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 8, 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 8, 2003. Chairman Raymond D. Rawson 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
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Senator Rawson asked James L. Hager, Ph.D., Superintendent, Washoe County School District to come forward.
The Clark County School District had made a presentation to the Subcommittee in an earlier meeting, and Dr. Hager said he wanted to provide a similar presentation for the Washoe County School District (WCSD). In the interest of time, Dr. Hager indicated he would highlight areas of his presentation (Exhibit C). Over the years the WCSD had tried to raise the bar of student achievement and narrow the achievement gap, however, the District had experienced difficulty maintaining revenue sources equal to expenditures. Dr. Hager referred to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and said the WCSD was above the state and national average in measures of academic achievement. Based upon fall 2002 ITBS scores:
· Caughlin Ranch Elementary School and Elizabeth Lenz Elementary Schools were placed in the exemplary achievement category.
· Ten WCSD elementary schools, among thirteen statewide, were in the high achievement category—Jesse Beck, Brown, Roy Gomm, Huffaker, Ted Hunsberger, Rollan Melton, Pleasant Valley, Van Gorder, Verdi, and Jerry Whitehead.
· Two district schools, Echo Loder Elementary and Traner Middle School, were designated as needing improvement.
· Two charter schools, Mariposa Academy and Sierra Nevada Academy, were designated as needing improvement.
Dr. Hager noted the WCSD was well above the Nevada and national average for both the American College Testing (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The SAT score for the WCSD was 1,077; Nevada’s average composite was 1,027; the national average was 1,020. Dr. Hager emphasized the District had made a concerted effort to reduce the dropout rate and had made significant progress—the dropout rate for the 1998-1999 school year was 7.3 percent, and the rate had declined to 3.4 percent for the 2001‑2003 school year.
Senator Raggio said one major area of concern was the percentage of students going on to higher education. He indicated that prior to the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) of 1997, Nevada ranked approximately 38 percent against a high national average of students going on to college. Dr. Hager said 68 percent of the high school graduates in the WCSD attended college. Dr. Hager gave credit to the staff of the WCSD and the working relationship between the District and Truckee Meadows Community College and the University of Nevada, Reno.
Dr. Hager continued his presentation and said the WCSD was the largest school district in the United States that required all students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses to take the Advanced Placement examination. Out of 17,600 high schools in the nation, 5 WCSD high schools would soon be recognized by Jay Mathews, journalist for the Washington Post, for student achievement among America’s top high schools. Those schools were:
Dr. Hager quoted Jay Mathews who said, “People look at me oddly when I tell them Reno has one of the best school districts in the country.” Dr. Hager said the quote would be included in Newsweek magazine.
Dr. Hager referred to administrative efficiencies within the District:
Financial efficiencies included:
Facility Efficiencies:
· Utility performance contract—savings of $197,000.
Other areas covered by new efficiencies included water control, water conservation, buses fueled by compressed natural gas to reduce fuel emissions, and new computer diagnostic software for transportation maintenance.
Dr. Hager said in spite of all the reductions, the District had continued to balance the budget by reducing the ending fund balance. Some rating companies had indicated the low ending fund balance could have an impact on the District’s bond ratings.
Dr. Hager noted the student enrollment in the WCSD had increased from 43,715 in the fall of 1993 to 60,000 in the fall of 2002. The student enrollment was expected to increase by an additional 20,000 in the next ten years.
In the past three years, the WCSD had reduced costs by $13.8 million and eliminated 139.7 staff positions. Dr. Hager noted the cuts, by and large, had not affected the District’s teaching staff. Dr. Hager said in recent public meetings, parents had emphasized not wanting any existing programs cut.
Dr. Hager referred to school administration and said the District had 1 supervisor for every 23 employees. In public schools nationwide the average was 1 supervisor for every 12.8 employees and in public administration the national average was 1 supervisor for every 3.3 employees. He then referred to a chart (Exhibit C) comparing general administration within Nevada’s 17 school districts; Clark County School District and Washoe County School District were tied at 1.42 percent. He pointed out school district size had an impact on the percentages. Dr. Hager then reviewed statewide school administration and administrators’ salaries and benefits (Exhibit C).
Dr. Hager had been an active participate in the iNVest proposal, and he said the WCSD favored the recommendations included in the proposal. In conclusion, Dr. Hager said, “We do believe that WCSD, which is Washoe County School District, does mean ‘world class school district’ and we are committed to those high standards for all students.” He thanked the legislators for their hard work.
Senator Rawson thanked Dr. Hager for his presentation and complimented the teachers and administrators that brought national recognition to Nevada’s schools.
Ms. Leslie added her thanks and said she was pleased with the number of schools receiving national recognition. Ms. Leslie wanted to go on record that the specific cuts being made by the WCSD were based on the local school board’s decisions, not the Legislature.
Dr. Hager and Ms. Leslie both agreed it was important for the public to have a good understanding of the state’s fiscal situation and the responsibility of the school districts and the Legislature.
EDUCATION STATE PROGRAMS (101-2673)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-1
Bob Atkinson, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said Budget Account 2673 provided support for the State Board of Education, the administrative duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, management of the Department of Education, charter school administration, and other statewide school issues. There were two decision units that the Subcommittee needed to address:
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 2673 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Cegavske asked if there was information on the amount of funding required for the budgets that had been closed to date. Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said fiscal staff had no update on actions that had been taken during the current week. In the previous week there had been some savings accrued through some of the budget closings. As far as revenues to support actions that had been taken by the Legislature to date, fiscal staff was dependent upon the actions of the Legislature on the tax packages that would be reviewed and approved. Senator Cegavske thanked Mr. Ghiggeri and said she just wanted his comments on the record.
Senator Rawson said he was not reviewing and closing budgets with any idea that he would have to go back and open the budgets and cut funding.
Mr. Hettrick felt all of the budgets were being closed in good faith by all involved. However, he thought it was not forthright to close the budgets without any intention of revisiting the budgets once the funding amount was known. He said he could not in good faith say because a budget was closed that he would not consider returning to that budget to make adjustments if required because of a lack of funding.
Senator Raggio thought all of the members were “pretty much on the same page.” He thought insofar as the budgets that had been closed jointly, there was somewhat of a commitment from those who were participating in the process to work toward making certain the revenues were available, and he thought that was the goal of the Legislature. There were some issues that had not been closed and there was some question about a priority list and whether or not the funding would be available. The outcome depended upon the revenue and enhancement proposals adopted by the Legislature. Senator Raggio said, “I would hope that when we are closing jointly, that those are pretty much items we all feel we can commit to funding.”
Mr. Hettrick pointed out that being in the minority on one side and voting no on a significant number of budgets that were then approved over his no vote did not necessarily mean he supported the actions taken by the Assembly. He stated it was one thing being in the majority and another being in the minority.
Senator Raggio said he understood but did not think the final tax package should be based on minority or majority, or partisan or nonpartisan. All of the members would have to work together to do the correct thing.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed with Senator Raggio and said Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance were obligated to set programs and that was what the Subcommittee was attempting to do. The tax committees would have to do their job to provide funding for approved programs. Ms. Giunchigliani said:
Where we did not close similarly, it is all about compromise. We have to take a step somehow in order to be able to start reaching some conclusion. I do not think anybody on this Committee is not committed to education. I would want to note that for the record.
Ms. Giunchigliani commended the Governor for providing a budget to react to that at least anticipated some funding revenue for a variety of different programs.
THE MOTION PASSED (Mrs. Gibbons was not present to vote.)
********
OTHER STATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS (101-2699)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-12
Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said BA 2699 contained funding for the System for Accountability Information in Nevada (SAIN), Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program, Project GAIN (Geographic Alliance in Nevada), Project LEAD (Leadership in Educational Administration Development), and other programs. The Governor recommended eliminating $346,239 in each fiscal year of the 2003‑2005 biennium for Local Education Agency (LEA) Library Books, $300,000 in FY2004 for Public Broadcasting, and $50,000 in each fiscal year of the biennium for National Board Certification; the total amount recommended for deletion was slightly more than $1 million. Ms. Braun explained that the Budget Division had inadvertently placed all of the funds recommended for deletion in a Reserve for Reversion category instead of reducing the state General Fund amount. Therefore, all of the programs in BA 2699 that were recommended for deletion in The Executive Budget could be reinstated without requiring additional state General Fund dollars.
Ms. Braun said the Subcommittee needed to address the three programs the Governor’s budget recommended for deletion in BA 2699:
The next area to be addressed by the Subcommittee was the SAIN, previously known as the SMART system. The Executive Budget recommended state General Fund dollars in the amount of $1.4 million in each year of the 2003‑2005 biennium to support ongoing maintenance of the SAIN. During previous hearings the Subcommittee had expressed concern with the ongoing functionality of the SAIN and the extent to which the system could comply with the new requirements under the NCLB Act. In response to the concerns, the Subcommittee requested the NDE to work with LCB staff and legislators to determine the amount of funding needed to continue and upgrade the program. The NDE had submitted a revised budget of approximately $1.3 million in FY2004 and approximately $1.4 million in FY2005.
Ms. Braun said the money committees, in conjunction with closing BA 2699 for the 2001-2003 biennium, issued a Letter of Intent specifically instructing the Department that funding approved for hardware, software, and personnel costs to support the SMART system during the 2001-2003 biennium, should not be considered an ongoing, continuing responsibility of the state. Because of the Letter of Intent, the Subcommittee had options, which could be considered for reducing costs for supporting the SAIN program. The options included:
Ms. Braun said, if the budget was approved, the Subcommittee might wish to issue a Letter of Intent to the NDE requesting that the Department provide quarterly reports to the Interim Finance Committee during the 2003-05 interim on the status of the SAIN, including actual expenditures.
Ms. Braun said the other closing items included:
· Decision unit E-325, the new nationally certified school counselors and school psychologists program. The Executive Budget recommended funding of $285,460 in FY2005. The Subcommittee had approved the decision unit at the May 1, 2003, meeting.
· The Subcommittee approved the transfer of $80,000 in each fiscal year of the 2003-2005 biennium to continue the Project LEAD program. During the May 1, 2003, meeting, the Subcommittee approved the transfer of the funds to the Distributive School Account to be administered by the Regional Professional Development Programs (RPDPs); there would be no identity loss for the Project LEAD program.
· During the May 1, 2003, meeting, the Subcommittee approved the transfer of $301,000 in each fiscal year of the 2003-2005 biennium for the Classroom on Wheels (COW) program to the Distributive School Account under the Early Childhood Education programs. The Subcommittee had requested that the COW program participate in all of the evaluations required of other Early Childhood Education programs.
· During the May 1, 2003, Subcommittee hearing, the Senate voted to approve $5.0 million in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium to continue signing bonuses for teachers newly hired by school districts during the biennium; the Assembly voted to utilize the funding from this source, as well as two other stipend programs, the high impact and at‑risk stipends, to finance additional retirement credits for teachers in at-risk schools and to address the minimum teacher salary and skills‑based compensation.
Senator Rawson asked if there was any information on the analysis of adding the retirement credit approved by the Assembly. Ms. Braun thought the analysis would be provided during the presentation on Budget Account 2610, the Distributive School Account. Ms. Braun confirmed that the area of signing bonuses had been closed by the Senate and Assembly during the May 1, 2003, Subcommittee meeting. However, she indicated there would be further discussion.
Senator Raggio said the issue of signing bonuses had been discussed in reference to S.B. 191 and the Senate position had not changed at this point. However, the Senate was willing to review the signing bonus area to determine what the overall differential and long-term cost would be for retirement credits. At this point, there had been no change in the Senate position. The Senate had closed with the amount of funding recommended in The Executive Budget.
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, LCB, said the Senate approved the Governor’s recommendation for high impact and at-risk stipends. The Assembly closed by eliminating the $16 million recommended for stipends in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium and approved using the $16 million to fund a 1/5 PERS credit for teachers in at-risk schools, skill-based career ladder pay, and increasing the minimum teacher salary to $30,000.
Senator Mathews noted the Local Education Agency (LEA) Library Books program had no fiscal impact on the budget and she wanted to make certain the program was included in the motion.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the SAIN position would be Web-based. Jack McLaughlin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, answered affirmatively. Mr. McLaughlin then emphasized the Department was not responsible for and did not approve of the name “SAIN” for the new student record system.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 2699 TO INCLUDE THE LEA LIBRARY BOOKS PROGRAM, THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING PROGRAM, AND NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION FOR TEACHERS. DO NOT APPROVE FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND DISTRICT TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE SYSTEM FOR ACCOUNTABILITY INFORMATION IN NEVADA (SAIN). SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT INDICATING THE SAIN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIST OF SAIN CONTRACTORS AND HIGH-LEVEL DECISION MAKERS RATHER THAN THE LOCAL TECHNICAL POSITIONS. APPROVE THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMER POSITION FOR THE SAIN AND FUND THE POSITION WITH FEDERAL FUNDS. APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SAIN COMPONENTS AND FEDERAL AND OTHER FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE SAIN. APPROVE RECOMMENDED FUNDING FOR THE SAIN. MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE TO FUNDING FOR PROJECT LEAD TO MAKE CERTAIN THE $80,000 WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE FOUR RPDPs, BUT RATHER PROVIDED TO THE STATEWIDE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR THE RPDPs TO OPERATE A STATEWIDE PROGRAM. TRANSFER THE FUNDING FOR THE COW PROGRAM TO BUDGET ACCOUNT 2610, DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. McLaughlin respectfully requested that the funding for the SAIN program remain open. He said there was a misunderstanding of the ongoing costs. The Governor’s budget included $2.8 million, and the motion would approve $1.6 million. The majority of the cuts were in the area of technical assistance, which was required to implement the new database program. If not approved, the districts would have an unfunded mandate to implement S.B. 191, which made various changes governing education to facilitate implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). Mr. McLaughlin said the NDE wanted to fulfill the assurances made before the Senate Finance Committee related to the new database system.
Senator Rawson asked if Subcommittee staff had any comments related to Mr. McLaughlin’s concerns. Ms. Braun referred to the Letter of Intent issued by the 2001 Legislature which clearly indicated the funding provided for the SMART program to cover hardware, software, and personnel costs should not be considered ongoing. In reviewing the information under the new guidelines of the NCLB Act and the need for the system to become Web-based, LCB staff had worked with the legislators and the Department and, based upon those discussions, it appeared that the funding request submitted by the Department was high. Having the Department report to the IFC quarterly on the SAIN should provide better information on actual expenditures and the future direction of the SAIN and would also provide a more accurate funding base.
Senator Rawson asked if the Interim Finance Committee would have authority to supplement the SAIN if necessary.
Mr. McLaughlin said the NDE did not believe technical assistance for the SAIN was in conflict with the Letter of Intent issued by the 2001 Legislature. The 2005 Legislature would address the ongoing costs related to the SAIN. Mr. McLaughlin did not think the Legislature intended to implement a system and then not maintain the system. Mr. McLaughlin said he was trying to retain the district‑level positions. The NDE technical support could be funded through federal NCLBA funds, however, Mr. McLaughlin did not think the local school districts had any local money to fund the district-level positions.
Senator Rawson asked if the positions could be funded through another area if BA 2699 was closed with staff recommendations. Ms. Braun answered affirmatively, and said the budget could be closed with staff recommendations and the Department could request a position under Budget Account 2713. The Department would need to be certain there were sufficient funds for the assessments, which was the purpose of Title VI under BA 2713.
Ms. Giunchigliani understood the main concerns of the Department were the NDE technical support and district technical support for the SAIN. She asked about the assurances that were signed before the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. McLaughlin said the assurances for the SAIN were signed in good faith and he indicated Senate Finance was working in that same vein to make the system work. Mr. McLaughlin said, “We all want to make it work.”
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for further information on BA 2713. Ms. Braun said BA 2713 contained state assessment grant funding, which would be discussed later in the meeting. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the NDE technical support and the district technical support for the SAIN could be dealt with under BA 2713. She acknowledged that many people confused the SASIxp program with the SMART program. Ms. Giunchigliani said, “We cannot hamstring you and then not have you be successful and then beat you up, so I think we need to make sure that we are providing the proper revenue to be able to do the program.” Mr. McLaughlin indicated district technical support could not be addressed through BA 2713. Ms. Giunchigliani referred back to staff and asked if there was any way to fund the district technical support. Ms. Braun reiterated that her recommendation had been based upon the 2001 Letter of Intent that said the staff provision for the SMART system would be one-time in nature. She did not know of any other funding source for the district-level positions. Ms. Giunchigliani recognized the 2001 Legislative Letter of Intent addressed the SMART system, and she asked if a new Letter of Intent could be issued for implementation of the new SAIN indicating that the local consultants would be funded, but the districts would have to recognize the positions might not be funded in the future. Mr. McLaughlin again stated he did not believe providing funding for the district technical support conflicted with the 2001 Letter of Intent. He pointed out that The Executive Budget included funding for the district technical support.
Doug Thunder, Deputy Superintendent, Administrative and Fiscal Services, NDE, asked if it would be possible to leave the district technical support issue open so the Department could confirm the possibility of using federal money in order to avoid being left with something that would not be workable after the budget was closed.
Senator Rawson asked Mr. Thunder if there was another place to address the district technical support positions if BA 2699 was closed as recommended. Mr. Thunder said he had reviewed the remaining budgets and it appeared BA 2699 was the only budget, with the exception of the Distributive School Account (DSA), that had state funding. He said if BA 2699 was closed as recommended, it appeared any funding for the positions would have to be from federal or other sources.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she did not understand why the NDE technical support could be funded through NCLB funds and not the district technical support. Ms. Braun said that although the NDE technical support positions were located in the districts, the positions provided technical support directly to the Department, which the Department felt would meet the requirements for funding under Title VI. However, the district technical support positions did not provide technical support directly to the Department and therefore would not meet the eligibility requirements of Title VI.
Ms. Braun asked the Subcommittee to note during discussion of BA 2713 later in the meeting that the State Assessment funding was specifically to be used to assist the state in meeting the new assessment guidelines under the NCLB Act. The Department had requested several new positions to be funded with the grant funds.
Senator Cegavske recommended the Senate and Assembly members vote separately if change was contemplated for the SAIN positions.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the quarterly reports that the NDE would be submitting to the Interim Finance Committee on the status of the implementation of the SAIN. She suggested placing the funding included in The Executive Budget for the district technical support in reserve, and then allocate the funding for the positions if the Department provided sufficient justification.
Ms. Leslie agreed.
Mr. Ghiggeri said Ms. Giunchigliani’s suggestion was allowable.
Mr. McLaughlin asked if Ms. Giunchigliani was suggesting placing the $287,500 for each year of the 2003-2005 biennium in reserve. Ms. Giunchigliani answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Thunder asked what the mechanics would be in relationship to demonstrating need and reporting to the IFC. Ms. Giunchigliani thought there needed to be assurances that the positions were providing full-time local support for the SAIN program, if not, funding would not be provided.
Senator Raggio asked for additional information on the technical support positions currently in place.
Chet Curtis, Consultant, CELT Corporation, said at the present time one full time position was assigned to each of the 17 school districts for district technical support. During the 2003-2005 biennium, the funding would support one full time position for Clark and Washoe County School Districts and the remaining 15 school districts would each have .25 FTE. In response to a question asked by Senator Raggio on the use of the positions, Mr. Curtis said currently the positions were utilized full time for the student records system and would be fully utilized for the SAIN during the 2003‑2005 biennium. He said the 2001‑2003 expenditures were not ongoing, but were one-time expenditures used to manage the implementation of the enhancements to the SMART system.
Senator Raggio asked if the district technical support positions were under contract. Dr. Hager said the WCSD had one full-time position totally dedicated to the student records system. That position was working in the information technology department of the District and was funded through the NDE. Dr. Hager said if the NDE did not provide funding for the position, the District would either have to absorb the cost in order to retain the position to operate the SAIN or let the person go. Senator Raggio requested further clarification. Mr. Thunder said the district technical support positions were on the school district payroll using funds that flowed through the NDE. Senator Raggio asked why federal dollars were not available to fund the positions.
Mr. McLaughlin emphasized the districts did not have funding available to support the positions. Senator Raggio noted the funding for the positions was provided by the NDE and asked if funding from BA 2713 could be used to fund the positions. Mr. McLaughlin said the NDE would fund the positions housed in the NDE. He said there were two mandates, full implementation of the statewide database and district implementation of their individual school databases.
Paul LaMarca, Director, Standards, Curricula and Assessment, Nevada Department of Education, said funding included in Budget Account 2713 had to be used in support of the assessment system and the accountability system, so there was a link to the SAIN, but it was a minor link. Certain parts of the SAIN were related, but not the entire process. Mr. LaMarca thought it would be a “stretch” for the Department to justify funding the district-level positions from BA 2713.
Senator Raggio said his concern was if the individuals were in place, he did not think “the rug should be pulled out from under them.” Mr. LaMarca said it was a significant stretch to fund the district technical support positions through BA 2713. The problem was that there were a variety of other capacity issues that needed to be supported by funding from BA 2713. The Department did not have support teams and was requesting positions for support for schools identified as needing improvement. Mr. LaMarca indicated the Department would fund the positions if possible.
Senator Rawson said there had been a data requirement for some period of time and he thought the 2001 Legislative Session provided the one-shot funding to assist the districts in implementing the student data system. He noted all of the districts had worked on the data systems but were using differing data codes and methods. Senator Rawson acknowledged new requirements were being imposed on the districts through the NCLB Act and perhaps the transition process required a longer time period than what had been envisioned during the last legislative session. However, Senator Rawson thought the intent had always been that the positions would be the responsibility of the local school districts. Senator Rawson said, “It has been ten years that we have been developing the need for statewide data to come from the districts.” Senator Rawson said the decision on whether the districts or the Legislature would fund the district technical support positions was up to the Subcommittee.
Gloria Dopf, Deputy Assistant Director, NDE, said the issue of BA 2713 being utilized to build the state assessment and accountability system was a critical one. The money was targeted for the state development and support of the state system. Senator Rawson interjected that the Subcommittee also recognized there was probably not sufficient money to be able to “do all of this.” Ms. Dopf said the state could not afford to jeopardize compliance with the NCLB Act by improperly using the funding.
Senator Rawson said he thought the motion as presented would reserve the funding, which would be accessible through the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) if there was sufficient need demonstrated and that might mean there would be one quarter that the districts would have to cover the funding.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
PROFICIENCY TESTING (101-2697)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-25
Ms. Braun said the one closing issue for BA 2697 was the budget shortfall in the criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) program of $500,000 in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium. The Executive Budget recommended $860,731 in each fiscal year for the CRT program. Information received in February 2003 from the NDE noted that the CRT budget was short by $500,000 in each fiscal year. On April 1, 2003, an amendment was received from the Budget Division that confirmed there was a shortfall. The actual shortfall for the CRT program was due to funding not being included in the Governor’s budget for the 8th grade CRT. The 8th grade CRT was approved for the first time by the 2001 Legislature through S.B. 13 at a cost of approximately $1.1 million over the biennium. In order to reduce the shortfall, the NDE reviewed the Governor’s recommended budget and found two areas of General Fund savings; the first area was in the norm‑referenced tests (NRT) budget of $49,179 in FY2004 and an additional $7,000 in FY2005. The savings were based upon updated information concerning student population growth, which was not available at the time the budget was generated. The second area was in the High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE) and the savings would be $286,984 in FY2004 and $230,983 in FY2005. The savings would occur only if legislation was passed during the current session that would delay the science portion of the HSPE. The 2001 Legislature delayed the science examination until FY2005. The NCLB Act delayed science being a part of the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures until FY2009. Ms. Braun said with the projected savings, the shortfall for BA 2697 would be $163,837 in FY2004 and $261,925 in FY2005.
Ms. Braun said the other closing items included:
Senator Raggio said the decision had been made to defer the science portion of the HSPE in order to be consistent with the NCLB Act. Under S.B. 191 the first class to take the science portion of the HSPE would be the graduating class of 2009.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani was concerned with the large volume of testing required of students. Senator Raggio indicated the 17 local school districts and the NDE had all provided assurances that passage of S.B. 191 would result in less testing.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
IMPROVING AMERICA’S SCHOOLS (101-2713)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-30
Ms. Braun said BA 2713 included:
The closing issue concerned the Title VI state assessment grant and several positions requested by the NDE. The Executive Budget included funding of $4.5 million in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium for the Title VI state assessment grant. The Title VI grant provided funding to cover the costs of development of additional state standards and assessments required by the NCLB Act. Once standards and assessments were developed, the federal funds could be used to administer the assessments or carry out other activities designed to hold school districts and schools accountable for results. Unlike the other NCLB grants, it was important to note the Title VI grant had no required pass-through funding for local school districts; all of the funding remained at the NDE. It was important that the funding be utilized as efficiently and effectively as possible. Ms. Braun said the NDE had submitted a budget for positions and other expenditures for the SAIN; however, the district-level SAIN positions discussed earlier in the meeting were not included.
Ms. Braun said in June 2002 the NDE had submitted a work program to the IFC requesting that approximately 10 percent of the grant be utilized for seven positions. The positions would be used to assist in carrying out the provisions of the NCLB Act. The IFC approved four of the seven positions:
The three positions the IFC did not approve were:
On April 1, 2003, the Fiscal Analysis Division received a budget amendment from the Budget Office for three new positions for BA 2713. The positions requested were:
Ms. Braun said there was a new budget request for a 1.0 FTE Computer Systems Programmer III that had been discussed previously. The position would be funded through BA 2713 in the amount of $56,390 in FY2004 and $58,997 in FY2005. State funds would be eliminated from BA 2673 and federal funds would be used for the programmer position. Other adjustments included adjustments for federal authority and replacement equipment.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the $4.4 million included in the closing document for the assessment grant funds for FY2004 was reflective of what was included in the elimination of the suggested positions. Ms. Braun said, “No, it is not, this is reflective of everything that the Department has requested.” Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the total dollar amount would be for the AYP consultant, the school improvement education consultant, and the program officer, if the Subcommittee approved staff recommendations. Ms. Braun said she thought approximately $150,000 would be eliminated by not approving the two positions and approving the school improvement position for FY2005. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if approving staff recommendations for BA 2713 would result in sufficient funding for the Department to fund the NDE technical support for the SAIN, but not enough funding for the district technical support. Ms. Braun said she believed that would be the case.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Cegavske asked for clarification on the school improvement education consultant position. Ms. Braun said in June of 2002 the Department received approval for one consultant for school improvement; the position had responsibility for the entire state. The Department also had a state-funded position under the Nevada Education Reform Act that was also a statewide position. Because of the large number of schools projected as being identified as needing improvement in the Clark County School District (CCSD) in FY2005, the school improvement position being requested under BA 2713 would be dedicated to the CCSD. Senator Cegavske asked why the school improvement education consultants currently employed by the CCSD could not be used to fill the need.
Ms. Dopf said the two school improvement consultants would not be adequate to fulfill the needs as the number of schools increased. The role of the state in the NCLB Act was to provide some very specific support and program review dealing with the assessment grant and providing the assessment grant funds in a way that the school districts could use the funds for school improvement purposes, which was not the function the school district served, but was a required function under the NCLB Act.
Senator Cegavske asked if the school improvement position would be based in Clark County. Ms. Dopf explained that the Department had an office in Las Vegas and Carson City. The Las Vegas staff consisted of two special education consultants and a state-funded cultural diversity consultant. In response to a question posed by Senator Cegavske, Ms. Dopf said because of the anticipated growth in the schools needing improvement in the CCSD, existing Las Vegas staff could not provide the required services.
Mr. Thunder said his observation was that the legislative staff viewed “it as a matter of waiting until all the need is there and pressing before additional staff is provided.” He thought the Department, knowing there would be additional requirements, would prefer to be ready to serve as the needs occurred.
Mr. LaMarca said all of the positions that had been requested, and the positions that had already been approved, were part of the consolidated application to the federal government, which had been approved. The federal government understood the positions were needed in order for the state to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act.
Ms. Giunchigliani said when the NDE appeared before the IFC, two FTE accountability and assessment consultant positions were approved. She asked what those two positions were for versus the current request.
Mr. LaMarca said at the IFC meeting an administrative assistant position was approved to help support staff in accountability and assessment; an assessment consultant having responsibility for CRTs and an accountability position having primary responsibility for AYP calculations. One school support position was also approved. Mr. LaMarca referred to the anticipated growth in the schools being identified as needing improvement. He said there were 13 consultants in the Department that had a portion of their time dedicated to school improvement, which was taking away from their other responsibilities. Mr. LaMarca emphasized that the positions were needed now, not two years from now.
Senator Rawson said out of the eight positions requested the Subcommittee would be approving six if the motion carried.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
IMPROVING AMERICA’S SCHOOLS – TITLE I (101-2712)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-66
Ms. Braun said BA 2712 provided federal assistance to improve instructional programs for the educationally disadvantaged students. The programs were directed toward schools with high concentrations of low-income families, large numbers of children from migratory workers, and educationally disadvantaged pupils. The closing issue in BA 2712 was a request for the transfer of a 1.0 FTE position from the federal Reading Excellence Act (REA) grant to the Reading First grant. The request was received on April 7, 2003, from the Department and requested:
Ms. Braun said the Reading First grant application had been approved and the state would receive approximately $4 million in each year of the 2003‑2005 biennium.
Ms. Braun said since the REA grant would expire in August 2004, the Subcommittee might wish to continue the 1.0 FTE contract position in the Las Vegas area through the University for the final year of the grant and then have the Department appear before the IFC to request that the full-time position be funded through the Reading First grant funds beginning September 1, 2004. Ms. Braun said the option seemed to be the most reasonable since only one year was remaining for the REA grant. She said the federal government recommended a smooth transition between the REA grant services and the new Reading First services. Ms. Braun said another option the Subcommittee had was to approve the Department’s request, which would allow the transition of the two programs to be much smoother. Other closing items included adjustments for federal authority, training, and replacement equipment. In closing, Ms. Braun noted a formal budget amendment had not been received from the Budget Office.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW FOR A SMOOTHER TRANSITION BETWEEN THE READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT AND THE READING FIRST PROGRAM AND TO INCLUDE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
NDE CONTINUING EDUCATION (101-2680)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-75
Mr. Atkinson said BA 2680 included funding for federal adult education programs. The state funded adult education program was included in the Distributive School Account (DSA) budget. Mr. Atkinson recommended the account be closed as adjusted.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 2680 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
NDE GEAR UP (101-2678)
BUDGET PAGE K12ED-82
Ms. Braun said the Subcommittee had reviewed the GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) budget in an earlier meeting and she referred to a memorandum that had been forwarded to the Subcommittee for review. During the May 1, 2003, meeting the Subcommittee did not close this budget but instead requested additional information concerning how the federal funds accessed by the NDE could be utilized more efficiently and effectively. The Department had indicated that the GEAR UP administered by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), might have developed a higher quality program that utilized the funds more effectively. Subcommittee staff had talked with staff at the NDE and the Center of Academic Achievement at UNLV and information was prepared that compared the two programs. Both programs had the same goal, to help more low-income students become prepared academically and financially to enter and succeed in college. The basic difference between the two programs was how the funds were administered for the provision of services to students. Because the NDE sub-granted the funds directly to the schools, there was less funding to assist students; a significant amount of the funding was utilized for staff at each school. The UNLV program maintained the GEAR UP funding in a central location and UNLV staff provided services to students.
Ms. Braun said the GEAR UP grant was awarded to the state of Nevada, and was not a direct award to the NDE. The Legislature could direct that the funds be administered by whatever entity they chose as long as the grant requirements were appropriately implemented. If state funding for the GEAR UP was directed through the UNLV Center for Academic Achievement, the UNLV staff recommended that the 3.0 FTE positions continue to be funded and located at the NDE. However, UNLV staff would like authority to change the duties of the positions to align with the Center’s structure for the GEAR UP. Services to Washoe County and Clark County would be provided through the UNLV central office. The NDE positions would take the lead role in providing services to the rural districts. All current relationships developed by the NDE for the state GEAR UP grant would remain fully intact.
A second option would be to continue administration of the state GEAR UP grant through the NDE and request, through a Letter of Intent, that the Department and the Center work together to develop a plan that would use the grant funds more efficiently and effectively. The Department would be required to submit a plan to the Interim Finance Committee by July 1, 2003.
Ms. Giunchigliani recognized the GEAR UP was necessary and said the issue of the differences between the UNLV GEAR UP and the Department’s GEAR UP was raised to address efficiencies to make certain more students could participate in the program. Ms. Giunchigliani said she preferred option 1.
Senator Raggio said his preference was to continue the GEAR UP within the NDE. He agreed with the need to have a plan in order to be assured the funding was used efficiently. Senator Raggio recognized all of the Subcommittee members were concerned with the efficiency of the program.
Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, NDE, said the Department preferred the second option. Dr. Rheault confirmed the funding was forwarded to the state of Nevada, but emphasized he had signed the grant which was approved; the NDE was the fiscal agent and would continue to have grant responsibility. The UNLV GEAR UP and the NDE GEAR UP had the same name and a similar goal but each program served different purposes. Dr. Rheault said the NDE would gladly cooperate and work with the State GEAR UP Council.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she would not make the GEAR UP “a hill to die for” but indicated she would “haunt” the NDE. She emphasized that she wanted the GEAR UP to provide services for children and was concerned that the grant, as written, was submitted in order to maintain three existing positions that were recommended for elimination. If the services were not provided, Ms. Giunchigliani said, “I will not let the issue go.”
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO SUPPORT OPTION TWO FOR THE GEAR UP GRANT.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson said the UNLV had indicated a willingness to work with the NDE and he thought option two was a workable option. He recognized there had been concerns with the GEAR UP.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT
WORK SESSION
Mr. Atkinson referred members to a briefing document, which was a summary of the decisions made by the Subcommittee during the May 1, 2003, meeting and additional items to be considered by the Subcommittee.
Inflation Costs for Textbooks, Instructional Supplies,
and Instructional Hardware
Mr. Atkinson said The Executive Budget included inflation costs only for utilities. Staff had been requested by the Subcommittee to provide information on inflation costs for all of the other operating items and then provide separate information on inflation costs for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware.
Senator Rawson asked how inflation had been treated in prior budgets. Mr. Atkinson said he would have to research the issue of inflation.
Ms. Giunchigliani said several of the members had been concerned that inflation costs had not been included at a minimum for textbooks, instructional supplies, and instructional hardware. She noted the costs were increasing and there needed to be recognition that the cost of a textbook was $50 or $60, and not having inflation costs built into the budget would result in another unfunded mandate. Ms. Giunchigliani stated there had been inconsistency in funding inflation costs in the past.
Mr. Hettrick asked if the suggestion was to include inflation costs in addition to the $50 set aside for textbooks, instructional supplies, and hardware. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the inflation costs be in addition to the $50. She thought the Governor had been very firm that he wanted the $50 to go for textbook purchases.
Senator Raggio did not think the Subcommittee could resolve the issue during the current meeting. The issue was whether the $50 would be specifically dedicated to textbooks. Senator Raggio said apparently there had been no agreement by the Assembly to limit the funding so it could not be used for bargaining. Mr. Goldwater felt inflation costs for textbooks clearly needed to be included in the budget.
Senator Rawson said he did not know if the Subcommittee was ready to respond to the inflation costs during the current meeting and suggested the issue be included on a list of unresolved issues.
Increase in Health Insurance Rates
Mr. Atkinson said currently health insurance was included in the Governor’s recommended budget, increasing at 10 percent per year. In the prior meeting, some members felt the 10 percent might not be sufficient. Mr. Atkinson referred members to the briefing document for additional information on increases in health insurance funding.
Mr. Thunder reminded the Subcommittee that the 10 percent increase in health insurance rates was an increase over the base year of FY2002. The 10 percent increase averaged a 5 percent increase for FY2003 and another 5 percent for FY2004.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the state health plan had definitely increased more than 10 percent; the increase was approximately 18 percent. She thought it would be irresponsible to not recognize that certain health costs were skyrocketing.
Senator Rawson said there was a bill that would create a study of all of the health plans. Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged she had submitted the bill referenced by Senator Rawson. She said the bill was intended to bring all of the public employee groups under one statewide health trust. However, in working with local governments, as well as police, fire, and teachers, there was an interest in including all the employee groups. The bill was in the Elections Committee and was one of the interim studies being considered.
Mr. Goldwater said, based on his professional experience, there was a tremendous inflationary factor in all health trusts. All of the 243 health trusts he had worked with were either at crises or soon to be in crises. Mr. Goldwater felt the Subcommittee had to either “trim the plan a little bit or fund this inflation.”
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for additional information on health care funding provided by the 2001 Legislature. Mr. Atkinson recalled there had been some one-shot funding appropriated for increases in health insurance costs that the districts had requested through the IFC process.
Senator Rawson said there had been a special one-shot appropriation of approximately $6 million in each year of the 2001-2003 biennium to keep the health insurance plan whole. He suggested that if the current Legislature did not address the health care issue, the issue would be before the next legislative session. Senator Rawson said, “In a way we are creating a hole.”
Senator Raggio said with the uncertainty of funding he did not think the members could make a responsible decision during the current meeting. The 10 percent enhancement included in The Executive Budget for health insurance was over and above what had been provided previously. Senator Raggio recalled that in the past, the health insurance rate increases were not funded. A special appropriation was provided with a cap. Senator Raggio did not think it would be prudent today to begin looking at something above what the Governor included in the budget. The 15 percent and 18 percent increases for health insurance rates were significant numbers; 15 percent would be in excess of $14 million and 18 percent would be in excess of $24 million.
Ms. Giunchigliani thought the Subcommittee needed to address the policy matter. She did not consider health insurance an enhancement to an employee and thought it was part of the Legislature’s responsibility and obligation.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the Assembly close with an additional 5 percent for health insurance funding in each year of the 2003-2005 biennium and then attempt to get better health cost projections in order to determine the impact.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO ADD 5 PERCENT IN EACH YEAR OF THE 2003-2005 BIENNIUM TO THE 10 PERCENT INCLUDED FOR HEALTH INSURANCE RATES IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE ASSEMBLY MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
Extending the School Year
Senator Rawson said he had wanted the length of the school year extended but in light of the funding issue, he suggested the extension be included on a priority list.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she and Senator Rawson had both supported increasing the length of the school year. She actually had introduced a bill to extend the school year by ten days; the bill had been amended to five days. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the Legislature had an obligation to the parents and students to extend the school year because of the additional standards that had been imposed on the schools over the last ten years. Both instructional time and professional development time needed to be increased. The Subcommittee had asked staff to prepare various scenarios related to the costs of professional development days and instructional days. The cost of additional professional development days would be somewhat less. Ms. Giunchigliani requested consideration of adding ten additional days to the school year be included on a priority list. She stated the increase in school days would build the salary schedule and would begin to address the beginning salary step. Ms. Giunchigliani noted teachers could not continue to be held accountable if there was not sufficient time to teach. Senator Rawson thought the Senate would continue to discuss the issue, but he said the revenue was a major issue.
Mrs. Gibbons asked what impact her not voting for the extended school year would have on increasing the starting teacher salary to $30,000, which she supported. Ms. Giunchigliani said, “It is and it isn’t.” By lengthening the year salary schedules were automatically affected.
Senator Rawson said adding the ten instructional days would be a 5 percent increase in salary; the salary package would be approximately 5 percent higher. Adding five days would be an approximate 2.5 percent increase.
Mr. Goldwater said he appreciated Senator Rawson being mindful of the revenue issues. Mr. Goldwater indicated the DSA was his priority and said, “Let’s do the DSA and regardless of what happens on the contingent revenue questions, then let’s move on and see where we need to cut.”
Senator Rawson asked if the figures presented by Subcommittee staff for lengthening the school year included operating costs. Ms. Braun said the figures included only the cost of salaries.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the Assembly include on their priority list the addition of three instructional days and two professional development days to the school year.
Senator Raggio thought it was desirable to have as much instructional time as possible, however, many in the public sector did not believe the current instructional time was used efficiently. He stated that funding the Governor’s budget would require over $1 billion additional revenue for the 2003‑2005 biennium and adding additional days to the school year could increase that amount by approximately $200 million. Senator Raggio emphasized he was not disagreeing with the comments, but he did think the Subcommittee needed to keep focused. He noted that the public still wanted accountability and wanted to know that the funding currently being spent was being spent in an acceptable fashion.
Mr. Arberry said the Legislature had reached a turning point with education and because the length of the school year had been 180 days for many years he felt it was important that the Legislature consider adding additional days to the school year. Mr. Arberry referred to Nevada’s national ranking of 47 in the area of public education and stressed the importance of the children having access to quality education.
Ms. Giunchigliani said the local school district superintendents had spent two years developing the iNVest plan, which included a proposal to add ten additional days to the length of the school year. She felt school district administration understood the needs of both students and faculty. Ms. Giunchigliani said the vast majority of calls and letters she had received supported increasing taxes and funding for education in order to change Nevada’s national ranking. Ms. Giunchigliani thought the Subcommittee would be neglectful if it did not at least deal with the policy. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested that the Assembly make a motion to accept the three additional instructional days with two additional professional development days in the second year of the biennium “for the purposes of putting it on a specialized list for dealing with funding of it.”
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI FOR THREE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL DAYS AND TWO ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAYS IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani restated the motion and said the motion included three school days with two professional days, “but to put it on the specialized list so that we have that for discussion purposes.” Senator Rawson stated there needed to be a notation that operating costs for the five additional days would be in addition to the projected costs included in the briefing document.
THE ASSEMBLY MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
Salary Increase
Mr. Atkinson reviewed the salary increase estimates of 3 percent, 4 percent, and 5 percent requested by the Subcommittee at the May 1, 2003, meeting. Based on a question asked by Senator Rawson, Mr. Atkinson explained that the 5 percent salary increase was over and above what was included in The Executive Budget.
