MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
March 19, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:50 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Cynthia Cook, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Sue DeFrancesco, Ed.D., Principal, Bonanza High School, Clark County School District
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA)
Bill Hoffman, General Counsel, Clark County School District
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education
Diedre Hammon
Daniel Ebihara
Beth Carl
Robin Kincaid
Fran Jenkins
Paula Guthrie
Peggy Chaves
Craig Butz
Vee Wilson
Ricci Rodrigues-Elkins, Lobbyist, Nevada Charter School Alliance
David Love
Tonya Karlowicz
Thomas B. Ciesynski, C.P.A., Chief Accountant, Washoe County School Board
Nancy J. Hollinger, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association
Susan C. Hastings, Lobbyist, Nevada Classified School Employees Association
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 253.
SENATE BILL 253: Revises provisions governing school attendance required for promotion to next grade. (BDR 34-788)
Senator Cegavske:
I sponsored this bill, along with Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, at the request of Dr. Sue DeFrancesco, Principal of Bonanza High School in Las Vegas. Senate Bill 253 proposes to remove unlimited absences due to illness that are currently allowed. According to administrators, parents often claim a child was ill once they learn another absence occurred to avoid the risk of the student being held back a year for not complying. Despite previous attempts to curb truancy, including student attendance review boards, habitual truancy remains a problem for our public schools. This bill will allow local boards to determine their policies regarding absences for health-related reasons. The bill would not affect preapproved absences as currently provided. Upon approval this bill would be effective July 1, 2003.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
Dealing with attendance related issues came about as a result of a survey the district did approximately 1 year ago. We asked all employee groups to describe the greatest impediments to their jobs. Of the nearly 4000 responses, approximately 75 percent were teachers. Attendance matters were among the top five concerns. We felt S.B. 253 provides a good opportunity to address concerns of all employee groups, at no cost to the district.
Sue DeFrancesco, Ed.D., Principal, Bonanza High School, Clark County:
Current regulations require schools designated as demonstrating adequate achievement to have an average daily attendance rate of 90 percent. The board of trustees prescribes a minimum number of days an enrolled pupil must be in attendance for the pupil to be promoted to the next higher grade. This supports local districts setting limits in the number of absences students acquire before their promotion to the next grade, or graduation. Any absences due to physical or mental inability to attend school are to be credited toward the required days of attendance. Essentially, as long as a student provides a note by the parent or guardian stating a physical or mental inability to attend school, they may accrue unlimited absences. Therefore, the 90 percent goal is sometimes placed in jeopardy. Attendance is defined as the presence of a student in school on a day school is in session which seems to be at cross-purposes when following guidelines. At Bonanza High School, in 2002, the average number of absences per student was nearly nine. There was an attendance policy in effect from 1997 to 2000, which limited absences to 10 each semester. During that time there was an increase in average daily attendance. In the spring of 2000 an Attorney General’s opinion indicated the policy was not legal. We saw a dramatic increase in the number of students who exceeded 10 absences. If we can set a number for which we believe the student is responsible, we have a chance as a school to achieve the 90 percent goal. With an appeal process in place, I think we can achieve our goal of encouraging more students to attend school regularly.
Chairman Rawson:
Is there any conflict between the proposal and the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?
Dr. DeFrancesco:
There is no conflict. School boards must always keep the act in mind when considering changes.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
I would like to offer a proposed amendment (Exhibit C) to S.B. 253.
Senator Nolan:
Do you believe there are enough safeguards built into the bill to prevent students from being held back?
Ms. Lusk:
We left the prearranged absence portion of current law untouched. The 10 days a year of prearranged absences does not enter into consideration of other absences.
Senator Nolan:
Do you have statistics on the percentage of excused versus nonessential absences?
Dr. DeFrancesco:
Our school averages between 200 and 300 absences each day. There is no documentation on the percentages of excused versus nonessential absences. We are looking at the correlation of student academic achievement to attendance.
Senator Neal:
Are we saying there is no reason for a student to be absent from school?
Ms. Lusk:
We are saying there is a point in the number of absences which will trigger a review.
Senator Neal:
Taking out physical and mental inability to attend school, it would seem to leave it to the discretion of the school to determine if an absence was valid.
Ms. Lusk:
In the review process, it is stated the absences for which there is a confirmed cause would be an exception. During the review, a parent’s written affirmation the child was ill or a note from a doctor are examples of confirmed evidence.
Senator Neal:
What about parents unable to attend the review because of work schedules?
Senator Cegavske:
Parents receive information packets upon enrollment as to what is acceptable.
Dr. DeFrancesco:
We notify parents, after a certain number of absences, through postcards and letters mailed home. We are required to send formal notice stating the child has exceeded a certain amount of absences, and ask parents to call for an appointment, at their convenience. They are then told the number of days their child has missed. We ask if the student was ill. We accommodate parents’ work schedules by making appointments very early in the morning, and until 8 or 9 p.m. If the student is not in good standing academically, and the absences are shown to be other than physical or mental inability to attend school, the student would be in a position not to be promoted or earn credit. Students have to be provided makeup work and have a reasonable opportunity to submit the work.
Senator Wiener:
How long has current law been in effect?
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst:
Current regulations concerning truancy issues were effective in 1999, based on A.B. No. 15 of the 70th Session.
Chairman Rawson:
We have been dealing with this issue since 1985.
Senator Nolan:
What percentage of absences might require an appeal process?
Dr. DeFrancesco:
When we had a more restrictive policy in place, I reviewed three or four in a semester. Absences were usually resolved earlier, in conference with parents. I do not anticipate our time being devoted to the appeal process. We hope this will reduce the number of absences, and help with receiving a parental note immediately following an illness, so we do not have to schedule a review.
Dorothy L. (Dotty) Merrill, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
The Washoe County School Board of Trustees supports S.B. 253. I am submitting a proposed amendment (Exhibit D) for committee consideration.
Senator Washington:
If a student has a religious commitment, would written permission be legal for them to attend the event?
Senator Cegavske:
Yes.
Terry L. Hickman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA):
The NSEA supports S.B. 253. We believe it is important for each district to have the ability to set their attendance policy.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 253 and open the hearing on S.B. 234.
SENATE BILL 234: Makes various changes concerning administrative due process hearings pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (BDR 34-452)
Bill Hoffman, General Counsel, Clark County School District:
The district recommends approval of S.B. 234. There are two important provisions contained in the bill. It is designed to limit the high cost of conducting due process hearings by creating a statute of limitations of 1 year, and allow the State board of education to establish a maximum amount of compensation to be given to a due process hearing officer. An administrative hearing is required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is designed to address four concerns: the identification of a student as one who is in need of special education, the evaluation of the student, the educational placement of the student, and the question of whether the student has been provided with a free and appropriate public education. A due process hearing can cost over $4000 per day. On a daily basis, a hearing officer is paid between $90 and $120 an hour. Additionally, there are court reporting expenses of $1000, copying and mailing expenses, staff time for substitutes, extra-duty pay, and experts for either side. The imposition of a 1-year statute of limitation would enhance timely and early educational resolution. The limitation is consistent with the legislative intent of the IDEA, which calls for early resolution of issues.
Senator Wiener:
Why did you select 1 year?
Mr. Hoffman:
We had approximately 50 due process hearings in Clark County last year. Most of them were settled, and all of them included some information more than a year old. The hearing officer hears a lot of information about the history of the student, which is time consuming. This bill would not prohibit background information to come before the hearing officer. We want to create a remedy to fix a problem which occurred in the past year.
Senator Wiener:
I do not believe 1 year is enough time; there should be a 2-year limitation.
Mr. Hoffman:
Two years would be acceptable to the district. The second part of the bill calls for the State Board of Education to have the authority to establish a compensation cap for hearing officers.
Senator Cegavske:
I also have reservations about 1 year. I would like to hear from the parents about a 2-year timeline. Are the hearing officers specially trained? Could they be salaried staff members?
Mr. Hoffman:
The district employs nine attorneys, and they are paid out of the general budget. There is no extra money spent to defend the district; however, if the parents are the prevailing party at the hearing, the district pays their attorney fees.
Senator Cegavske:
I would appreciate it if you would provide the committee with data concerning expenses by the district for the past several years.
Senator Neal:
Who drafted this bill, and from where did the language “administrative due process” come?
Mr. Hoffman:
This bill was developed from one of the five BDRs for Clark County School District, and the Legislative Counsel Bureau drafted it. The term “administrative due process” is a part of the IDEA.
Senator Neal:
Of the approximately 50 cases last year, how many did you lose?
Mr. Hoffman:
Many cases were settled, and we probably lost five.
Senator Neal:
Of the settled cases did the district violate some aspect of the IDEA?
Mr. Hoffman:
There is always going to be that allegation. Reasonable people differ, and rather than expand it, we say let us settle it.
Senator Neal:
Are you suggesting the act is unclear?
Mr. Hoffman:
This is a gray area of the law. There are opinions by various administrative bodies throughout the nation, on the federal and state level, dealing with interpreting the law.
Senator Neal:
Section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 234 states “the procedural protections must include an explanation of the period of limitations.” Are the categories sufficiently clear?
Mr. Hoffman:
I believe there will always be questions on all the issues. The procedural issues are straightforward. I do not think the proposals we are presenting here have any impact on the substantive rights of students under the IDEA. The act does not establish a statute of limitations. It leaves it to the State. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled on the legitimacy of a 2-year statute in Oregon. The purpose of limiting the administrative due process is that there will be teachers and witnesses who have retired or relocated, and the recollections of witnesses will fade the further away from the present the hearing is held. The ability of an expert to provide evaluations about what was the best practice 4 years ago is difficult, particularly in the area of autism. It is complicated for a hearing officer to fashion a remedy going back 3 or 4 years.
Senator Neal:
If it were incumbent upon the person who would be affected to make the claim within 1 year after the alleged violation, how would a violation be treated if it carries over from 1 school year to the following?
Mr. Hoffman:
We are saying the violation alleged by the parent or guardian must have occurred in the previous 12-month period. The parent has 1 year from the time they realize there is a violation. The four issues considered under due process are: identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of an appropriate free education.
Senator Neal:
Is there a requirement for the school district to notify the parent or guardian and the student, if the student is not properly placed, so they can immediately question issues concerning due process?
Mr. Hoffman:
Each time the parent meets with the Special Education teacher to develop an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) or to modify an IEP, the parent is provided with the procedural safeguards handbook.
Chairman Rawson:
This is not about tort redress, it is about intercepting an issue and seeing the proper plan is followed.
Senator Mathews:
I am concerned the handbook will be written by an attorney and difficult for a parent to interpret.
Chairman Rawson:
At what point is a person not properly notified, and what can be done other than provide a book? You can sit down and talk, but how do we know the talk is fair with everybody. Is this a legalese book?
Mr. Hoffman:
This is not a legalese book. It is written at an office in the Clark County School District and called Compliance Monitoring. They ensure the parents receive these procedural due processes. This is important under the IDEA, because if we fail to satisfy the procedural requirements of the act, then we are at fault regardless of the merits of the case.
Ms. Merrill:
The Washoe County School District supports S.B. 234. We have experienced many of the same kind of issues as described by Mr. Hoffman.
Gloria Dopf, Educational Equity, Department of Education:
The Department of Education had a review of the statutes of limitations conducted by an external evaluator as part of federal requirements of the IDEA. The department looked at recommendations relative to the impartiality, the fairness, and the efficacy of the system. I will provide the report to this committee as well as the recommendations. The department has done many things as a consequence of the recommendations, which we hope will increase the efficiency of the system. We have provided a technical system to the hearing officers, and we have a higher level of officers selected. We hope to allow the officers to be better able to narrow the scope of the hearing during the pre‑hearing process to the relevant issues, and be able to focus the scope of the hearing itself to avoid long hearings. We have provided a mandatory scale of compensation for the hearing officers.
Senator Wiener:
Is there a cap on the scale of compensation?
Ms. Dopf:
On a per-hour billing basis, the scale is $70 to $120 for hearing officers. For review officers, who are special education attorneys, the scale is $120 to $175. We did not cap the amount of hours.
Senator Wiener:
If a parent or guardian does not know when the alleged violation began, when does the statute take effect?
Chairman Rawson:
There are certainly two sides. We have a malpractice crisis because an obstetrician can be held accountable for 20 years for a birth defect to appear. I personally like the idea of setting a limit and having to live with it. It makes our budget predictable.
Deidre Hammon:
I am the parent of a disabled daughter. There was an occasion when a parent did not see the records of their student for 2 years, and the recommendation was for occupational therapy. I would like the child to be provided compensatory occupational services to get up to speed. I would like the bill to go back at least 3 years.
Chairman Rawson:
How many years do you have to go back to be able to accomplish getting the child up to speed?
Ms. Hammon:
Probably not more than 3 years.
Chairman Rawson:
What does it accomplish to go back? If we know there is a problem now, it is the solution we want.
Ms. Hammon:
The IDEA requires the provision of a free and appropriate public education. Occupational therapy services can be provided in a general education environment.
Chairman Rawson:
My point is, if you see a problem now, what can we do about the problem? What does it add to the situation to go back and look at 3 years versus 2 years or 1 year? It is correcting the problem with which we are concerned.
Ms. Hammon:
A district will not necessarily provide more than a limited amount of services in a week. If we are talking about trying to compensate the child for services they should have been receiving, the district will rise to a higher level.
Chairman Rawson:
You are an interested parent. Do you have to have any license or certification to be able to advise parents on what they should be doing?
Ms. Hammon:
No. I have had 17 years of experience in the disability community. I am providing educational consulting services, and I do bill for them.
Daniel Ebihara:
I am a staff attorney for Clark County Legal Services. Senate Bill 234 is a severe reduction of rights to parents. I am submitting prepared testimony (Exhibit E) for the committee.
Beth Carl:
I am an attorney representing children with disabilities and their parents. The school districts and the department of education have received hundreds of millions of dollars every year since 1973, in exchange for providing special education, and not discriminating on the basis of disability. It is their duty to be in compliance with the IDEA. It is not the parent’s fault if the district is not in compliance. The bill is unconstitutional and has a profound affect on the money for State and local government.
Chairman Rawson:
Our legal staff tells us this bill is not unconstitutional.
Ms. Carl:
Senate Bill 234 is not setting a 1-year statute of limitations. It will cut off damages for autistic children. Autism may not be discovered for several years even though the school districts have a duty to discover. If we limit the damages to 1 year, those students are not going to be able to get compensatory education services, which is different than a statute of limitations.
Chairman Rawson:
Every bill the committee hears is because of a stated purpose or problem. There has been a problem brought forward to us today, and we are trying to hear it through. If you believe there is a problem, and you do not like the way the bill deals with it, make a suggestion how it can be resolved. If you simply want to oppose everything in the bill and make no suggestions, that is fine also. The committee comes in here without a preconceived idea, and listens to both sides. We try to give credibility to both, and we make a decision. Help us in the process, or simply testify against the bill and let us continue.
Ms. Carl:
The parents of disabled students generally cannot afford an attorney, so there is no one to represent them. If parents cannot finance the process leading to the hearing, and the hearing itself, they do not have any meaningful rights under this bill. The IDEA guarantees remedy for everything the school district has not done for the child, and this bill cuts off the remedies. Another distinction in the IDEA is a preventive law based on the idea individuals with disabilities can grow up to be self-sufficient financially. Although Clark County and the department of education believe the bill will shorten the length of hearings, make them more efficient, and limit the damages, they are missing the point. The districts have forgotten there is a parallel law. If this bill passes, parents will have to get administrative relief from the IDEA. Money comes to the State for the purpose of parent education and advocacy, and it is not being used. Parents do not get the services to which they are entitled. The IDEA requires actual notice to parents, and their rights would be abridged and limited if S.B. 234 were enacted. I do not think the proposed compensation for hearing officers is enough. I would hope the bill would go to the Senate Committee on Finance so hearing officers would have an opportunity to testify. The U.S. Congress provided due process rights with actual notice in the case of IDEA. This bill cuts off damages. Another reason Congress enacted the IDEA and set up the administrative process was because the federal courts are overloaded. Enacting this will cause twice the caseload, because attorneys will go immediately to federal court with these cases. The problem stated earlier about finding witnesses is inaccurate. We are dealing with academics, and they keep excellent written records. Instead of providing quick and early remedies as Mr. Hoffman suggested, parents are going to be able to get to remedies without going through this process by going directly to federal court.
Robin Kincaid:
I represent Nevada Parents Encouraging Parents, a training and information center for families who have children with disabilities. I will read prepared testimony (Exhibit F).
Fran Jenkins:
My son was evaluated by the district at age 3, and found eligible for special education services. After 3 years there was no identification of his disabilities. In order to qualify him as a child with autism and plan an appropriate IEP, an outside professional evaluation diagnosed him at age 6. We felt we had explored every avenue before we filed for due process. We prevailed on all issues and the district was found grossly negligent. If S.B. 234 were in effect, we would not have been able to obtain the proper education to which our son is entitled.
Paula Guthrie:
I am a parent of a special needs child. In the 7 years we have been associated with the Clark County School District, we have had 3 good years. The other 4 years were very difficult. This past year has been the most difficult. In the past 6 months my daughter has regressed to the point she no longer has any reading skills and has forgotten how to do math. We started her IEP on February 7, 2003, and we are still working on it. In September we will begin again. The district is proposing we may only go back a year for due process. If we cannot get my daughter’s IEP into compliance, the district is saying we cannot use any of the data if we wait until 2005 to file for due process. We are going to need a full year to get my daughter back to where she was 2 years ago. If this bill is passed, I believe you will see more due process. I, for one, will not wait every time my school is out of compliance. I will file a due process action each year.
Peggy Chaves:
My son is a special education student. I encourage the committee to vote against S.B. 234.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 234. There are a number of issues, and I request Senator Cegavske to chair a subcommittee to help resolve them. We will open the hearing on S.B. 222.
SENATE BILL 222: Requires school districts to distribute certain portion of general obligation bonds to charter schools. (BDR 34-112)
Senator Cegavske:
The biggest obstacle for charter schools is the fiscal challenge. This bill would allow charter schools, within a school district, the ability to access traditional school bond revenues. The bill requires the governing body of each charter school to establish a building fund and a pro rata distribution of general obligation bonds issued by the district goes into the fund. The distribution would be based upon school enrollment figures.
Craig Butz:
I am the director of Odyssey Charter School. One of the most daunting challenges to charter schools is funding for facilities. We must pay our facility costs from our general budget. Current regulation states a charter school is entitled to receive any money available from federal, State, or local sources.
Vee Wilson:
I am representing Odyssey Charter School. I have been involved with charter schools since 1999. I am in favor of S.B. 222.
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst:
I direct the committee’s attention to Background Paper 03-03, Charter Schools (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.) prepared by the Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Ricci Rodrigues-Elkins, Lobbyist, Nevada Charter School Alliance:
I understand districts are in a crisis financially, and adding charter schools to the general obligation bonds will not be well received. I have looked at resources and contacted other states regarding their facility financing. We are suggesting using the bonding authority of the State to issue revenue bonds on behalf of charter schools.
David Love:
I am a member of a group called Grandparents Raising Grandchildren. We support this bill. Bond funds belong to the taxpayers. Charter schools must find facilities, and often locate older buildings to purchase or lease. These buildings may require asbestos removal, heating and cooling system upgrades, sprinkler system installation, handicap access, building health and safety issues, and other facility needs. We find some building codes require charter schools to have kindergarten and first grade students on the first floor. Therefore, some schools have leased vacant buildings, storefronts, and shared spaces in order to be more productive and economical. The schools must be unique, because they have to use regular funds in order to obtain their facilities. Charter schools often serve students who are at risk and have had a positive influence on many young people. It is important for funding to continue this task.
Tonya Karlowicz:
I am from Sierra Nevada Academy which is a charter school. Each month our lease cost is $17,050. For 306 students this school year we are spending $204,600, or $668 per student, per year. You can see this is a tremendous cost to us.
Ms. Merrill:
The Washoe County School District is concerned with the fiscal implications of this proposal.
Thomas B. Ciesynski, C.P.A., Chief Accountant, Washoe County School Board:
I have handed out a summary (Exhibit H) of a number of fiscal concerns relating to this bill.
Ms. Merrill:
If this proposal were applied to current bonds, voters who approved the bonds would have no voice in the use of the money. The community is solidly opposed to an entitlement based on pupil enrollment rather than needs. Establishment of a trust fund would reduce funding available to the district. The district must face the scrutiny of the voters. The bill is silent on the responsibility of the charter schools being accountable for the funds, who would own the building if the charter school closed, and if the funds can be used for improvements on private or church-owned properties. We would recommend the State issue bonds or use federal grants, which are available for this purpose.
Nancy J. Hollinger, Lobbyist, Washoe County School District:
The district opposes this bill for the reasons stated at this meeting.
Mr. Kadlub:
Facility acquisition is one of the most challenging problems facing charter schools and school districts. We rely on voters to provide adequate capital improvement funds, and we commit to completing specific projects. A number of charter schools might want to tap into these funds in the future. In the event of closure or revocation of a charter, the facility owned by the school may be a useless facility to the district. Such use of capital improvement funds would not only diminish the district’s ability to build and renovate schools, but could result in the loss of bond dollars if the district ultimately acquires unusable property.
Senator Neal:
Have the charter schools been living up to their purpose?
Mr. Kadlub:
I believe there are some charter schools in need of improvement, and at the same time many other public schools are also in need of improvement.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
The association agrees with the information presented. When charter schools were formed, it was understood one of the foundations of the charter was to offer competition to traditional public schools. The intent was to provide an opportunity for innovation. Charter schools were to provide their own facilities. There is little or no oversight for these schools, the boards do not stand for election, and there are significant federal grants available to the charter schools.
Lonnie F. Shields, Lobbyist, Washoe County Education Administrators Association:
Washoe County depends upon bond money to finance new high schools in order to alleviate overcrowding.
Susan C. Hastings, Lobbyist, Nevada Classified School Employees Association:
The association agrees with the Washoe County School District. Taxpayers who voted for the bonds would consider this bill a violation of public trust.
Senator Neal:
If a charter school does not work out, they can walk away from their obligations.
Mr. Bellister:
I would need to review the revocation sections of the charter school law. There was an instance in Las Vegas when a charter school closed and there was no capability to recover the advance per-pupil funding.
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 222 and open the hearing on S.B. 254.
SENATE BILL 254: Authorizes parents of certain pupils to choose which public school pupils will attend. (BDR 34-891)
Senator Cegavske:
Seventeen states have enacted legislation to permit open enrollment, and 11 states offer school choice on a limited basis. Participation in open enrollment programs has grown steadily over the past decade to nearly 4 million students nationwide. Once a student is accepted in a school where they want to be, the achievement is greater.
Mr. Sturm:
In Nevada there are 17 school board policies concerning zone variances. The one in Clark County provides various weights to be applied to applications. For instance, keeping siblings together, or providing for children of school district employees. This bill provides a lottery system, so there is no list of weighted criteria the district will use to place students. The school board of trustees looks at the total number of applications for a school and makes a determination about available resources. Senate Bill 254 provides for transfer between districts.
Senator Wiener:
One variable would be if the accepting school could accommodate the student. If the sending school were small, could it be in jeopardy because it does not have enough students?
Mr. Sturm:
The situation is not addressed in the bill. The funding would follow the student.
Senator Wiener:
My concern would be for 11 small districts that may be in jeopardy.
Mr. Sturm:
Under current law there is a 2-year hold harmless period. The sending district would have 2 years to adjust staff if there were a significant number of transfers.
Chairman Rawson:
Under the Nevada Plan for School Finance we have different per-student rates in each district. This would call for clarification.
Ms. Lusk:
We are in support of the bill. We believe choice equals better performance.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We believe having a choice will improve achievement and parental involvement.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
A number of people are pulling their children out of public schools, and placing them into home schooling, sometimes for reasons which this bill would be of assistance.
Mr. Kadlub:
The Clark County School District opposes S.B. 254. The position of the district is summarized in a handout (Exhibit I) distributed to the committee.
Ms. Merrill:
For the committee’s information, I have distributed the Washoe County School District Administrative Regulations (Exhibit J).
Chairman Rawson:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 254. I will entertain a motion on S.B. 253.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 253.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
There being no further business, this concludes the meeting. We are adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cynthia Cook,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: