MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

(NRS 218.5352)(Nevada Revised Statutes 218.5352)

November

September 205, 2002

Carson CityLas Vegas, Nevada

The eleventheighth meeting of the Legislative Committee on Education (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 218.5352) for the 2001-2002 interim was held on Wednesday, NovemberSeptember 205, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada, and videoconferenced to the inGrant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, and videoconferenced to the Legislative Building, Room 3138, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. Pages 3 and 4 contain the “Meeting Notice and Agenda.”

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT IN CARSON CITYLAS VEGAS:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Maurice E. Washington

Assemblyman Marcia de Braga

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons

Senator Ann O’Connell

Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT IN LAS VEGASCARSON CITY:

Senator Ann O’Connell

Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo

COMMITTEE MEMBER ABSENT:

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chair

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Maurice E. Washington

Assemblyman Marcia de Braga

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU STAFF PRESENT:

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division

Susan E. Scholley, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division

Carol M. Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division

Kristin BC. Roberts, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division

renda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel

Mary Alice McGreevy, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst for the Legislative Bureau of Educational

Accountability and Program Evaluation, Fiscal Analysis Division

Lu Chen, Education Research Statistician for the Legislative Bureau of Educational

Accountability and Program Evaluation, Fiscal Analysis Division

Ricka Benum, Senior Research Secretary, Research Division

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Name of Organization:					Legislative Committee on Education (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 218.5352)
Date and Time of Meeting:					Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:30 a.m.
Place of Meeting:					Legislative Building Room 3138 401 South Carson Street Carson City, Nevada
Note:			Some members of the Committee may be attending the meeting and other persons may observe the meeting and provide testimony, through a simultaneous videoconference conducted at the following location:
				Grant Sawyer State Office Building Room 4401 555 East Washington Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada
If you cannot attend the meeting, you can listen to it live over the Internet. The address for the Legislative Web site is http://www.leg.state.nv.us. For audio broadcasts, click on the link “Listen to Meetings Live on the Internet.”
A G E N D A
I.		Opening Remarks Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
*II.		Approval of Minutes of the Meeting Held on September 25, 2002, in Las Vegas, Nevada
*III.		Presentation on Classroom Performance System (CPS) from eInstruction Darrell Ward, Chief Executive Officer, eInstruction Corporation, Denton,Texas Steve Huff, Education Consultant, eInstruction Corporation, Denton, Texas
*IV.		Report on Special Planning Committee in Clark County School District (CCSD) for Construction of Smaller Schools (Senate Bill 311, 2001 Session) Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director, Community and Government Relations, CCSD
*IV.		Report on Special Planning Committee in Clark County School District (CCSD) for Construction of Smaller Schools (Senate Bill 311, 2001 Session) Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director, Community and Government Relations, CCSD
*VI.		Status Report on Public Schools in the Clark County School District (CCSD) Managed by the Edison Management Corporation Augstin Orci, Deputy Superintendent, Instruction, CCSD
*VII.		Presentation on Issues Related to Kindergarten Sybella Pope-Sears
VIII.		Public Comment
*IXVIII.		Work Session on BDR 635 – Make Various Changes to Statutes Governing Education to Facilitate the Implementation of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – to the 72^nd Session of the Nevada Legislature The possible topics that may be covered in the Work Session include: · Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (Including Rewards and Sanctions) · Teacher Quality Including Paraprofessionals · Reporting · Assessments
IX.		Adjournment
*Denotes items on which the Committee may take action.
Note:	We are pleased to make reasonable accommodations for members of the public who are disabled and wish to attend the meeting. If special arrangements for the meeting are necessary, please notify the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, in writing, at the Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701-4747, or call Ricka Benum at (775) 684-6825 as soon as possible.
Notice of this meeting was posted in the following Carson City, Nevada, locations: Blasdel Building, 209 East Musser Street; Capitol Press Corps, Basement, Capitol Building; City Hall, 201 North Carson Street; Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street; and Nevada State Library, 100 Stewart Street. Notice of this meeting was faxed for posting to the following Las Vegas, Nevada, locations: Clark County Office, 500 South Grand Central Parkway; and Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue. Notice of this meeting was posted on the Internet through the Nevada Legislature’s Web site at www.leg.state.nv.us.

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Name of Organization:					Legislative Committee on Education (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 218.5352)
Date and Time of Meeting:					Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:30 a.m.
Place of Meeting:					Grant Sawyer State Office Building Room 4401 555 East Washington Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada
Note:			Some members of the committee may be attending the meeting and other persons may observe the meeting and provide testimony, through a simultaneous videoconference conducted at the following location:
				Legislative Building Room 3138 401 South Carson Street Carson City, Nevada
If you cannot attend the meeting, you can listen to it live over the Internet. The address for the Legislative Web site is http://www.leg.state.nv.us. For audio broadcasts, click on the link “Listen to Meetings Live on the Internet.”
A G E N D A
I.		Opening Remarks Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
*II.		Presentation on the American Diploma Project, Aligning High School Academic Standards with Higher Education and New Economy Needs, and Related Matters Sheila Byrd, Director, American Diploma Project, Achieve, Inc.
*III.		Presentation on Just For The Kids: Reporting and Analyzing Student Achievement Data and Impacts on Decision-Making and Best Practices, and Related Matters Jim Lanich, Director, Western States, National Center for Educational Accountability
*IV.		Update on Parental Involvement Initiatives and Plans, Including Assembly Bill 201 from 2001 Session Assemblywoman Debbie Smith Barbara Clark, President, Nevada PTA
*V.		Report for Summer and Fall 2001 on Remedial Enrollments of Nevada High School Graduates in the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, UCCSN
*VI.		Status Report on In$ite Financial Analysis Model Program and Reports on School Districts and Charter Schools in Nevada Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation (LBEAPE), Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB)
*VII.		Update on Implementation of Federal Education Law – No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – Briefing on Accountability and Sanctions H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB
*VIII.		Report on Implementation of Negotiated Settlement with Harcourt Educational Measurement, Inc., Related to Scoring Errors, Including Reimbursement for Costs, Identification of Drop-outs, and Related Matters Dr. Lance Campbell, Measurement Consultant, Harcourt Educational Measurement, Inc. Dr. Paul LaMarca, Director, Assessments, Program Accountability and Curriculum, Nevada Department of Education (NDE)
*IX.		Update on Early Childhood Programs, Including EvenStart (Senate Bill 585, 2001 Session) Gloria Dopf, Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Special Education, ESEA, and School Improvement, NDE Janie Lowe, Early Childhood Programs Consultant, NDE
*X.		Adjournment
*Denotes items on which the Committee may take action.
Note:	We are pleased to make reasonable accommodations for members of the public who are disabled and wish to attend the meeting. If special arrangements for the meeting are necessary, please notify the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, in writing, at the Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701-4747, or call Ricka Benum at (775) 684-6825 as soon as possible.
Notice of this meeting was posted in the following Carson City, Nevada, locations: Blasdel Building, 209 East Musser Street; Capitol Press Corps, Basement, Capitol Building; City Hall, 201 North Carson Street; Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street; and Nevada State Library, 100 Stewart Street. Notice of this meeting was faxed for posting to the following Las Vegas, Nevada, locations: Clark County Office, 500 South Grand Central Parkway; and Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue. Notice of this meeting was posted on the Internet through the Nevada Legislature’s Web site at www.leg.state.nv.us.

OPENING REMARKS

Chairman Raggio called the meeting to order at 9:429:43 a.m., and directed requested the secretary to call the roll.

The Chairman reminded the members that no meeting is scheduled for December 2002, and noted that the next Committee meeting date is January 13, 2003. He outlined the procedures for the Public Comment portion of the meeting and the Committee’s Work Session.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002, IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Chairman Raggio called for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 25, 2002, meeting of the Legislative Committee on Education, which was held in Las Vegas.

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE’S MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2002, IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. SENATOR O’CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

PRESENTATION ON

CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE

SYSTEM (CPS) FROM eINSTRUCTION

Chairman Raggio called upon Ray Bacon of the Nevada Manufacturers Association, to present the Committee with background information on the Classroom Performance System (CPS), and to provide the introductions for the guest presenters.

The Chairman also thanked Mr. Bacon for his concern and involvement furthering the betterment of Nevada’s education system. He applauded Mr. Bacon’s continuing efforts of bringing innovative educational programs before the Committee.

Ray Bacon

Ray Bacon, Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association (NMA), Carson City, shared with the Committee his introduction to CPS, athe hardware device, a CPS, developed for interactive use in schools and universities. Mr. Bacon recalled seeingfirst saw the CPS product demonstrated recently in Denver, Colorado, while attending the Education Leaders Council meeting. He listed the primary benefits of the system as:  (1) directly improving student achievement; and (2) significantly increasing the productivity of teachers during class time.

Moreover, Mr. Bacon indicated that the technology of the system could be utilized as a scoring device for Nevada’s High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE), which would assure the availability of and the test results would be available immediately, rather than waiting weeks. Additionally, identification of individual student remediation needs is available on a daily basis, ensuring that students do not fall behind academically..

Mr. Bacon has provided has provided three of the CPS technology systems ffor use on a rotation‑ basis in schools within the Carson City School District. He submitted a document outlining his conception of the system’s possibilities. (Please refer to Exhibit A.)

Senator O’Connell, who also attended the Denver meeting of the Education Leaders Council, noted her initial excitement with the demonstration of the CPS system. She offered her support of the eInstruction system and regarded the CPS concept as an excellent means of documenting students’ adequate yearly progress (AYP), without further burdening teachers.

Darrell Ward

Darrell Ward, Chief Executive Officer, eInstruction Corporation, Denton, Texas, explained that the structure of the CPS allows for ultimate classroom interactivity by engaging every student to be attentive and involved in the classroom instruction. Mr. Ward, a long‑-time educator, founded the eInstruction Corporation in 1981, as a means to successfully engage children to participate, with no additional administrative or teacher workload.

Mr. Ward conducted an interactive demonstration involving the Committee members and staff, whereby each person used a “response pad” similar to a simplified remote control device; in addition, each response pad contains a unique number, which serves to differentiate each participant. Questions are displayed either on a television or video screen and are answered via the remote device; as each student responds to the questions, a number corresponding to the uniquely numbered remote, changes color, indicating that a response has been entered. Mr. Ward pointed out that the correctness of the response is not indicated on the screen, avoiding any student embarrassment. The teacher has the option of changing the displays on the screen for example, whether or not the response indicators are illuminated. It was explained that the system requires a computer, and includes the remote response pads, the associatedsystem’s software package, and a projection system, with projector. Mr. Ward guided the Committee through a sample test, based on the state’s HSPE, which illustrated how each participant is able to proceed through an assignment or examination at their own pace.

Mr. Ward’s presentation and CPS demonstration was assisted by Steve Huff, Education Consultant, eInstruction Corporation, Denton, Texas. Mr. Huff submitted the informational handouts for the Committee. (Please refer to Exhibit B.)

The basic premise of the system is to engage students, by simultaneously involving them by their active participation in the use of the system; no student is left out of the active learning process. Mr. Ward cited the advantages of the CPS technology, which include:

· The test or questions do not require computer entry into the CPS, only the answer key is necessary for grading purposes.

· Teachers may use the system as a time-effective grading tool for classroom assignments, homework, tests, and worksheets.

· Teachers have the ability to create tests during classroom discussions, as a method of evaluating student comprehension and understanding of particular subject areas.

· The CPS is capable of generating reports in specific and varied forms,; for instance, by student, class, grade, school, or district.

· The tests results are available immediately with the capability to be “uploaded” to the eInstruction Web site for access by school administrators.

Concluding his presentation, Mr. Ward demonstrated the “collaborative learning” function of the CPS by displaying a “challenge board” and allowing the Committee and staff to respond to questions as teams, competing for highest points by entering the correct answers. Mr. Ward stated that the CPS was marketed and introduced to various educational institutions. He estimated that approximately 200,000 of the remote keypads are in use by students ranging from kindergarten to college age. Additionally, Mr. Ward noted that the University of Texas at Austin, Biology and Physics Department, utilizes 3,000 keypads during class instruction, lectures, and final examinations; the U.S. Air Force and Naval Academies also utilize the CPS systems.

Dan Gouker

Dan Gouker, Director, Electrical Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Southern Nevada, testified that the CPS has proved to be a valuable tool for instruction of electrical concepts. He noted that 11eleven of the systems are currently in use at the Southern Nevada apprenticeship facility and testified to the . Mr. Gouker noted the effectiveness of the eInstruction CPS program, which is and stated the value of the system is evidenced by increased student achievement. He extended an invitation to the Committee members to tour the training facility and observe the system in use in an adult education setting.

REPORT ON SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE IN

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION

OF SMALLER SCHOOLS (SENATE BILL 311, 2001 SESSION)

Joyce Haldeman

Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director, Community and Government Relations, Clark County School District (CCSD), Las Vegas, stated Senate Bill (S.B.) 311, (Chapter 290, Statutes of Nevada 2001) required the CCSD to establish a special committee to plan for the construction of smaller schools within the district. Ms. Haldeman provided the Committee with a report titled Small Schools Committee, A Report to the Board of Trustees Clark County School District, (please refer to Exhibit C), and indicated the report outlines the primary focus of the special committee and its findings. She noted that numerous studies have documented that student’s benefit from smaller schools; the benefits include:

· A safer place for students;

· A more challenging and positive environment;

· Higher student achievement and graduation rates; and

· Fewer student discipline problems.

Ms. Haldeman’s testimony closely paralleled the report; she read the findings from the report and briefly outlined the following issues: (Please refer to Exhibit C, pages 4 through 8.)

1. Cost;

2. Land aAvailability ;

3. Equity Iissues;

4. Curriculum/Sschool Aactivity Iissues;

5. Current Bbuilding Pprogram Ccommitments;

6. Other Ooptions for Ccurrent Aavailable Ffunding; and

7. Public Oopinion.

Ms. Haldeman summarized the conclusions of the Small School Committee, and commented that the ideal school would be manageable in size, represent the membership of the larger community, effectively provide for the spectrum of needs in the student population, and function within a reasonable parameter of cost effectiveness. She directed the Committee to page 11 of the report, and requested they review the recommendations the Small School Committee offered to the CCSD Board of School Trustees.

Noting the lack of a quorum, the Chairman stated the meeting would commence as a subcommittee in order to proceed with scheduled testimony.

STATUS REPORT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN

THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (CCSD)

MANAGED BY THE EDISON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

The Chairman announced a change in the meeting location for the Committee’s November 20, 2002; the meeting date. The Committee will convene in Carson City, Nevada. He noted that the remaining three meetings of the Committee are now scheduled to be held in Carson City, and would be videoconferenced to the Las Vegas, Nevada location.

PRESENTATION ON THE AMERICAN DIPLOMA PROJECT, ALIGNING HIGH SCHOOL ACADEMIC STANDARDS WITH HIGHER EDUCATION AND NEW ECONOMY NEEDS, AND RELATED MATTERS

Sheila Byrd, Director, American Diploma Project, Washington, D.C., discussed the primary aspects of the commitments and goals of the program, which is a unique collaboration of four national educational reform groups. The Hewlett Foundation in affiliation with Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and the National Alliance of Business granted funding to five states. Ms. Byrd noted that a high school diploma does not guarantee students will succeed in studies of higher education, or in the workplace. She explained that the preparation and teaching of high school graduates is widely varied, and there is a need to establish a standardized measurement of student achievement for colleges, employers, and the military, which all accept recent graduates.

During her testimony, Ms. Byrd referred to the report outlining the Nevada Test Gap Analysis, Study Highlights, and test results provided to the Committee. (Please refer to Exhibit A.) Ms. Byrd discussed Nevada’s involvement with the American Diploma Project, which was initiated approximately one year ago, and specifically profiled the following:

·The American Diploma Project recognizes that standards-based reform represents the greatest prospect of ensuring equity and learning excellence for all K-12 children and to streamline the expectations of graduates.

·The program is designed to help enhance continuing efforts of standards‑based reform and to implement quality high school graduation benchmarks.

·The American Diploma Project is working to examine and define the knowledge that can be expected from high school graduates by analyzing the quality of current educational standards and assessments.

·With reading, writing, and mathematics as the focal point, the American Diploma Project is identifying whether the content of the standards and the quality of the assessments contain an accurate reflection of the knowledge students have attained.

