediocrity should be rewarded, everybody ought to be considered a unit, and nobody in the teaching profession was an individual. Senator Raggio emphasized there were exceptional teachers and there were some that needed improvement, as in other professions. Certainly the base salaries should be improved, but Senator Raggio supported rewarding people like Ms. Surette and other teachers willing to stay in at-risk schools.
Ms. Surette said she agreed with Senator Mathew’s position on the bonuses, and indicated when she became National Board certified she had felt pressure from her peers.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she did not believe anyone disagreed it was time to move beyond what had been done in the past and said one recommendation that would be discussed was for the teacher organizations to bargain performance based, skills based, mentoring, and career ladders. She thought the members needed to determine what was the best retention tool.
Tierney Cahill, representing the WEA and the NSEA, said she was a sixth grade math and social studies teacher at Sarah Winnemucca Elementary School in Reno. She noted the school had an active Parent Teacher Association (PTA) that raised $70,000 in 2002, which enabled the school to purchase a new computer lab. Parent participation in the school was high. Winnemucca Elementary rated high in numerous areas and had been rated as an exemplary school. Ms. Cahill listed the numerous personal recognitions she had received as a teacher. She had received many requests to move to at-risk schools, but acknowledged it would be difficult to move to another school. Ms. Cahill said it would take something very significant to entice her to leave Winnemucca Elementary. Ms. Cahill said a 1/5 service credit with PERS would represent a more significant incentive in recruiting and retaining teachers with at least five years of experience to Title I schools, and schools designated as needing improvement. Ms. Cahill said a $2,000 bonus would not be as significant to a teacher “like myself” as a 1/5 service credit with PERS.
Senator Raggio noted his daughter taught at a school that had very little parental involvement and parental involvement was most important. Ms. Cahill agreed with Senator Raggio.
Senator Cegavske thanked Ms. Surette and Ms. Cahill for their presentations and asked them for input on performance pay. Senator Cegavske said in her visits to schools throughout the years the things she had heard from teachers the most was the fact that a teacher down the hall, who did not put in the effort and did not do the job adequately, was receiving the same pay and same pay raises. Some teachers had gone beyond, received different certifications, different degrees, and such. Senator Cegavske thought exemplary teachers deserved something more than the person merely punching the time clock and collecting a paycheck. Senator Cegavske thought everybody should have performance indicators and the pay should be commensurate.
Ms. Cahill thought performance pay was extremely subjective and did not result in team building. Ms. Cahill said she did not know of anyone in Sarah Winnemucca Elementary School that did not “pull their weight.” The teachers arrived at school early and often left late in the afternoon and often worked on weekends. She felt it was unfair to reward “us for our students’ blessings that they come from home with.” Ms. Cahill thought there would be more flight from at-risk schools if teachers were segregated in “that way.”
Senator Cegavske noted students in at-risk schools having outstanding teachers did perform better.
Ms. Surette also thought performance pay was subjective. She indicated there were performance opportunities for teachers through national boards. Ms. Surette thought performance issues were addressed by administration.
Senator Rawson asked about the cost of a stipend or bonus versus a 1/5 PERS service credit. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said for the 58 schools projected in the first year of the biennium, the cost would be $2.7 million, and for the 150 schools recommended in FY2005, the cost would be $7.1 million. The service credit was a better value for the teacher and saved the state funding in the long run.
Senator Raggio said it was most important to know the continuing costs for the PERS service credit, and the Chair agreed.
Mary Ella Holloway, President, Clark County Education Association (CCEA), said she wanted to testify in defense of the teachers in at-risk schools. Ms. Holloway had taught at Jim Bridger Middle School, an at-risk school, in North Las Vegas for 20 years. The school had an outstanding faculty, many of whom were first or second year teachers. She acknowledged many of the teachers did not remain in the school, but the teachers were good teachers. Usually teachers left the school in order to be closer to home, but the predominant reason for leaving an at-risk school was due to poor administrators. Teachers would stay in an at-risk school if they had good administrators. Ms. Holloway was not certain stipends would keep teachers in a school. She noted the stipends for mathematics and science were based on the subject and did not reward teaching excellence.
Senator Raggio said the stipend was not a question of performance, but was an incentive for people who were qualified. Ms. Holloway thought raising the salaries for all teachers was a better way to go. Senator Raggio did not disagree, but said the bonus was a special recognition or incentive in those areas. Ms. Holloway agreed with Senator Mathews and said when you have a school with mathematics and science teachers who are receiving more money than the reading and English teachers, who are teaching the same children with the same problems, it would create animosity and hard feelings.
Senator Raggio said there had been a motion and a second and he restated the motion at the request of the Chair.
THE MOTION PASSED THE SENATE WITH SENATOR MATHEWS VOTING NO.
********
Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested reviewing all three stipend and bonus programs. Based upon testimony, and being a veteran at-risk teacher, the Chair strongly recommended consideration of the 1/5 PERS service credit, which was less expensive and would be a greater value for veteran and new teachers and would maintain the team approach on a campus. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested setting aside a pool of dollars of $18 million over the biennium for the local districts and teachers’ associations to bargain the skills based pay, the career ladder pay, and such, based on the districts’ intent, rather than being dictated to by the Legislature. That would be a parallel schedule with the teachers participating as equal partners in the decision. Any remaining funds would be added to trying to get to the impetus of a $30,000 beginning salary schedule.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE STIPENDS AND BONUSES PRESENTED BY CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Leslie thought the 1/5 retirement credit was a creative response to the need to retain high quality teachers in the at-risk schools. She asked if the pool of dollars was similar to what had been done in the Douglas County School District. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered affirmatively, and said the NDE would allocate the funding.
THE MOTION PASSED THE ASSEMBLY. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present to vote.
********
Senator Rawson thought the Subcommittee needed to make a decision on the recommended salary increase for National Board certified school counselors and school psychologists. He asked Subcommittee staff to explain the options.
Ms. Braun said during the hearing on March 28, 2003, the Subcommittee had discussed an option that would defer consideration of the salary increase until the 2005-2007 biennium. However, after discussion the Subcommittee appeared to support the Governor’s recommendation, which provided $285,460 in FY2005 to support a 5 percent salary increase for all school counselors and school psychologists holding national certification. In response to a question raised by the Chair, Ms. Braun said she believed the 5 percent salary increase would be provided each year.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE 5 PERCENT SALARY INCREASE FOR SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS HOLDING NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present to vote.)
********
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Ms. Braun said for the 2003-2005 biennium, the Governor recommended $2.9 million in each fiscal year for early childhood education programs. Funding of $2.6 million was contained in Budget Account 2610 and $301,000 was included in Budget Account 2699 to fund the Classroom on Wheels (COW) program. During the hearing on March 28, 2003, the Subcommittee discussed including funding for the COW program within the DSA budget for early childhood education programs. Ms. Braun said in doing so, the COW program would be subject to all requirements made of other state-funded early childhood education programs, including evaluation requirements. A.B. 377, as introduced in the 2003 Legislative Session, would appropriate $100,000 from the General Fund to the COW program for the purchase of two buses to provide mobile school services for homeless children in Clark County. Ms. Braun said during the hearing on March 28, 2003, the Subcommittee appeared to be in agreement that the $301,000 recommended for the COW program should be reduced by $100,000 if A.B. 377 was passed by the 2003 Legislature. The Subcommittee also appeared to be in agreement that longitudinal evaluation studies should be required of all state-funded early childhood education programs.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INCLUDE THE CLASSROOM ON WHEELS PROGRAM IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT AND REQUIRE LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION STUDIES.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
In response to a question posed by Senator Cegavske, Ms. Braun said annual reports were prepared on the COW program and Subcommittee staff had access to those reports. However, actual accountability information showing the effectiveness of the program had not been built into the annual reports. Ms. Braun explained that including the COW program with the other early childhood education programs and including the longitudinal evaluation would provide the needed information.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present to vote.)
********
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Braun said the Governor recommended funding of $10.5 million in FY2004 and $10.8 million in FY2005 for the Regional Professional Development Programs (RPDPs), the Nevada Early Literacy Intervention Program (NELIP), and Project LEAD (Leadership in Educational Administration Development). During the hearing on March 28, 2003, the Subcommittee considered combining the RPDPs and the NELIP program for a savings to the General Fund of $1.6 million over the 2003-2005 biennium. The Subcommittee discussed that since the Reading First Grant under the No Child Left Behind Act and part of the services under the RPDPs already required training for K-3 teachers in how to teach reading to children, that the RPDPs were to consider further reducing recommended funding in order to eliminate any duplicated funding among the RPDP, NELIP, and Reading First programs. Ms. Braun said Subcommittee staff met with the RPDP coordinators for all four regions, and all of the coordinators were in agreement there could be a reduction of funding in FY2004 of approximately $1.4 million and $1.7 million in FY2005. The total savings to the General Fund was approximately $3.1 million over the biennium. Ms. Braun said the Subcommittee had also considered inclusion of services provided by Project LEAD under the umbrella of the RPDPs and the coordinators were supportive of the change. The RPDP coordinators had requested that $80,000 be evenly split across the four regions in each fiscal year of the 2003‑2005 biennium.
Senator Raggio thought the suggestions made by Subcommittee staff were excellent.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ADOPT THE CHANGES TO THE REGIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, THE NEVADA EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION PROGRAM, AND PROJECT LEAD, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, RESULTING IN AN APPROXIMATE SAVINGS OF $3.1 MILLION OVER THE BIENNIUM.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mrs. Gibbons was not present to vote.)
********
REMEDIATION
Ms. Braun stated that for the 2003-2005 biennium the Governor recommended funding $12.7 million for remedial programs for low-performing schools designated as needing improvement and before/after/summer/intersession programs for at-risk pupils. During the March 28, 2003, hearing the Subcommittee appeared to support the Governor’s recommended funding of $5.2 million in FY2004 and $5.5 million in FY2005 to continue remediation funds for low performing schools. However, the Subcommittee requested there be additional discussion on the $1 million recommended for each year of biennium for before/after/summer/intersession programs to determine the best provider of services.
Ms. Braun presented an option to be considered for the after-school funds. The No Child Left Behind Act required that supplemental services be provided to pupils in Title I schools identified as demonstrating need for improvement for two or more consecutive years and federal Title I funding was provided for those students. Supplemental services were defined by the U.S. Department of Education as research-based services that provided extra help to pupils in reading, language arts, and mathematics before or after school and on weekends. Ms. Braun said because federal funds for supplemental services could not be utilized to provide such services to non-Title I schools, the Subcommittee might wish to direct the NDE to allocate the $1 million in state funds in each year of the biennium to provide supplemental services to pupils from non-Title I schools that had been designated as demonstrating need for improvement for two or more consecutive years.
Senator Raggio said there had been some question if the funding had been properly utilized in the past.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION OF THE FUNDING TO CONTINUE REMEDIATION FOR THE LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS; THE FUNDING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR USE IN EITHER YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM. THE $1 MILLION RECOMMENDED IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM FOR THE BEFORE, AFTER, SUMMER, AND INTERSESSION PROGRAMS WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PURPOSES AS IDENTIFIED FOR NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS AND THE FUNDING SHOULD BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SUPPLANT.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Cegavske asked for clarification on the different remediation programs. Ms. Braun said there were two lists of effective remedial programs. The list for low performing schools included 40 in-school programs. The $1 million for before and after school programs had never been tied to any list in the past and included areas such as tutoring for supplemental services; anyone that provided tutoring services could participate in the bid process. However, the tutoring services must be research based as defined by the federal government.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PERS COSTS
Mr. Atkinson said The Executive Budget recommended an increase of 1.5 percentage points in the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) contribution for all public employees. The DSA budget included one-half of this PERS increase paid by the employee and one-half paid by the employer. Subsequent to The Executive Budget, Budget Modification 11 was received that would provide approximately $10 million in each year of the biennium to cover the entire PERS increase for the K-12 employees only. The modification would fund the entire increase through the DSA, without reduction of the employees’ salaries. The Subcommittee had requested information on the cost to fund the total PERS increase for all employee groups. Staff said the cost of a .75 percent pay increase would be approximately $19.3 million for FY2004 and $19.8 million for FY2005.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO KEEP THE PERS CONTRIBUTIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT METHOD USED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES AND THAT WOULD NOT BE ADDING FUNDING TO COVER THE ENTIRE PERS INCREASE FOR K-12 EMPLOYEES.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Governor recommended the budget amendment to cover the cost for the PERS increase. She felt the Subcommittee had discussed increasing the 2 percent salary increase to 2.75 percent, and then the employee had to pay their portion of the PERS increase.
Mr. Hettrick did not think the state was covering the cost of the PERS contribution for any other state employees.
Senator Rawson said he had misunderstood the PERS contribution issue and thought the contribution should be handled the same for all employees. The salary issue could be addressed in a future hearing. Senator Rawson thought the budget had been amended because of promises the Governor had made, which should be honored by the Subcommittee.
Senator Mathews said her second to Senator Rawson’s motion was that the PERS contribution be handled the same for all employees.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked how the $10 million included in the budget amendment would be allocated. She felt that during the last meeting of the Subcommittee there had been a recommendation to put the $10 million into the salaries.
Senator Mathews said she understood from Subcommittee staff that the $10 million per year was not included in The Executive Budget.
Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, explained that the $20 million, $10 million in each year of the biennium, was an amendment to the budget and was not included in the original Governor’s recommended budget.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIRWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTING NO.
********
HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION
Mr. Atkinson said during the last work session there had been a great deal of discussion on the hold harmless provision. Since that session, A.B. 122 was passed by the Assembly and was currently in Senate Finance. If approved by the Legislature, effective July 1, 2004, A.B. 122 provided that school districts with declining enrollments that exceeded 5 percent would have a two-year hold harmless; districts with declining enrollments of less than 5 percent would have a one‑year hold harmless. The bill also removed the individual charter schools from the hold harmless provisions. Based on enrollment projections, the cost of hold harmless funding for charter schools in FY2004 under a two-year hold harmless would be approximately $680,000; under a one-year hold harmless, the cost would be approximately $530,000. In FY2005 under a two-year hold harmless, the cost would be approximately $725,000; under a one-year provision, the cost would be approximately $195,000.
Senator Rawson said the Senate was concerned with the impact of declining enrollments on rural districts. As an example, a mine closure might result in declining enrollments and the school district would receive hold harmless funding. That same district might continue to have declining enrollments the second year, but under the provisions of A.B. 122 the district would no longer be eligible for the hold harmless provision. Senator Rawson thought there needed to be an understanding of the difficulty facing the rural districts. He wondered if the Subcommittee could consider the two-year hold harmless since the FY2004 budget had already been prepared, and then establish a policy that in two years the hold harmless would revert to a one-year hold harmless provision allowing for some transition time within the rural school districts.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said A.B. 122 was different than what the Senate was proposing. Senator Rawson thought A.B. 122 would be a reasonable policy, but he reiterated the importance of a transition period. The Chair said the students leaving charter schools returned to public schools and she wondered why charter schools should receive hold harmless funding. Senator Rawson indicated the Senate was not pushing for the charter school aspect, but rather the rural school districts. Having to lay off teachers had a compounding effect on the economy in the rural counties. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the two-year hold harmless provision had not been included until the last biennium, and she felt the two-year provision had become an expectation.
Senator Raggio said he could not accept excluding the charter schools from the hold harmless provision. He thought the charter schools should at least be covered by the hold harmless provision for a minimum of one year since declining enrollments would also result in teachers being laid off. The Chair disagreed, but said the issue would be discussed when the motion was taken.
Charlotte Petersen, Superintendent, Humboldt County School District and Vice President of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, referred to a handout (Exhibit C) titled Nevada School District Applicability of “Hold Harmless” Provision—NRS 387.1233(2). Ms. Petersen said between FY1999 and FY2003 the Humboldt County School District had experienced an 18.3 percent decrease in enrollment and there was only one year that the school district would have qualified under the 5 percent rule. Ms. Petersen said the handout (Exhibit C), which used A.B. 122 assumptions, had been prepared by Gary Horton, Management Analyst III, Department of Education, and looked at enrollments, percent of change in enrollments, and the applicability of the hold harmless provision for each of Nevada’s 17 schools districts and charter schools. Using the Governor’s projected enrollments, in FY2005 none of the school districts or charter schools would have qualified for hold harmless under the 5 percent rule.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained that during the current meeting the Subcommittee would address whether to include funding in the DSA to cover the hold harmless provision. The Chair said the handout (Exhibit C) would be a good chart to present when A.B. 122 was scheduled in the Senate.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO NOT INCLUDE A SEPARATE LINE ITEM IN THE 2003-2005 DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION SINCE FUNDING HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PAST FOR THE PROVISION.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
$50 ADJUSTMENT FOR BOOKS, INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
AND HARDWARE
Mr. Atkinson said it was the Governor’s intent that the $50 adjustment for textbooks, instructional supplies, and hardware be a flat per pupil amount for each school district and not be added to the basic support amount, which was adjusted for wealth. During the last Subcommittee work session there had been discussion that the funding be used to supplement, not supplant, the funding provided through the basic support amounts. If the Subcommittee elected to fund the flat $50 per pupil amount, based on actual enrollment, the NDE indicated it would be beneficial to the Department to include the funding in BA 2699 in order to avoid complicating the basic support guarantee formula.
Mr. Goldwater asked if including the flat $50 per pupil in BA 2699 would lower the basic support per pupil amount. Mr. Atkinson explained that moving the $50 per pupil amount to BA 2699 would lower the basic support per pupil amount, however, total funding to the school districts would not be reduced. Mr. Thunder confirmed the aggregate basic support per pupil amount would be lowered by $50 per pupil, but there would be another category that would provide $50 per pupil for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware.
Senator Raggio thought moving the $50 flat amount to another budget account was a good idea, however, he wanted to make certain when Nevada was compared to other states in per pupil spending the $50 for textbooks was included. Mr. Thunder said all state and federal revenue received by the local school districts was included and identified as to the source of funding.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INCLUDE THE $50 ADJUSTMENT FOR TEXTBOOKS, INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES, AND INSTRUCTIONAL HARDWARE IN BUDGET ACCOUNT 2699, OTHER STATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON A FLAT PER PUPIL BASIS TO BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE THREE AREAS.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Goldwater appreciated the motion, but said a legislative audit found, even after collective bargaining, the funding the school districts expended for textbooks and materials through the basic support guarantee exceeded $50 per pupil. Mr. Goldwater was concerned with continuing to categorize items included in the basic support guarantee amounts.
Mr. Arberry was also concerned with the precedent of “fencing off” items and budgets and thought perhaps the Legislature was moving toward micromanaging the school districts.
Senator Rawson indicated he did not want to make “this” a continuous issue. He said there had been two other places where funding was allocated for textbooks, resulting in $111 or $115 per pupil, and the Legislature thought funding had been provided for textbooks. The Governor had placed the funding in specifically to deal with textbooks. Senator Rawson agreed the purpose of the Legislature was not to “fence everything off.”
Chairwoman Giunchigliani disagreed with moving the $50 adjustment for textbooks to BA 2699. She said “we have a collective bargaining law whether we like it or not in this state, and every time you fence something off we restrict the ability for the districts and their school boards to deal with their employees.” The Chair explained that the school boards had the ultimate responsibility for allocating the funding provided through the state. The legislative audit had revealed districts expended more than $100 on textbooks and supplies and teachers expended approximately $500 per teacher for supplies. Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that the issue of textbooks had quieted because many parents recognized their children also had technology tools. The Chair said she had not heard any recent testimony that textbooks were not available for the students.
Senator Raggio was astounded the Subcommittee was having the discussion on textbooks because the audit referenced by Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated that over a period of approximately 10 years the amount provided for textbooks and supplies was never exceeded and was bargained away. The Legislature was constantly pummeled by the public’s suggestions that not enough funding was provided for textbooks and supplies. Including the $50 adjustment in BA 2699, there would be over $23 million in FY2004 and over $24 million in FY2005 for textbooks. In FY2004 there would be $32 million for instructional supplies and over $33 million in FY2005. Senator Raggio did not see the harm in indicating the funds could only be used for textbooks and supplies, and if the districts elected to provide more funding for the areas that would be fine. Senator Raggio said the $50 adjustment should be used “for these purposes, and these purposes alone.”
Mr. Arberry reiterated that the Legislature was an elected body that should not micromanage. He wanted the school districts to have spending flexibility.
THE MOTION PASSED THE SENATE.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDED FUNDING FOR TEXTBOOKS, INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES, AND INSTRUCTIONAL HARDWARE, AND INCLUDE THE FUNDING WITHIN THE BASIC SUPPORT GUARANTEE AMOUNT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that the funding referenced in the motion would be used to supplement, not supplant, current dollars.
THE ASSEMBLY MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said no inflation was built into the Governor’s recommended budget for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware. The Chair had asked Subcommittee staff to provide information on the approximate cost of including a 2.5 percent inflationary cost for the three areas.
Mr. Atkinson said including 2.5 percent for inflation for the textbooks, library books, instructional supplies, and software line items would result in an additional $2.2 million in FY2004 and $3.4 million in FY2005.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she raised the issue of inflation because she did not know of any area that had not been affected by inflation; the Governor did not build in any inflationary costs except in the area of utilities. She felt it was ridiculous for the school districts to have to cover inflationary costs through their general fund budgets.
Senator Raggio said the rhetorical question would be “If you are not going to insist that the funds be used for the specific purposes, why build in an inflation factor.” Chairwoman Giunchigliani said, “We have always built in an inflation factor in the past, regardless of whether it was fenced off.”
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the Governor had included 10 percent in each year of the biennium for health insurance; however, the state health plan had increased 20 percent. The feedback received from the local school districts indicated the amount entered into for agreements for FY2003 was approximately 18 percent, leaving the districts with a shortfall. She asked that during the next hearing the Subcommittee discuss additional increases in the health care costs based on actual increases experienced by the local school districts. The Subcommittee had built the health insurance increases into the majority of other budgets, but had neglected the DSA.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani also wanted to discuss increasing the length of the school year. The iNVest plan requested the addition of five instructional days to the school year and five additional professional development days for teachers.
Senator Rawson thought the length of the school year needed to be increased by approximately 20 days, but recognized that was not practical to do all at once because of the costs. He suggested 10 days; 2 days for professional development and 8 days for instruction. He thought the costs would be approximately $100 million.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized a large number of requirements had been imposed on the schools without adding additional time. She thought the superintendents, through the iNVest plan, made a good case for lengthening the school year. The decision for the Subcommittee was how many days to add. The Chair thought the cost would be approximately $10 million for each additional day. She disclosed that increasing the length of the school day was cost prohibitive, around $3 million per minute.
Mr. Hettrick supported the concept of having a longer school year, and more professional development days, but was concerned with the costs. He suggested placing the two issues on a priority list to be considered when the tax issues were resolved.
Ms. Leslie agreed with Mr. Hettrick. She also wanted the Subcommittee to consider raising the beginning teacher salary to $30,000.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the Subcommittee would like LCB staff to provide the dollar amounts required for various scenarios for increasing the length of the school year. The members agreed.
The Chair addressed the issue of a policy statement on a beginning teacher salary schedule of $30,000; the districts would then bargain across that schedule so a false inequity would not be created. She noted Nevada was not competitive in the area of teacher salaries.
Mr. Arberry thought it was imperative to consider a beginning teacher salary of $30,000.
Ms. Leslie concurred with the position on the beginning teacher salary, and thought Washoe County School District had the lowest starting salary in the state. Ms. Leslie thought increasing the starting teacher salary was a beginning point for recruiting and training teachers.
Mrs. Gibbons also supported increasing the beginning teacher salaries, and asked what impact the increase would have on existing teachers.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED THAT THE ASSEMBLY RECOMMEND A POLICY STATEMENT OF A BEGINNING TEACHER SALARY OF $30,000, AND THEN COMMENSURATELY MOVE ACROSS THE SALARY SCHEDULE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Cegavske said there were always discussions on salaries and benefits, and adding benefits would almost result in a $30,000 beginning teacher salary. She was also concerned with teachers in the middle or toward the end of a career and the fact that retirement amounts might not be sufficient. Senator Cegavske noted the beginning salary amounts presented by the Nevada State Education Association were inconsistent with the amounts provided by other entities nationally.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested having the local school districts provide copies of their actual salary schedules. The schedules provided actual salaries, not benefits, from the beginning to the top step. Senator Cegavske asked why the benefits were not included. The Chair said she did not know many places that included the fringe benefits and acknowledged that argument had been presented in the past. In Modesto, California, the beginning teacher salary on the salary schedule without benefits was $42,000. Senator Cegavske suggested showing salaries with and without benefits.
Senator Rawson noted that adding 10 days to the school year, whatever combination, increased the beginning salary a few thousand dollars per year, which was helpful.
Senator Cegavske asked about the amount of the PERS contribution. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said when the PERS system was created, the public employees, teachers, police, and firemen, gave up 7.5 percent of their salary increase off the base in order to create the PERS system. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said, “There had long been an argument that if you are going to look at retirement you need to take into consideration the salary that they gave up off their base in order to create that pool.” The Chair said with the Governor’s increase, the PERS amount was probably about 18.75 percent.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt it was important to address the salary issues during the next hearing. The Governor had recommended a 2 percent salary increase in FY2004 with no increase in FY2005. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said if taxes were going to be increased, the funding might as well be placed in public education and she thought that was what the public wanted.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
James L. Hager, Ph.D., Superintendent, Washoe County School District, said given the lateness of the meeting, if there was any opportunity at the hearing on May 8, he would appreciate the opportunity of making his presentation to show what Washoe County School District was doing, as Clark County School District had done in a prior meeting.
Dr. Hager referred to the motion made by the Subcommittee to consolidate Project LEAD dollars into the RPDPs and the NELIP and said his comments were given not as a representative of the school district, but as a private individual. Dr. Hager said he had no concerns with the consolidation of the RPDPs and the NELIP, but he believed by disaggregating the $80,000 into four separate categories, the effectiveness of Project LEAD would be lost. Dr. Hager said, “It will be governed by a Project LEAD board that was already in operation with higher education and the school districts, and I think there is going to be some real conflicts.” The consolidation could literally destroy Project LEAD and its efficiencies statewide. Nevada was one of the only states in the nation that had maintained Project LEAD, and that was because of the Legislature’s generosity in funding the program. Dr. Hagar recognized the vote had been taken, but indicated he would have been remiss if he had not addressed the issue.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the intent was not to water down the Project LEAD funding and thought that was clear in the motion, but she would double check.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda J. Smith
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
__
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: