School district keeps close watch

Friday, April 18, 2003 | 9:06 a.m.

Education measures While the Clark County School District has two bills moving forward, other education-related legislation pending includes:

Would turn the statewide high school proficiency exam into an extra credit endorsement on a diploma instead of a requirement for graduation. It is expected to draw fierce debate when it goes to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Supporters of the bill say it would allow students to go on to gainful employmen or careers in the military that would otherwise be out of reach. But many educators, including members of the Nevada Board of Education, say such a move would lower the achievement bar without addressing the reason some 10 percent of the state's seniors fail the exam each year.

Passed by the Assembly Human Resources and Facilities Committee, it would let local school districts set tougher standards for acceptable student absences. The bill would also require students to complete all makeup assignments to receive course credit.

Would allow the school district to extend a pilot program to replace aging camp uses using bond funds. It will be heard Monday in the Senate Human Resources and Facilities Committee where it is expected to receive support. If the bill passes, the first campus to be replaced will be Rancho High School in North Las Vegas, district officials said.

Would set new limits on privatization agreements between school districts and contractors for educational services -- such as the Clark County School District's contract with Edison Schools Inc.

The Clark County School District is batting .500 in Carson City -- two of the four bills it sponsored have made it out of committee and are headed for the next step in the legislative process.

"Two out of four, that's not a bad showing," said Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas. "How many of us lawmakers get 100 percent of our bills through? Or even 50 percent?"

Assembly Bill 240, which passed out of the Assembly Education Committee Wednesday, would allow school districts to issue general obligation bonds to pay for more than just building new schools. Under the terms of the bill, the bond money could also be used to replace aging campuses, furnish classrooms and provide buses for student transportation.

"This is money that is badly needed, especially for our schools in older neighborhoods," said Fred Smith, construction manager for the School District. "There are plenty improvements people would like to see us make, but we can't do it without the dollars."

The other School District bill advancing is Senate Bill 460, which would give school officials more leeway in firing licensed personnel for a variety of drug or sex-related offenses or failure to maintain a valid license.

School officials are working with the teachers' union to fine-tune the bill before its next hearing, said George Ann Rice, associate superintendent of human resources for the district. At issue -- ensuring teachers have an opportunity to defend themselves before being fired.

One of the district's bills died outright -- a measure that would have given school districts access to sealed drug conviction records of job applicants. The proposal, which failed to make it out of the education committee, was decried by the state's teachers' union as well as privacy advocates.

With Senate Bill 234, the School District sought to set new limits on hearings for special education students, setting a cap on costs and a one-year statute of limitations for filing complaints.

School officials claimed the prolonged hearings resulted in steep fees for hearing officers and often involved allegations going back as many as five years, making it difficult to locate witnesses.

Robin Kincaid, director of training for the support group Parents Educating Parents, opposed the bill, calling it an attempt by the School District to save money by putting hurdles in front of children who are already facing enough challenges.

But instead of approving the bill as written, the Senate Human Resources and Facilities Committee voted to instruct the state Education Department to work with local school districts, parent groups and other interested parties to study the existing hearing process and report and recommendations for changes to the committee by September 2004.

The state's hearing officers association recently completed an audit and found several areas where the process could be improved, said Cegavske, who serves on the Senate committee. It's only fair to give the hearing officers a chance to come up with, and implement, changes, Cegavske said.

Additionally, there's pending federal legislation that seeks to set a three-year statute of limitations on special education due process hearings, and that law would supersede anything set by the state, Cegavske said.

"It makes more sense to take a wait-and-see approach on this," she said.

William Hoffman, general counsel for the Clark County School District, said Thursday he was "very disappointed" the bill didn't advance in its original form.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Act guarantees special education students free, appropriate instruction from public school districts and provides for due process hearings when parents believe their child is not being treated fairly. The Clark County School District faces about 50 such hearings each year, in some cases dragging on for weeks at a cost of $5,000 per day, Hoffman said.

While the district's legal staff handles all special education hearings in-house, there's still the hourly cost of the hearing officer and the court reporter.

"(The hearing officers) have no incentive to streamline the hearing process or limit evidence in a reasonable manner," Hoffman said.

The statute of limitations would encourage parents to bring complaints in a timely manner, Hoffman said. It would also force hearing officers to focus only on the most relevant information, Hoffman said.