Ms. Byrd said an objective of the project is to challenge students to view the standards and assessments seriously, oftentimes students do not associate that doing well on standards‑based tests directly relates to their success once they leave high school. In response, the American Diploma Project made an effort to quantify the demands of employers, college educators, and the military. The substance of these demands/needs is then conveyed to state educators for evaluation and alignment with current standards and assessments, to establish a benchmark against the expectations. The benchmarks assist states to modify and/or reinforce current standards-based systems, and establish a method of analyzing the quality of current standards. In addition, Ms. Byrd offered that:

·The U.S. Department of Education statistics indicate that 75.2 percent of current high school students are immediately attending some form of post‑secondary education, although many do not finish.

·Remediation and training costs have dramatically increased in all three of the target sectors.

·The recently compiled statistics compelled the American Diploma Project to define a set of expectations, based on basic mathematic, reading, and writing skills that constitute proficiency; illustrating that even graduates going directly into the workforce, would be prepared for higher‑paying career and occupation options, which provide trajectory for growth and a wider range of choices.

·Equivalent basic aptitudes and skills are a necessity for students to achieve success in either setting – higher education, or the workplace.

·In the last five years, the two sets of expectations have converged, primarily due to advances in technology; for instance, technical literacy is required even for jobs or trades in manufacturing and service industries.

Ms. Byrd noted that 15 states originally responded to the request for proposal offered by the American Diploma Project; five states were selected, including: Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Texas. The partner state leaders include: Governors, department chiefs, higher education executives, and business leaders. There is agreement among the leaders for support of current standards‑based systems and participation in reviewing current state standards and assessments. Additionally, the five partner states have agreed to consider the use of standard‑based assessments in the college admissions and placement process, and employers have agreed to consider the data from the assessments in the hiring process.

The research conducted has focused on effectively using data to define: (1) the expectations for high‑growth new economy jobs in the workplace; (2) expectations required for higher education with immediate entry into credit‑bearing coursework; and (3) assisting partner states to address legal issues with implications which may affect a K-16 system and the use of standard‑based testing. The consideration of data may be used differently in each of the five states.

The technical assistance has included in setting up effective K‑16 councils to analyze standards and assessments, and brokering information among the states in order to provide successful models. State policy panels have been implemented to research, review, and classify the suitability of high school exit standards. Communication support consists of research papers, model legislation, and instructional tools for associates from the business sectors.

Continuing, Ms. Byrd discussed the research conducted in Nevada during its year‑long involvement with the American Diploma Project. In January 2002, Nevada participated with representatives from the partner states, which included educators of English and mathematics in grades K‑12, and higher education faculties in assessment of a varied range of examinations. The tests included the high school proficiency examination (HSPE) the ACT, SAT, GED, as well as national and state college placement tests.

At present and in addition to the recent English and mathematics evaluation, the American Diploma Project is convening members from Nevada’s higher education faculty drawn from studies involving humanities, sciences, and social sciences to evaluate The goal is to identify that the basic reading, writing, and mathematical expectations are recognized and that student abilities parallel what is expected in specific study areas. She noted that Achieve, Inc., provided the results from its recent alignment study. The purpose of the study was to identify the alignment of current standards to the state proficiency tests and to identify any disparities in content. Thus, providing additional assurance that the content of the standards‑based tests is actually what higher education institutions expect.

The goal of the extensive research is to provide the partner states with a combination of the results from the higher education expectations and the workplace expectations, to open discussion of potential issues the state may need to review. Ms. Byrd made special note to commend the effective collaboration of Nevada’s state leaders including those involved in K‑12 studies, higher education executives, along with the involvement of the business and military sectors.

During its second year, the American Diploma Project will conclude the “state‑based phase” and proceed with a “cross‑state advisory process.” This phase incorporates involvement from the five partner states and moves forward to establish a national panel of policy and content experts to evaluate the efforts of the partner states and define and approve a set of reading, writing, and mathematical benchmark standards to be utilized by all states. Ms. Byrd stated that many state educators and policymakers are specifically requesting some type of “resource benchmark standards” to assess the quality of their own current standard‑based systems.

Ms. Byrd outlined emerging state issues that Nevada’s policymakers may wish to consider: (1) diversifying state economies; (2) establishing a required “college preparatory” high school curriculum; (3) using data effectively, and tracking performance of students in higher education relative to their standards‑based assessment scores.

The American Diploma Project has confronted and dealt with a number of challenges during its implementation. Ms. Bryd discussed:

·The historic concern of involving the business sector in an educational endeavor; the realization has surfaced that workplace expectations do not necessarily focus primarily on core academic skills. The business benchmarks have been well received by employers and have extended further to employers identifying and encouraging emphasis on themes such as critical thinking, and data statistics.

·The focus of the American Diploma Project remains on the core literacy skills; future benchmarks may be established for additional subjects including art, history, and science, if the funding remains.

·The American Diploma Project has addressed concerns as to whether the new academic benchmarks are good for all children, and deems fairness in the requirement that all students meet academic expectations. It was clarified that the “opportunity to learn issues” are addressed and dispelled by the process in which the benchmarks are established and conveyed to the community.

In her explanation of Nevada’s Progress Report, Ms. Byrd outlined the need to:

·Examine content of HSPE and other college entrance and placement assessments;

·Establish new P-16 Council; and

·Analyze the alignment between HJSPE and state content and performance standards.

She commented that the involvement of the varied and diverse sectors in the process of defining the benchmarks is justification for holding out the highest expectations for all students to strive to achieve. Ms. Byrd emphasized that the collaboration of efforts and involvement of the cross‑section of sectors, will serve to streamline the process of establishing benchmarks. The next juncture involves the consideration of the American Diploma Project research by Nevada’s P‑16 Council and possible discussion of recommendations for policy changes. Ms. Byrd explained the next phase should include the following steps:

·The P‑16 Council make necessary recommendations for admissions/placement and hiring policy changes;

·Nevada will participate in the cross‑states advisory process for national American Diploma Project work; and

·Examination and redefining of the content of the HSPE to reflect workplace and higher education expectations.

Referring to redefining the HSPE, Ms. Byrd stated that it might be possible that changes be applied within the existing framework for test item development; additionally, it may be possible to augment the HSPE with content determined by the American Diploma Project or by state policymakers.

Chairman Raggio asked for clarification of the need to redefine the HSPE. Ms. Byrd explained the objective in convening the faculty from higher education is to determine to what extent the HSPE reflects current demands, as anticipated by those involved in higher education or workplace settings. She explained that the content level might be determined to be exactly what is needed; the primary focus would be to work with those involved.

Chairman Raggio raised concern with the portion of the report that suggests the writing exam be combined with the reading portion of the HSPE. the Reading Portion of the HSPE (please refer to page seven of Exhibit A.) He

of the aquestioned referred to page 7 of Exhibit A, noting suggested the questions be that

Panel and provided by Nevada’s Policy Panel Council, and

Concluding, Ms. Byrd provided an update on what has transpired since its implementation in Nevada.

Ms. Byrd’s testimony was aided by use of a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation referenced as Exhibit ___.

ADJOURNMENT

Dr. Augstin Orci

Dr. Augstin Orci, Deputy Superintendent, Instruction, CCSD, Las Vegas, provided the Committee with a document titled “Program Update, Clark County School District and Edison Schools” dated November 15, 2002, (please refer to Exhibit D.). Dr. Orci stated that seven schools were involved with the Edison Partnership during the 2001-02 school year. Reading from the “Executive Summary,” Dr. Orci noted the contractual stipulations to which the schools must adhere.

He briefly discussed the unavailability of Edison’s student achievement data, which will be provided by the 2002-03 Norm‑Referenced Test (NRT) assessments; the results will provide significant opportunity for analysis and comparison. Dr. Orci outlined the principles of the Edison Benchmarks and explained the evaluation of the data from the State of Iowa, as stated on page 3 of the handout (please refer to Exhibit D.).

Dr. Orci made the following observations:

· There was a slight increase in district performance in reading at the 2^nd grade level and a substantial increase for 4^th grade; Edison schools declined slightly in reading at grade 2, with substantial gains in grade 4;

· District performance in grade 2 was unchanged during the one-year period, and performance declined slightly at grade 4; and

· Edison schools showed a slight decline at grade 2 and a more substantial decline for grade 4.

He referred to the charts and graphs contained in the handout that illustrates the performance levels. (Please see to Appendix E-J of Exhibit D.).

Dr. Orci said there appears to be a high degree of parental acceptance of the Edison structure; formal survey results and parental attendance at quarterly teacher‑parent conferences are well attended with positive input, and Edison schools appear to rate high in parent cooperation and satisfaction. Additionally, he noted that

Edison sSchools are noted for their high quality of its training programs;, extensive staff development has been provided and is continuous for principals, teachers, and staff, and teachers.

In conclusion, Dr. Orci statedsaid Edison has honored all aspects of the financial commitments with the CCSD.

Mindy Braun

Mindy Braun, Education Program Analyst, Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation (LBEAPE), Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), requested that Dr. Orci submit additional information regarding the mathematic and reading scores for the Charles I. West Middle School.

Dr. Orci explained that the instruments used for comparison in the elementary grades differ from those used for middle schools. He indicated he would research the request and provide the any documentation as requested by Ms. Braun.

Questioned by Senator O’Connell questioned whether principals of Edison schools are required to confirm student improvement, to which Dr. Orci replied that they are bound by the same obligatory function of instructional leaders, as all Nevada principals.

PRESENTATION ON ISSUES RELATED TO KINDERGARTEN

Assemblyman de Braga introduced Sybella Pope-Sears, a constituent from Yerington, Nevada, who had requested an opportunity to share her observations regarding Nevada’s academic standards.

Sybella Pope-Sears

Sybella Pope-Sears, a Kkindergarten teacher, Yerington, conveyed to the Committee the challenges of Nevada’s teachers to comply with the academic standards set at the kindergarten level. Ms. Pope-Sears referred to a copy of the “Nevada State Standard Checklist, Churchill County School District” (please refer to Exhibit E), and pointed out that many of the requirements are not appropriate for all five‑year‑old students. She reminded the Committee that the amount of time allowed for kindergarten class is 2‑½ hours daily and the requirements, as stated, cannot be achieved in that timeframe. She suggested additional funding be implemented for full‑day kindergarten, with no more than 15fifteen students per class.

WORK SESSION ON BDR NO. 635 – MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO STATUTES GOVERNING EDUCATION TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 – TO THE

72^ND SESSION

OF THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE

Chairman Raggio outlined the procedures the Committee would follow during the work session portion of the meeting. He first reminded the Committee members that during the August 2002 work session, a bill draft was reserved for the implementation of the Ffederal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with the understanding that further work was needed for its finalizing the BDRzation. Four members of the Committee were assigned to work with staff and other interested parties were invited to participate in the development of to develop the recommendations for the entire Committee’s discussion and consideration.

The LCB staff set up a series of meetings organized around the four main topic areas of the federal law: (1) accountability,; (2) assessment,; (3) teacher quality; and (4) reporting. To assist staffthem and the Committee members, staff recruited four additional members were recruitedfor the working group. Chairman Raggio acknowledged and thanked several persons who put much of their time and effort into creating the “Concept Document” (please refer to Exhibit F) to be used during the work session.

The Chairman mentioned the extensive work of Senators O’Connell and Mathews and Assemblymen Gibbons and Manendo; additionally, he thanked Dr. Paul LaMarca, Director, Assessments, Program Accountability, and Curriculum, and Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, both with the Nevada Department of Education; Dotty Merrill, Director, Public Policy and Assessment and Accountability, Washoe County School District; Robert McCord, Educational Leadership, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards. Chairman Raggio commended the commitment and efforts of the group for their assistance and guidance in the complex undertaking of developing the complex Concept Document.

Chairman Raggio called for public comment, and requested that remarkscomments be focused to items contained in the Cconcept Ddocument (Exhibit F). He noted that at the conclusion of the public comment, the Committee would begin its deliberations.

Dr. William “Rob” Roberts

Dr. William “Rob” Roberts, Superintendent, Nye County School District, Tonopah, Nevada, testifying from Las Vegas, thanked the Committee for their work associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the impact it would have on Nevada’s students. Dr Roberts commented there are 16sixteen schools contained in, and spread across Nye County’s 18,000 square miles. The schools contrast from a one-room schoolhouse in Duckwater, Nevada, to the 1,004‑student school in Pahrump, Nevada.

Anne K. Loring

Anne K. Loring, Member, Board of Trustees, Washoe County School District (WCSD), Reno, Nevada, briefly commented on several items contained in the Concept Document (Exhibit F). Ms. Loring first referred to page 3 and offered the support of the Board of Trustees for the section titled “Consequences For Low‑Performing Schools.”

Referring to the bottom of page 7, “ Decisions Ddeferred to the Ffull Committee,” Ms. Loring stated that the WCSD Board of Trustees has approved its legislative platform, which supports the consideration of eliminating the current norm reference tests (NRTs) in grade 10 and substituting the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT). Additionally, she offered support for the remaining bullet points outlined on page 8, as well as the items contained on page 10 under the heading of “Disclosure Of Teacher Qualifications.”

Dan Allison

Dan Allison, a substitute teacher, Carson City, stated that the No Child Left Behind Act fails to “recognize the abilities of teachers and to consider much their input.” Mr. Allison deems the federal legislation as an unfunded mandate and a “top-down authoritarian approach to education.” According to Mr. Allison, much of what is contained in the Act is impractical and not substantiated by research.

Chairman Raggio closed the meeting to public comment.

H. Pepper Sturm

H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, LCB, Carson City, noted that his function was to enlighten the members and explain the process by which the working group would determined the contents of the Concept Document (Exhibit F) and indicated he would provide details of each change as recommended to current law. Much of Mr. Sturm’s testimony was taken directly from the Concept Document and, wherever possible, sections of that document have been inserted below.

Mr. Sturm explained that the Concept Document contains recommendations to revise Nevada’s current accountability statutes, adds required teacher licensing provisions, includes minimum requirements for qualifications in licensing of paraprofessionals, and creates a single statewide system of school accountability. The proposed changes merge Nevada’s existing public school accountability system with the federal model, which requires, among other things, annual testing in reading/language arts and mathematics, periodic testing in science, and a data management system to report information regarding those tests. Additionally, the changes address state, district, and school report cards; teacher quality; financial accountability systems; remedial programs; and accountability sanctions and rewards.

Whenever possible, the existing system is retained and revisions will, to the extent possible, be designed to fit with the purpose of the current system. While making needed changes, the revisions also retain the emphasis upon assisting schools and districts with school improvement and upon providing policymakers at all levels with information needed to make decisions with regard to public education as containedenvisioned in the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) of 1997. To the extent possible, the recommendations are nonspecific with regard to federal statutory language, but specific with regard to the concepts needed to establish a statewide system of standards-based accountability linked to state assessments and to specific school and school district improvement processes.

Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress

Referring to the section on Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress, Mr. Sturm noted represent the most significant changes to Nevada’s accountability system. The federal act contains specific provisions that states must adopt with regard to school, district, and state accountability requirements. While most of the federal sanctions apply only to schools receiving Title I funds, other sanctions apply to districts receiving Title I funds (all 17 school districts).

No significant changes are needed to provisions concerning the adoption and review of statewide academic standards. However, the Legislative Committee on Education (LCE) should ask the Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools (Council) to review the rigor of the high school proficiency examination (HSPE) and alignment of the test with the exit standards

Adequate Yearly Progress For Schools

Mr. Sturm referred to the section on “Adequate Yearly Progress For Schools,” and explained the technical method that was developed to assign accountability:

· . SpecifyIdentify in statute that the State Board of Education (State Board) will determine proficiency levels for the purpose of AYP, but make no reference to cut scores.

· Further, sSpecify that the NDE or State Board will define AYP and refer generally to establishing the AYP starting point, defining a timeline for progress, and setting increasing performance objectives over time. In addition, require that 95 percent of students, and 95 percent of each subgroup, take state examinations or it is an automatic failure to make AYP.

· DirectAdditionally, the Council may need to be directed tto revise terminology for state performance standards from “meets standards” to “proficient.” A number of technical changes and adjustments will need to be made, including deleting testing/accountability exceptions for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and special education students (Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 389.017), and retest provisions (NRS 385.368) to include retesting subgroups.

Questioned by Senator Washington inquired aboutas to the definition or make‑up of a subgroup., Mr. Sturm replied a subgroup consists ofincluded students determined to fall under the following categories:with either Special Education status,; Limited English Proficient (LEP);, income status,; and five racial/ethnic classifications, which include: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American.

· Require that the additional indicator requiredrequired by NCLB shall be the high school graduation rate for high school, and the average daily attendance for middle/elementary levels.

· The NDE shall determine the method of calculating AYP (may use an averaging option), but yearly reports concerning AYP must still be made. The statutes shall specify the process for the districts and the NDE to make the required annual determination of school AYP, including establishing deadlines, for review for errors, and for notification of the the LCE, the Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability and Program Evaluation (LBEAPE), and the Governor. The NDE shall establish exceptions (i.e., safe harbor) as permitted by federal law.

· The NDE shall specify federal AYP requirements for LEP students (to highlight importance and focus), including participation in AYP and assessments, tracking time in programs, and annual achievement objectives for development of language proficiency.

· The LCECommittee should require that LBEAPE develop prioritization and direction of state remediation funding to schools with the greatest need, based on the number of subgroups failing.

· Finally, tThe LCE should send a letter of intent to the NDE and to school districts stressing prioritization of all remediation funding to AYP-related programs.

Consequences For Low‑Performing Schools

Revise statutes (generally within NRS Chapter 385) to incorporate new accountability provisions asthat follows:

· After two consecutive years of failure to make AYP, school districts must designate all such schools for improvement and provide technical assistance, including professional development, and reallocation of school budgets, and, and for Title I–served schools only – offer school choice options as specified in the federal act;

· After three consecutive years of failure, school districts will continue actions stated above for year two, and for Title I–served schools only – offer supplemental services as required in the federal act;

· After four consecutive years of failure, school districts must continue above actions stated for years two and three and for Title I–served schools only – take corrective action per federal law; and

· After five consecutive years of failure, school districts must restructure Title I–served schools only (nontitle I schools continue at level of intervention for year four designation).

Schools may exit from corrective status if they make AYP for two consecutive years. Students who have opted to transfer from those schools may remain, but districts only are obligated to fund their transportation while their home schools are low-performing. State actions for nontitle I schools after two years will be handled through school support teams.

School Improvement

· Specify within statute that all districts shall make an annual review of all public schools within the district to determine if schools are making AYP, including deadlines and reporting; two‑year improvement plans shall be developed for all schools.

· Stipulate that Specify that wwithin three months of identifying a school as not making AYP, the two-year improvement plans must be revised that target problem areas, incorporating strategies from scientifically‑based research, and adopting policies and practices designed to meet the AYP goals of having all students at proficient or advanced levels in 12 years.

· The statutes shall also include specific components of school improvement plans, to include: using scientifically -based strategies; containing annual measurable objectives relative to AYP; requiring that the plan be implemented expeditiously; requiring that the district have a peer review process for school plans; requiringcalling for the district to provide technical assistance in data and problem analysis for the school plan development; and so on, as noted in the federal law.

· Further, sSpecify that districts and/or the state will provide identified schools with technical assistance, including analyzing data, professional development, and scientifically-based strategies. The Regional Professional Development Programs (RPDPs) are authorized to accept federal school improvement and professional development funds and participate in school improvement planning and assistance.

· Finally, tThe LCE, LBEAPE, the State Board, and the Governor shall receive copies of the plans annually.

AYP For School Districts

· Require NDE to review districts annually to determine if schools are achieving AYP and the district is complying with school improvement, parental involvement, and teacher quality. Specify that if any of the disaggregated groups do not meet the measurable objectives at the district level, then the district will be considered as failing to make AYP.

· Require the NDE to: identify for improvement any district that, for two years (including two consecutive years immediately preceding enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act), has failed to make AYP, and identify for corrective action any district that was in corrective action status under the prior Title I rules.

· Specify that NDE must provide the district with a review process concerning the academic assessment data used to make the identification. Provide that NDE must publicize the results of the review and disseminate them to districts, teachers, and other staff, students, and the community. Additionally, the state must notify “promptly” parents of every child who attends a school in the district identified for improvement about the results of the review, the reasons why the district has been identified, and how parents can participate in upgrading the quality of the local educational agency.

Identification Of Low‑Performing Districts For Improvement

· Specify the NDE will identify low-performing districts and list general requirements for plans and names for categories of districts, et cetera. For failing districts, require that within three months, the district will revise its plan in consultation with staff and parents and will implement it no later than the beginning of the next school year. Specify deadlines and receipt of plans, including the LCE, LBEAPE, Governor, and State Board.

· SpecifyDetail contents of district improvement plans in accordance with federal provisions, including scientifically‑based research strategies,; professional development,; parent involvement,; measurable achievement goals,; fundamental teaching/learning needs,; extended learning time,; and responsibilities for technical assistance from the state.

· Provide, generally, that technical assistance to districts will be provided by the NDE and others (LBEAPE).

· The federal definition of corrective actions for districts should be referenced. Therefore, Sspecify in statute (to highlight) the corrective actions that may be taken by the state, including deferral of funding, new curricula, replacement of staff, establishment of alternative governance, appointment of a trustee, or abolition or restructuring of the district; also include notice and hearing provisions that must be made prior to implementing corrective action.

State System Of School Support

Consistent with federal requirements, specify within statute a statewide system of school support. This system shall give priority in the following order to:

· Districts with schools subject to corrective action and assistance to those schools in a district that have failed to carry out their responsibilities;

· Districts with schools identified for improvement; and

· Other districts and schools that need it.

The RPDPs, the federal regional education labs, and the University and Community College System of NevadaN (UCCSN) are specifically authorized to participate in the system and work as partners, and state remediation funds are referenced as part of the statewide system of support.

Consistent with federal requirements, specify that the NDE assist each school to:

· “Develop the capacity to comply” with the requirements pertaining to school wide programs and targeted assistance schools;

· Provide additional assistance to students needing help in meeting state standards; and

· Ensure that poor and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of field teachers.

School Support Teams Substitutes for Panels in Current Law: Establish school support teams, with the composition as set forth in federal law, for all schools after two years of failure to make AYP. School support teams may consider all facets of school operations; shall cooperate with parents, RPDPs, LBEAPE, Title I coordinators, and staff in the design and implementation of the school improvement plan; may evaluate the school personnel; and make other recommendations. School support teams shall also report their recommendations to the LCE, the State Board, the Governor, and LBEAPE. Finally, it is recommended that the LCE send a letter to the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, and school district boards of trustees alerting them to the need for future capacity to sustain school improvement efforts as numbers of identified schools increase over time. Reference optional corrective actions and restructuring similar to federal law.

Supplemental Services: Establish authority within statute for the participation of LCE and LBEAPE in determination of supplemental service providers required for Title I schools not achievingmaking AYP.

Concluding this portion of the document, Mr. Sturm briefly referenced AYP Ffor sState and sSchool rRecognition; and continued his outline by referencing page 7 of the Concept Document, explaining the section relating to “Assessment.”

Assessments are linked to the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements under NCLB. Changes are required to the type and frequency of Nevada’s proficiency testing requirements; current exceptions to testing (special education status and limited English status), must be removed and revised; and additional provisions made concerning the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests.

State Assessments

Make general reference in statutes to federal assessment requirements. Delete current student assessment exemptions from statutes (primarily NRS 389.015; NRS 389.017; and NRS 385.364), and direct NDE/State Board to adopt regulations on the participation of all students in the statewide proficiency program.

Grades 3- through 8: Add standards based tests (known as criterion-referenced tests—CRTs) for grades 4, 6, and 7 in reading and mathematics with spring administration (combine with existing CRTs in grades 3, 5, and 8). Provide that the CRTs be designed to achieve vertical alignment and lay a foundation for value-added analyses. Retain requirement for norm-referenced tests (NRTs), and administer them in grades 4 and 8. The NRTs will not be part of assigning accountability status or AYP determination, but will be used for external check of CRTs. Should a significant misalignment be identified between CRTs and NRTs, the NDE would be required to review the CRTs for rigor, and the Council would be required to review the affected standards to determine if there is a significant deviation from national norms. Specify the status of current writing tests as part of the reading/language arts assessment – 4^th grade is not part of accountability/AYP, and the 8^th grade test is part of accountability/AYP.

High School: Specify that the state will use the High School Proficiency Exam for the reading//mathematics/science assessment required in grade span 10-12.

Science: Continue to include the science assessment in the current CRTs in grades 5 and 8, but do not include them as part of accountability/AYP unless required in 2007-08. Further, delay incorporation of science into HSPE (it has already been delayed once before), until 2007-08 (the federal deadline).

[Note: See page 26 of the minutes for the Chairman’s proposal to modify the assessment recommendations.]

Mr. Sturm outlined the decisions to which the working group did not reach consensus, and were deferred to the full Committee, andwhich include:

1. Consider eliminating the current NRT in grade 10 and substitute the PSAT;

2. Consider moving grade 4 NRT to grade 5 (to avoid overlap with NAEP testing);

3. Consider giving NRT in the spring to minimize testing disruption and facilitate comparisons;

4. Only require NRTs to provide school level reports versus individual student reports; and

5. Consider elimination of science from NRTs.

Chairman Raggio indicated a preference for additional discussion by the Committee on the items listed above, following Mr. Sturm’s presentation.

Continuing, Mr. Sturm addressed the following topics:

Assessment And Reporting Of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

Make general reference to inclusion policies in state accountability statutes (as noted in AYP portion) and direct the NDE to: provide definitions of LEP, et cetera; adopt regulations on requirements and extensions for testing; review the need for tests in other languages; develop standard notification forms and procedures for parental notice; and review English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and make recommendations on statewide programs and best practices.

In addition, require tracking of LEP students and reporting to the LCE, the Governor, and LBEAPE, including evaluation reports under Title III. The LCE should also send a letter of intent to the NDE recommending review of achievement gap issues for LEP students.

Assessment And Reporting Of Special Education Students

Refer in statute to the need for a statewide policy on inclusion of special education students in state assessments. Additionally, the LCE should send a letter of intent to the NDE recommending review of achievement gap issues for special education students in combination with review of LEP students as noted above.

National Assessment of Education Progress Testing

Amend statutes to require the NDE to present analysis and comparison of Nevada and national NAEP results to corresponding statewide assessments.

Continuing, Mr. Sturm then directed the Committee to page 9 of the Concept Document and summarized recommendations relating to Quality of Teachers and Paraprofessionals.

Although Nevada complies with much of NCLB’s requirements with regard to teachers and paraprofessionals, a number of changes are recommended for areas in which the state does not comply. Recommendations are made relating to teacher and paraprofessional qualifications, the required disclosures of these qualifications, and high quality professional development.

Qualification Of Teachers

Mr. Sturm mentioned a relatively new statute that addresses emergency hire procedures. He noted that the working group agreed and due to the new requirements, to revise the emergency hire statute (primarily at NRS 391.125) to prohibit hiring of teachers who are not highly qualified in low‑performing schools. Further, prohibit the use of “out of field” teachers at such schools in core academic subjects. School districts will be required to maintain the balance of experienced teachers in its low-performing schools at the same or higher level as in other schools within the district.

For new middle school teachers, amend NRS 391.031 to recognize a middle school license; direct the Commission on Professional Standards in Education to review/modify licensing regulations to address content knowledge to meet federal requirements. For existing middle school teachers, make no change in statutes, but direct the Commission on Professional Standards in Education (NRS 391.019) to adopt regulations for subject matter competency to move Nevada toward compliance (part of the state plan). In general, the Commission and schools of education will be asked through letters of intent from the LCE to improve and streamline competency testing.

Qualifications Of Paraprofessionals

Since Nevada had not previously regulated education paraprofessionals, these additions will be new. The State Board is directed to specify test(s) for statewide qualifications for instructional paraprofessionals to facilitate portability and to consider reciprocity with other states. Data on paraprofessional qualifications and school assignments will be collected and reported at the school, district, and state level. Finally, letters will be directed to the Budget Division of Nevada’s Department of Administration, advising of the fiscal impact of the NCLB Act on paraprofessional positions in Nevada, and to the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) urging consideration of paraprofessional programs and incorporation of flexibility in scheduling programs.

Disclosure Of Teacher Qualifications

Mr. Sturm explained that the act also requires notice to parents of their right to request information on teacher qualifications. Notice also is required in Title I schools if a student is taught more than four weeks by unqualified teachers.

Additionally, amend Nevada’s statutes to:

· Amend Nevada accountability statutes to iInclude teacher qualification data in school, district, and state level reports;

· . Further, amend statutes tIo include data collection and reporting on high quality, experienced teachers in low‑-income, Title I, and low-performing schools;

· . Amend statutes tRo require notice to ALL parents of requests for teacher qualifications; direct the State Board to determine district response times to parent inquiries, and how data is to be collected and reported; and

· . Further, amend statutes t Ro require Title I and low‑performing schools to send notice to parents if a student is taught more than four weeks by an unqualified teacher, and direct the State Board to adopt regulations concerning timely responses and to consider the need for reconciliation with long-term substitute regulations.

Professional Development

· Amend statutes (at NRS 391.520 and elsewhere) to include a role for RPDPs in school improvement efforts, and; specify that professional development in low-performing schools must be high quality per the federal definition. Additionally, amend statutes to authorize RPDPs to provide professional development to paraprofessionals, within budget limits.

· Further, rRequire the NDE to prepare a state plan for meeting the highly qualified teacher goal for core subjects (including measurable objectives and annual increases in percentage) and relate the plan to the federal definition of high quality professional development.

· In order to kmaintaineep the focus of the RPDPs upon student achievement and school improvement, amend statutes to further define the role of the RPDPs role to avoid districts/ and others from co-opting their time and claiming their involvement in proposed programs or grants without their formal permission.

· The Committee should also consider increasing RPDP budgets to reflect these new requirements and provide authority to act as a grantee and to contract with districts to provide district professional development.

Teacher Liability Protection

Nevada has its own statutes concerning limited immunity from liability. The Committee may:  (1) not propose any changes to state law, which would mean that the federal immunity provisions preempt state law to the extent that the state law is inconsistent; or (2) recommend that the federal provisions not apply in Nevada. Because the latter recommendation requires a separate bill and the Committee already has ten BDRs, the Committee may make such a recommendation by sending a letter to the chairman of the appropriate standing committee to request such a BDR.

Mr. Sturm made special note of the fact that the Committee may need to address the issue of an additional bill draft request.

Chairman Raggio questioned the need for a separate bill draft for the purpose.

Kristin C. Roberts

Kristin C. Roberts, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, LCB, explained that federal law is very specific in its requirement that a state must have a separate bill, containing no other material if the state chooses that the federal provisions do not apply in Nevada. Ms. Roberts cited the area of conflict to be NRS 41.031 “Waiver applies to state and its political subdivisions; naming state as defendant; service of process; state does not waive immunity conferred by Eleventh Amendment.” However, there is another section of the law that limits the award of damages to not exceed $50,000.

Chairman Raggio asked what purposed would be served for the Committee to recommend that the federal provisions not apply in Nevada.

Ms. Roberts responded that the federal provisions actually provide more immunity. Additionally, she responded that the federal law gives immunity for teachers if they have taken certain actions to control discipline in the classroom. The federal law would preempt state law to the extent of the inconsistencies.

The Chairman indicated it might be wise to allow the federal law to apply and preempt state law, if we are assured that , in fact, the state’s immunity laws are not removed.

Proceeding with his presentation of the Concept Document, Mr. Sturm outlined the final section defined as “Reporting and Student Information System Requirements.”

The Ffederal No Child Left Behind Act has sweeping implications for how states collect, analyze, and use data about school and system performance. The new federal requirements – including a broader collection of information and a speedy turnaround of state assessment data to local districts – require states to improve the usability of their data systems. The law does not explicitly require states to have specific database structures, but it endorses databases that link students’ test scores, the length of time they’ve been enrolled in given schools, and graduation records over time.

This section contains recommendations about the technical and reporting structures that support the previous sections of this document. Specific sections include state, district, and school level report cards; selected reports to the Federal Government; the statewide student reporting system; and Safe and Drug Free Schools provisions.Mr. Sturm reviewed the following reporting procedures:

State Level Report Cards

· Provide in statute for a state level report card and a state level plan for improvement;. Rrequire that the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s report (NRS 385.230) to include findings from the state report card.

· Further, dDirect the State Board to adopt a minimum sample size for reporting.

· Specify in statute, in general terms, the contents of the state report card as described in the federal act, allowing for the report to contain other items.

· By letter, direct the NDE to convene the school accountability technical advisory committee to recommend to the State Board and to the LCE additional items for state report card, if any.

District Level Report Cards

· Revise current statutes to adjust the dates for Nevada school districts to issue district level report cards, consistent with federal deadlines for such reports. In addition, provide in statute that district report cards will be uniform in format and direct the school accountability technical advisory committee to review the format and make recommendations to LCE.

· Direct, by letter, the NDE/State Board to review the need for district level reports in other languages. Further, direct the State Board to adopt a minimum number of students for the sample size required for reporting purposes. S

· Specify in statute, in general terms, the contents of the district report card as described in the federal act, allowing for the report to contain other items.

· By letter, direct that the NDE convene the school accountability technical advisory committee to recommend to the State Board and to the LCE additional items for the district report card, if any. Further, direct the advisory committee to make recommendations to the State Board and to the LCE on revisions to the Part III reports currently required under statute.

School Level Report Card

· Revise current statutes to adjust the dates for Nevada school districts to issue school level report cards, consistent with federal deadlines for such reports. In addition, provide in statute that these school report cards will be uniform in format within a district. ; dDirect by letter that the NDE and the State Board review the format and make recommendations to LCE.

· Direct, by letter, that the NDE and the State Board review the need for district level reports in other languages. Further, direct the State Board to adopt a minimum number of students for the sample size required for reporting purposes.

· Specify in statute, in general terms, the contents of the school report card as described in the federal act, allowing for the report to contain other items.

· By letter, direct that the NDE convene the school accountability technical advisory committee to recommend to the State Board and to the LCE additional items for the school level report card, if any. Require each school, regardless of AYP status, to prepare a school improvement plan and to monitor progress towards the goals. Further, require the outcomes to be included in subsequent plans. Finally, reconcile school improvement plan requirements with current Part III reports to avoid duplication.

Related State Reports to the Federal Government (Selected)

Direct a letter of intent to the NDE/State Board that selected reports required to be submitted to the Federal Government concerning accountability, teacher qualifications, dropouts, Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, and safe schools also be submitted to the Governor, the LCE, and LBEAPE. In addition, require by statute that the NDE and/or the State Board adopt regulations regarding the reporting of effectiveness of instructional programs for LEP students. Finally, provide within the statutes that the approved list of programs of remedial study shall also include programs designed to increase the academic achievement and language proficiency of LEP students.

Chairman Raggio clarified that the letters of intent would originatewere come from the LCE. Mr. Sturm indicated that was correct, and noted that the item had been included in the Concept Document as a measure of consistency.

Student Reporting System

Provide in statute (primarily at NRS 386.650 et seq.) that the statewide student reporting system have the capacity to meet state and federal reporting requirements, including the ability to disaggregate data by the subgroups specified in reporting and AYP requirements; specifically provide that student achievement results must be disaggregated as defined by federal law. Additionally, Pprovide that the statewide reporting system will use unique student identifiers to enable student tracking over time and across districts. (Note: this is the foundation for establishing a “value-added” model to track individual student academic growth over time.) Further, Pprovide authority within statute for multiple user access levels within the statewide system to accountability data for state and local policymakers, school and district administrators, teachers, parents, and others, as appropriate.

Mr. Sturm reviewed the decisions relative this section, to which there was no consensus and were deferred to the full Committee.

1. Revise statutes to require that the Superintendent of Public Instruction prescribe to the school districts their student information system, which may include standardized software or format.

2. Specify that the statewide student information system’s data collection model will provide for inclusion of quasi-longitudinal or longitudinal comparisons in student reporting.

Additionally, Mr. Sturm acknowledged that the working group requested direction be given to the staff of the NDE, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and other stakeholders to consider:

· Centralization versus decentralization of the statewide student reporting system;

· The need for electronic transfers of student transcripts;

· The issues of collecting data on course taking, program participation, enrollment, background/demographics, and staff;

· The issue of network connectivity for all schools (in conjunction with the Commission on Educational Technology); and

· Reporting of any findings and recommendations to LCE and the State Board.

Concluding, his remarks Mr. Sturm briefly focused on Ssafe and dDrug-Ffree sSchools and cCommunities, and Mmiscellaneous Rreporting Rrequirements from Oother Mmeetings, and Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements from Other Meetings:.

· Require by statute that school districts establish a plan for safe and drug-free schools and, to the extent practicable, avoid duplication with existing requirements for discipline policies and crises plans, and . Require by statute that the NDE and/or State Board adopt a definition of “persistently dangerous” school. Further, require the NDE and/or State Board to adopt regulations regarding the safe schools transfer option, consistent with the federal law.

· By letter, direct the NDE to convene the school accountability technical advisory committee to more clearly define incidents of violence, drug/alcohol use, et cetera, to ensure that collected data is meaningful, uniform, and comparable across districts.

· Specify in statute that the report the state is required to send to the Federal Government concerning this program also be submitted to the Governor, the LCE, and LBEAPE.

Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements from Other Meetings

· Regarding miscellaneous reporting requirements, Pprovide by statute that schools identified for school improvement shall notify parents concerning the identification and shall describe the proposed plan to address improvement. Further, consistent with the federal act, require by statute that the NDE/State Board adopt regulations regarding the publicizing of the NDE’s review of district AYP results and for the prompt notification by the NDE of parents of students in schools within a district identified for improvement.

Chairman Raggio commended Mr. Sturm for the detailed and extensive work he has provided the committee throughout the interim. Further, the ChairmanHe stated that the Concept Document is an excellent paper and he considered the majority of the document acceptable for purposes of the bill draft. In addition, the Chairman indicated he made note of several areas that needed additional structure and. Chairman Raggio made the following additional observations to be included in the bill draft as recommendations:

· Determine the number of schools I think we need a better of idea of how many schools would be classified as low‑performing, and d under this BDR. I also think we need to devise categories for schools that can guide our school improvement efforts. . Both state and fFederal funding sources are limited in this regard, and specific categories will assist in identifyinghelp us identify schools that are most at need for assistance. Additionally, We need these school designations are needed toto help prioritize the work of the school support teams mentioned in theis BDR and for assigning state and federal school improvement funds. The Chairman suggested uI think we should usetilizing basically the same four categories we currently usedhave under NERA: —(1) schools needing improvement,; (2) adequate,; (3) high achieving; and and (4) exemplary. To that end, I would like to ask Sstaff was asked to work with the Nevada Department of Education’s staff to run a series of simulations concerning the numbers of schools that would be identified as low-performing and under some of the assumptions we have heard about – setting the initial proficiency at different levels, and with variousdifferent subgroups failing to meet AYP (adequate yearly progress) targets, and so on. After processingrunning of these models, I would ask that we assign criteria should be assigned to these categories in statute to ensureso that we have approximately the same number of low-performing schools identified for these focused services correspond toas we had under NERA. The Chairman requestedAlso, I would like LBEAPE to review theat structure for school funding purposes.

· The working group also recommended a limited program to provide bonuses for experienced teachers and administrators who teach in low‑performing schools. If we can narrow the accountability categories of schools can be determined, it was suggested that a pilot program be implementedlet’s pursue this idea as a pilot program for the limited number of schools that have had continuing problems under NERA and under the new federal requirements.

· Since school level financial accountability data is a key component of the school improvement process, it is essential that districts utilize the In$ite Financial Model Program to determine allocations associated with NCLB. Chairman Raggio indicated support for continuation of the state’s fiscal accountability appropriation in the amount of $287,427 over the 2003-05 biennium, which represents a 5 percent reduction from the contract amount of $304,000 for the 2001‑03 biennium. Further, it should be specified in statute that program and school level financial accounting are linkable to student outcomes and programs by utilizing a financial accountability system across school districts.

·

Since school level financial accountability data is such a key part of the school improvement process, we need to ensure that districts utilize the financial accountability system to make allocation determinations associated with NCLB.

·

I will include the continuation of the state’s fiscal accountability appropriation in this bill in the amount of $287,427 over the 2003-05 biennium (this represents a 5 percent reduction from the contract amount of $304,000 for the 2001‑03 biennium). Also, we need to specify in statutes that program and school level financial accounting are linkable to student outcomes and programs by utilizing a financial accountability system across school districts.

· During the August 27, 2002, At the August work session, funding appropriations for educational technology was overlookedI think we overlooked one of our continuing appropriations for educational technology. Since this funding is tied to school improvement efforts, I would ask that the BDR should include a continuation of the $10 million appropriation to the Commission on Educational Technology – essentially, a redraft of the provisions from Senate Bill.B. 427 (Chapter 574, Statutes of Nevada) of the 2001 Session. (It was noted that Tthe 2001 funds were appropriated but frozenare being held by the Governor due to budget considerations.).

· One thing mMissing from the state level report card, as mentioned on page 11 of the Concept Document, are the NAEP scores from NAEP, the “Nnation’s Rreport Ccard.” This information wouldill enhance the state’sadd to our ability to compare Nevada’sour standards and achievement levels with other states. The Chairman requested thatPlease add a provision be added to to the bill that wouldto include Nevada’s NAEP results in thea state level accountability report.

· I also understand that tThe working group also discussed some of the required deadlines of the BDR’s required deadlines for reporting and parental choice that may present difficulties for year round schools. It was suggested by the Chairman thatI would like the bill drafter to review the concept of establishing a defined school year beginning September 1 of each year for reporting and school choice purposes, and include it if it is feasible and consistent with federal law

Continuing, Chairman Raggio stated that the Committee hascontinued by stating that we have a good overview of the new accountability system, but, as always, when bills of this magnitude are drafted, questions arise concerning details that were we have not considered. Given the time constraints, the CommitteeSince we may not have time to review these changes prior to the 2003 Sessionthis session; therefore, without objection, he called upon I would ask that staff to work with the Cchairman on these changes and other details that may arise in drafting theis measure.

The Chairman Raggio concluded his remarks by commending the working group for developingcoming up with a unified system that retains the focus of NERA, which include the. The document calls for CRTs in grades 3 through 8, while retaining NRTs in grades 4 and 8 to ensure a system of checks and balanceas a check.

The Chairman remarked that he has As you know, I have always maintained that NRTsour Norm Referenced Tests are a better reflection of Nevada’sour overall achievement at the state level than areare CRTs, but remarked he does recognize. I do recognize that CRTs are valuable at the classroom and school level, and that NCLBNo Child Left Behind does requires that we have this type of standards-based test.

However, since NERA is based upon the NRTs, it was his opinion that Nevada should we should take the option other many other states have taken to implementuse augmented NRTs in grades 3 through 8. This approach allows for the continued use ofus to continue using the NRTs, while adding the CRT components of standards-based test questions, thereby complying with the federal requirements. IThis think this option shouldwill provide for less testing of students, while retaining a “check” on theour state’s achievement levels using national norms.

Chairman Raggio referred to the bottom of page 7 of the Concept Document, and recommended the first bullet point, which states “Consider eliminating the current NRT in grade 10 and substitute the PSAT” be revised to read as stated above, thereby deleting the remaining bullet points on pages 7 and 8. (Please refer to page 7 of Exhibit F.)

Additionally, Chairman Raggio recommended making no change to Nevada statutes, which is one of the options under “Teacher Liability Protection” the deletion of the section referring to Teacher Liability Protection (please refer to page 10 of Exhibit F), therebywhich allowsing that federal immunity provisions to preempt state law, by making no change to Nevada statutes.

The Chairman further recommended the bill draft include provisions to require that the Superintendent of Public Instruction prescribe to the school districts their student information system, which may include standardized software or format. Secondly, provisions toshould specify that the statewide student information system’s data collection model will provide for inclusion of quasi‑longitudinal or longitudinal comparisons in student reporting. (Please refer to the bulleted items contained on page 13 of the Concept Document in Exhibit F).

Chairman Raggio called for comments or questions from the Committee, then stated he would accept a motion.

Mrs. de Braga questioned whether a funding mechanism is in place for continuation of the programs initiated to assist low‑performing schools subsequent to remediation.

Mr. Sturm explained that under the current system, school remediation funds are provided by an appropriation, and the staff of the NDE and LCB reviews the applications and approves distribution of the grant funds. He noted that eligibility could continue for schools that have been previously identified through the legislative language of the appropriation. A new funding system will be devised for the remediation funds, andwhich will determine how those funds will be distributed in the future.

Mrs. de Braga statedsaid she wanted to ensure that a school did not have to fail in order to be eligible for continuation of the funds.

Responding to a question from Senator O’Connell, questioned Mr. Sturm repliedif current law contains a specific amount determined for required for adequate yearly progress. Mr. Sturm responded that currently under reauthorization of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the schools were required to make an AYP of 5five percent per year. There may be provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which will come into effect.

Chairman Raggio requested a motion authorizing the drafting of BDR No. 635 .

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR DRAFTING OF BDR NO. 635, CONTAINING THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE DOCUMENT TITLED “CONCEPTS FOR BILL DRAFT REQUEST NO. 635 CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE NEVADA EDUCATION REFORM ACT TO CONFORM WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001” AND WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED BY CHAIRMAN RAGGIO. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator Washington asked for clarification whether the state or the school district would be responsible for parental notification if AYPadequate yearly progress was not achieved at the district level. Mr. Strurm explained that the state is required to notify every parent, of each student attending the school that is determined to be below AYP requirements. The parents may then become involved in the process of ensuringgetting the school and the district achieves their goalsback on track.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Raggio commended Mrs. de Braga for her years of legislative service, in particular her dedication and interest in matters pertaining to education.

The

There was no further business to come before the Legislative Committee on Education; Chairman Raggio reminded the Committee the next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2003, to be held in Carson City; with no further business to come before the Legislative Committee on Education he aadjourned the meeting at 12:53 ______________ p.m.

Exhibit G ______ is the “Attendance Record” for this meeting.

Respectfully submitted

Ricka Benum

Senior Research Secretary

Susan E. Scholley

Senior Research Analyst

APPROVED BY:

___________________________________

William J. Raggio, Chairman

Date:_______________________________

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A is an informational document titled “Saving Money While Reducing Student and Teacher Anxiety” submitted by Ray Bacon, Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, Carson City.

Exhibit B was submitted by Steve Huff, Educational Consultant, eInstruction, Denton, Texas, and includes the following documents:

1. A pamphlet titled “The New Interactive – eInstruction;”;

2. A compact disc (CD), titled “eInstruction, CPS Interactive Video;”; and

3. A pamphlet titled “CPS, Your Class Will Thank You.”

is a report submitted by Sheila Byrd, Director, American Diploma Project, titled “Nevada – Assessing the Test Gap: Findings from the Gap Analysis for the American Diploma Project dated June 2002.”

Exhibit BC is a report titled Small Schools Committee, A Report to the Board of Trustees Clark County School District, dated October 24, 2002, submitted

The by Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director, Community and Government Relations, Clark County School District, Las Vegas.

Exhibit D is a report dated November 15, 2002, titled “Program Update, Clark County School District and Edison Schools” submitted by Dr. Augstin Orci, Deputy Superintendent, Instruction, Clark County School District, Las Vegas,

Exhibit E is a copy of the “Nevada State Standard Checklist, Churchill County School District” submitted by Sybella Pope-Sears, a Kindergarten teacher, Yerington, Nevada.

Exhibit F is a document titled “Concepts For Bill Draft Request No. 635 Concerning Revisions To The Nevada Education Reform Act To Conform With the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” prepared by H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Carson City.

Exhibit G is the “Attendance Record” for this meeting.

Copies of the materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Carson City, Nevada. You may contact the library at (775) 684‑6827.

presentation of Jim Lanich, Director, Western States, National Center for Educational Accountability, titled “Using Accountability Systems to Improve Public Education.”

I is

Exhibit J is a

1.

Exhibit s the “Attendance Record” for this meeting.

Copies of the materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Carson City, Nevada. You may contact the library at (775) 684 6827.