Senator Cegavske asked if the salary increase estimates included benefits. Mr. Atkinson answered affirmatively.
Ms. Giunchigliani thought the issue of attracting and retaining teachers had to be addressed, and she indicated all public employees deserved a salary increase.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI RECOMMENDED A SALARY INCREASE OF 4 PERCENT IN FY2004 AND 4 PERCENT IN FY2005 FOR ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE ASSEMBLY MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK VOTING NO.
********
Senator Raggio said, for the benefit of individuals who might be listening to the hearing on the Internet, the motion was to increase salaries that would be over and above the 2 percent increase included in The Executive Budget. The cost of the action supported by the Assembly would be $75 million in FY2004 and approximately $160 million in FY2005 for a total increase over and above the Governor’s budgeted amount of $235 million.
Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to make it clear for the record that her motion for the 4 percent increase in FY2004 included the 2 percent salary increase included in The Executive Budget. The additional costs would be $37 million in FY2004 and that amount would be rolled up to 4 percent in FY2005.
Senator Raggio said he was not making light of the recommended salary increase and indicated he was just as committed to retaining teachers as anyone. He commented that Nevada still ranked very high nationwide in the average salary for teachers. However, he was concerned with the amount of funding that would be required for the recommended salary increase. Senator Rawson said the point was well taken. Based upon the clarification provided by Ms. Giunchigliani the salary increase included in the Assembly’s motion would be approximately $112 million over the biennium.
In response to a question posed by Senator Rawson, Mr. Atkinson said beginning teacher salaries varied from district to district.
Senator Cegavske said in addition to the salary information, she would like to have information on benefit costs.
Mr. Thunder said the average starting teacher salary that the budget was built on was $32,049. He referred to the individual district salary schedules and said the “starting steps” ranged from approximately $26,000 on up; a few districts were in excess of $35,000. The larger districts were all around $26,400 or $26,800.
Senator Rawson asked about the costs to increase the first step on the salary schedule for all districts. Mr. Thunder said there were a variety of ways to calculate the costs; one, which seemed grossly unfair, would be to make certain that every new teacher began at $30,000, without any other adjustment. The cost to move the teachers at the lowest level was an approximate 7 percent increase across the board, resulting in a cost of $81 million in FY2004.
Ms. Giunchigliani thought the salary issue was critical and emphasized Nevada did not have teacher salaries that were competitive. She did not think anyone wanted to build another false inequity into the schedule. Part of what the Assembly had closed was for the districts to bargain performance-based, skills‑based, and mentor-based pay, separate from the salary schedules. She recommended placing the salary issue on a list for discussion by both committees. Ms. Giunchigliani recognized the average starting salary was at $32,000, but “that is not the reality of what the starting is for the purposes of competition to recruit individuals into the state.”
Senator Cegavske requested a response to her question on the benefits furnished in addition to the salary amounts. Mr. Thunder said the average benefits statewide were 31 percent, or $9,300. The average statewide benefit amount included the full PERS contribution of 20.25 percent. Senator Cegavske noted adding the $9,300 to the salary amount was well over $30,000. She questioned the comparisons of Nevada’s average teacher salary to other states. Senator Cegavske said all of the reports she had received from the Education Commission of the States and other groups indicated Nevada ranked 27 in salaries, or up in the 20s, yet all she kept hearing in the meetings indicated Nevada ranked 45 or 47.
Senator Rawson asked Mr. Thunder if there was an “apples to apples” comparison of teacher salaries. Mr. Thunder said only salaries were reported when the Department reported average teacher salaries, benefits were not included. However, there had been an issue with the National Education Association (NEA) where the Department had requested that the employee portion of the PERS contribution, which was paid by the districts for the teachers, be included in the average salary amount and that a footnote be included to note the inclusion of the contribution. In some cases the PERS amount was not included and in some cases the amount was included. Mr. Thunder stressed that the PERS contribution was the only benefit that was included when reporting teacher salary amounts; group insurance and other employee costs were not included.
Ms. Giunchigliani told Mr. Thunder that he needed to point out that when the PERS was created, teachers, police, and fire gave up a portion of their salary that was never regained. Mr. Thunder said most lists of salaries included only the base salary. Ms. Giunchigliani recognized that most individuals would not include the retirement contribution in their salary amount. She said the base salary was apparently $26,000 to $27,000 for a beginning teacher in the state of Nevada. Mr. Thunder noted that teachers were hired at a higher amount than the first step on the salary schedule, and the $32,000 represented that average.
Senator Raggio said, “Let’s not distort this.” He noted that the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reported average teacher salaries differently, which discounted everything Ms. Giunchigliani had said. Nevada was one of the few states that paid the total PERS contribution for teachers. Therefore, when the average teacher salary was reported for Nevada, the PERS contribution had to be included to make it an “apples to apples” comparison to the other states. The employee portion of the PERS contribution paid by the districts was an additional amount of income on which the teachers did not have to pay income tax and was a great benefit for teachers. In the other states the teachers paid their portion of the retirement contribution. Senator Rawson asked Mr. Thunder to provide a list of the average teacher salaries reported by the NEA and the AFT.
Senator Raggio referred to the at-risk remediation program and said the school districts had estimated a fiscal impact of $30,000 for each non-Title I designated school to provide tutoring and supplemental services. The estimated costs were based on 28 non-Title I schools being designated as needing improvement in FY2004 and 49 non-Title I schools designated in FY2005 at a cost of $30,000 for each school. The impact would be $840,000 in FY2004 and $1.4 million in FY2005. The costs could be eliminated if the amount of remediation funds was increased for the before and after school intersession programs for at-risk pupils with a corresponding decrease in funds for low performing schools. Senator Raggio noted that $1 million had been approved for supplemental services for the non-Title I schools, but the amount needed to be increased to $1.5 million in FY2005. There would be no fiscal change for the total amount of remediation funding, because the total of $6.2 million in FY2004 and $6.5 million in FY2005 would be $500,000 less for the low performing schools in FY2005, which would still be more than adequate funding to meet the needs.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS IN FY2005 TO $1.5 MILLION.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
Senator Rawson adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda J. Smith
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE:
__
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: