[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2649, THE SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT OF
2003
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 24, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada
__________
Serial No. 108-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-834 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Vice Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Chairman John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
John A. Boehner, Ohio Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin David Wu, Oregon
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Fred Upton, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Tim Ryan, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida Major R. Owens, New York
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
John R. Carter, Texas George Miller, California, ex
Phil Gingrey, Georgia officio
Max Burns, Georgia
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 24, 2004..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'', Chairman, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Lark, Carol, Principal, C.P. Squires Elementary, North Las
Vegas, Nevada.............................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Rice, Dr. George Ann, Associate Superintendent, Human
Resources Division, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Stutz, DJ, President, Nevada State PTA, Member, Board of the
National PTA, Las Vegas, Nevada............................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
H.R. 2649, THE SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT OF 2003
----------
Monday, May 24, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Las Vegas, Nevada
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., at
Clark County School District, 2832 East Flamingo Road, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] Presiding.
Present: Representatives McKeon and Porter.
Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce will come to order.
We're meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 2649, the
Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003.
I'd like to thank the Clark County School District for
hosting this hearing today. I appreciate their hospitality, and
I'm pleased to be here.
I'm eager to hear from our witnesses, but before I begin I
ask for unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open
14 days to allow member statements and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record.
No objection. So ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Good morning. I'd like to welcome each of you to our
hearing today to discuss the need for teacher background checks
and to examine the provisions of H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely
Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003, a bill that was
introduced by my colleague, Congressman Porter, to help keep
our children safe in the classroom.
Mr. Porter is new on our Committee. This is his first term
in Congress and he's already demonstrated great leadership
ability and has had legislation passed through our Committee,
so it's really a good opportunity to be here and visit with him
and his district and to commend you for a wise selection in
picking him to be your Congressman.
The success of education reform efforts is increasingly
seen as directly dependent on the quality of classroom
instruction and ensuring the quality of America's 3.2 million
teachers is an essential part of providing an excellent
education to all our children. A growing number of studies
provide conclusive evidence that teacher quality is the primary
school related factor affecting student achievement.
We held a series of hearings a couple of years ago when we
were talking about teacher quality and I remember a big
argument about school class size was very important. But as we
held those hearings, I asked every one of the witnesses after
each of those hearings what was the most important part of
education. Of course the first thing is the parent. But No. 2
was a quality teacher and it was most important to have, more
important than the class size, was the quality of teacher.
Students who are taught by effective and competent teachers
excel quickly, while those who are assigned to the least
effective teachers lag behind and often never catch up.
The bipartisan No Child Left Behind law asks each state, in
exchange for billions of dollars in Federal teacher quality
aid, to develop and implement a plan to place a highly
qualified teacher in every public classroom by the close of the
2005-2006 school year.
Since No Child Left Behind was enacted more than 2 years
ago, Congress and President Bush have continued to provide
record teacher quality aid to states and local school
districts, at levels far higher than provided under the
previous Administration. Federal teacher quality aid has been
increased by more than 35 percent under President Bush who
requested nearly 3 billion dollars in annual teacher quality
funding for states and teachers in his 2005 budget request to
Congress, compared with just $787 million provided under
President Clinton's final budget.
In addition, President Bush and Congress have taken
numerous steps since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind
Act to help teachers, local educational agencies, and states
meet the law's highly qualified teacher provisions and improve
our nation's teaching force.
To provide incentives for good teachers to remain in the
teaching profession, President Bush and congressional
Republicans in 2002 enacted legislation allowing teachers to
take a $250 tax deduction when they pay money out of their own
pockets for classroom expenses, such as crayons and books. We
are currently working to expand this so-called ``Crayola
Credit'' to $400 or more.
During the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation to
more than triple the amount of Federal student loan forgiveness
available to highly qualified reading specialists and math,
science and special education teachers who commit to teaching
in high-need schools for 5 years.
The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would increase
maximum Federal loan forgiveness for such teachers from $5,000
to $17,500.
In 2003, the House also passed legislation to strengthen
teacher-training programs at America's colleges.
The Ready to Teach Act would reauthorize and strengthen
teacher-training programs under the Higher Education Act to
ensure tomorrow's highly qualified teachers are prepared to
meet the needs of the nation's students.
It is important to note that members of the Committee
reintroduced these bills last week as part of a competitiveness
package aimed at helping teachers receive quality training they
need to improve student achievement.
Today, the Subcommittee continues its focus on teachers,
but we are looking at a different issue. The purposes of
today's hearings are to discuss the need for teacher background
checks and to examine the provisions of H.R. 2649, the Schools
Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003.
Mr. Porter will talk more about his legislation, but I want
to thank him for his leadership on this issue and his efforts
to help ensure that our nation's students are safe in the
classroom.
I would like to thank everyone for attending today and I'd
especially like to thank the witnesses for their participation.
I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]
Statement of Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning. I'd like to welcome each of you to our hearing today
to discuss the need for teacher background checks and to examine the
provisions of H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty
Excellence of 2003, a bill that was introduced by my colleague--
Congressman Porter--to help keep children safe in the classroom.
The success of education reform efforts is increasingly seen as
directly dependent on the quality of classroom instruction, and
ensuring the quality of America's 3.2 million teachers is an essential
part of providing an excellent education to all our children. A growing
number of studies provide conclusive evidence that teacher quality is
the primary school-related factor affecting student achievement.
Students who are taught by effective and competent teachers excel
quickly, while those who are assigned to the least effective teachers
lag behind and often never catch up.
The bipartisan No Child Left Behind law asks each state--in
exchange for billions of dollars in federal teacher quality aid--to
develop and implement a plan to place a highly qualified teacher in
every public classroom by the close of the 2005-2006 school year.
Since No Child Left Behind was enacted more than two years ago,
Congress and President Bush have continued to provide record teacher
quality aid to states and local school districts, at levels far higher
than provided under the previous Administration. Federal teacher
quality aid has been increased by more than 35 percent under President
Bush, who requested nearly three billion dollars in annual teacher
quality funding for states and teachers in his 2005 budget request to
Congress--compared with just $787 million provided under President
Clinton's final budget.
In addition, President Bush and Congress have taken numerous steps
since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act to help teachers,
local educational agencies, and states meet the law's highly qualified
teacher provisions and improve our nation's teaching force.
To provide incentives for good teachers to remain in the teaching
profession, President Bush and congressional Republicans in 2002
enacted legislation allowing teachers to take a $250 tax deduction when
they pay money out of their own pockets for classroom expenses, such as
crayons and books. We are currently working to expand this so-called
``Crayola Credit'' to $400 or more.
During the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation to more
than triple the amount of federal student loan forgiveness available to
highly qualified reading specialists and math, science, and special
education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need schools for five
years. The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would increase maximum
federal loan forgiveness for such teachers from $5,000 to $17,500.
In 2003, the House also passed legislation to strengthen teacher-
training programs at America's colleges. The Ready to Teach Act would
reauthorize and strengthen teacher-training programs under the Higher
Education Act to ensure tomorrow's highly qualified teachers are
prepared to meet the needs of the nation's students.
It is important to note that members of the Committee re-introduced
these bills last week as part of a competitiveness package aimed at
helping teachers receive quality training they need to improve student
achievement.
Today, the Subcommittee continues its focus on teachers--but we are
looking at a different issue. The purposes of today's hearing are to
discuss the need for teacher background checks and to examine the
provisions of H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty
Excellence of 2003.
Mr. Porter will talk more about his legislation--but I want to
thank him for his leadership on this issue and his efforts to help
ensure that our nation's students are safe in the classroom.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses for today's hearing. I
would like to thank each of you for your appearance before the
Subcommittee and I look forward to your testimony.
______
Chairman McKeon. I would now like to recognize my colleague
on the Education and Workforce Committee and our host in his
congressional district, Mr. Porter, for his opening statement
and to introduce our distinguished panel of witness. Mr.
Porter.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON C. PORTER, A REPRESENTTIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tell you, it's a
real honor to have the Committee with us today and I appreciate
your support for Nevada. Coming from our smaller brother-sister
state of California, but more importantly I understand quite
well the impacts of growth in Nevada, as do you, with the
growth and impacts on education in California. So we appreciate
very much your being here with the Committee.
When I first heard about the Committee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, I said what kind of Committee is that? And Mr.
McKeon made it clear to me that I would find it would be one of
the most effective Committees in the House working with
education, with children, with higher education, and I tell you
it's an honor to serve on the Committee and to serve on
Education Workforce. There is not a larger need in Nevada than
education taking care of our kids, so I appreciate your being
here and what the Committee does.
We have a number of speakers this morning and I will just
introduce you briefly, but then before you speak I'll go more
in-depth.
First, an individual that really is or should be taking
credit for this hearing here today. The idea of what we could
do to make sure that we have teachers that are--that we can
entrust our children with really came from.
Dr. Rice, George Ann Rice, who is here this morning, so
first let me just welcome and thank you, Doctor, for your ideas
and suggestions.
Another good friend, Ms. Carol Lark, is here, Principal of
Elementary School C.P. Squires, and with her, sitting to her
left, is Mrs. DJ Stutz, who is President of the Nevada PTA. So
thank you very much for being here.
Let's talk a little bit about Nevada and some of the
impacts, and I'm talking to the experts right here, but if I
could summarize for the Committee and for the record, we are
one of the fastest growing communities, of course, in the
country. Five, six, 7,000 people a month moving into Nevada. Of
course that varies from month to month. A net of possibly 5- or
6,000 people when you take those that decide to relocate maybe
to California or some other place, but literally major impacts
on our community from infrastructure of streets, highways, air
quality, but health care also falls into those areas of
challenges, but can you imagine the impact on education with
the size of growth that we have?
We need schools for 15- to 16,000 new students a year, and
I guess from a side note I was sharing this challenge with one
of my colleagues from Virginia the other day, and we were kind
of doing a one upmanship on education on who had the most
challenges and the member said, well, you know, I have 1500 new
students a year moving into my school district, and I said,
well, we have 15- or 16,000, and of course the conversation
just continued, and all of a sudden there was a silence. He
looked at me and said, what did you say? How many students do
you have? And I said 15- or 16,000. And he said, well, I guess
my 1500 really is nowhere compared to your 15- or 16,000.
And what I've been trying to do, and I believe
successfully, with our delegation who works very well together
on educating our colleagues is letting them know the impacts of
what this really means.
So not only do we have 15- or 16,000 new students, we need
2-1/2 schools--Joyce, is that where we are now, 2-1/2 schools a
month? Two schools a month? Two schools a month. Unheard of.
And we are actually staying up with that growth and knowing we
are going to need some additional funding soon for the
infrastructure. But that brings us to the discussion today.
Can you imagine in the private sector having to hire 2,000
or 2,500 new employees a year? I don't care what kind of
business it is, 2,500 new employees a year is a huge project,
especially the human resource department, but imagine trying to
find that many people from your community first, and, of
course, as a growing community, we don't have enough teachers
here locally, so we reach out to across the country, but we
need 2,000 to 2,500 statewide teachers a year. With that the
challenges of recruitment, getting the messages out, selling
the community, selling the importance of education in Nevada.
And as we have hired outside of Nevada, we've learned that as a
top recruiter in the country, with that comes major challenges.
And as Nevada is seeking teachers outside of Nevada, we
must also have the means to determine that none of our faculty
have pasts that are indicative of behavior that poses a threat
to our children. And as a parent myself, of course my kids are
now 26 and 23, but sharing with the district, as I've been a
member of the state Senate and now the Congress, the challenges
and the trust that I as a parent put in the school district, I
trust that as the district is hiring new employees, you're
doing everything possible to make sure that our children and my
children will be safe in the school district. But the potential
physical and psychological damage that a few individuals pose
to our children in our education system in general requires
lawmakers and administrators to act so as to remove all
credible threats to the safety of our nation's children. And
one of the most common sense actions that we can take is to
require states in some shape or form to share any information
on the background of these individuals who will come into close
contact with our kids.
With the legislation that we're examining today, and as I
mentioned, a lot of credit goes to Dr. Rice, I would require
states to partake in a nationwide information sharing system
that would provide human resource directors and administrators
with the background information that they need to hire highly
qualified and highly ethical individuals to serve in our
schools.
The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, and I've
learned that in Washington we have a lot of titles, a lot of
long names, but I think it summarizes it well, the National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, signed into law on
October 10 of 1998, established an infrastructure by which
states can exchange criminal records for non-criminal justice
purposes.
Now, that was in 1998. Unfortunately, only 21 states have
currently ratified this compact. While the remaining 29 states
still have the opportunity to ratify this compact, I believe
that we must encourage this action with the greatest haste
possible. By providing a more compelling reason to join the
compact, H.R. 2649 would close one of the cracks through which
potentially harmful individuals might slip. And I know that as
Dr. Rice and the balance of the panel testify, they will
explain how the process works, but I think it's imperative that
we hire the best, the brightest, but also the most ethically
and educated individuals to take care of our children.
Clark County School District being the sixth largest in the
country, and probably rapidly moving in on the fifth, I think
should be complimented for the job that you've done. A
tremendous challenge before us, and I know that we have
individuals moving from all over the country, also from here in
Nevada, but I'd like to applaud the Clark County School
District for what they've done to stay in front of the growth
from an infrastructure standpoint, from an education
standpoint, and now certainly from hiring teachers.
So with that I'd like to formally introduce the first
speaker on the panel, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.
Our first witness is Dr. George Ann Rice, and Dr. Rice
currently serves as Associate Superintendent for Clark County
Schools in Las Vegas, Nevada, a position she has held for over
13 years. Before pursuing an education in the legal field and
practicing law in California, Dr. Rice served as a teacher and
department Chairman at Western High School here in Las Vegas.
The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for calling this important hearing of
the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness. As we examine my legislation, H.R. 2649, the Schools
Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003, I urge the
subcommittee to consider the importance of ensuring that the
environment our children encounter in their schools is as safe as
possible. I thank our panel of distinguished guests for their insight
into the need to ensure student safety and unblemished records of
faculty and staff. I appreciate their sacrifice of time and their
ongoing efforts on behalf of the children of Clark County and Nevada.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to this hearing,
Dr. George Ann Rice, the Associate Superintendent in the Human
Resources Division of the Clark County School District; Ms. Carol Lark,
Principal of the C.P. Squires Elementary School; Mr. Ronald Lopez, the
Deputy Executive Director of the Clark County Education Association;
and Mrs. DJ Stutz, the President of the Nevada State PTA. I thank you
all for taking the time to share with the committee the needs you
perceive for our children in this important matter. I also wish to
express the gratitude of all Southern Nevadans for the work that you do
to increase the educational opportunities of our children.
As the Clark County School District, the nation's sixth largest
school district, continues to grow at the astonishing rate of 15,000
students per year, the need for 2,000 new teachers a year poses great
difficulties. Forced to seek teachers and other staff from outside of
Nevada, we must have the means to determine that none of our faculty
have pasts that are indicative of behavior that poses a threat to our
children. The potential physical and psychological damage that these
few individuals pose to our children and our education system in
general requires law makers and administrators to act so as to remove
all credible threats to the safety of our nation's students. One of the
most common sense actions that we can take is to require states to
share any information on the background of these individuals who will
come into close contact with our children.
The legislation we are examining today would require states to
partake in a nation-wide information sharing system that would provide
human resources directors and administrators with the background
information that they need to hire highly qualified and highly ethical
individuals to serve in our schools. The National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact, signed into law October 10, 1998, established an
infrastructure by which states can exchange criminal records for non-
criminal justice purposes. Unfortunately, only 21 states have currently
ratified this compact. While the remaining 29 states still have the
opportunity to ratify this compact, I believe that we must encourage
this action with the greatest haste possible. By providing a more
compelling reason to join the compact, H.R. 2649 would close one of the
cracks through which potentially harmful individuals might slip.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for joining me in Las Vegas and for
convening this panel of witnesses who can help this committee further
understand the need to protect our children from any individual who
might wish them harm. I look forward to working with the committee on
this important legislation in the future and am anxious to hear the
testimony of our four witnesses today.
______
Mr. Porter. So I'd like to welcome again Dr. George Ann
Rice, and thank you very much, we appreciate your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE ANN RICE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT,
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOLS, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Dr. Rice. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Porter, and
counsel.
I am George Ann Rice, the Associate Superintendent of the
Human Resources Division for the Clark County School District.
I am ultimately responsible for the staffing of all of the
positions in our district. We have approximately 15,500
teachers, 1,000 administrators, and 9,000 support staff
district-wide, plus temporary people and substitutes.
I am pleased to testify on behalf of the Clark County
School District, as Mr. Porter mentioned, the sixth largest
district in the country, soon to be the fifth largest district.
I have to believe that I am testifying, however, on behalf of
school districts throughout the country that are not even aware
that this problem exists.
The Clark County School District, as Mr. Porter has pointed
out, is a rather unique school district. We are central city
school district, a suburban school district, and a rural school
district, all in one. Our service area of Clark County covers
7,910 square miles, which is roughly the size of Connecticut
and Delaware put together. We have 289 schools, 197 in Las
Vegas, 70 schools in the surrounding suburban area, and 22
outside the metropolitan area in rural Clark County.
To keep pace with our rapid growth the Clark County School
District opens on the average in the past a new school each
month. We are scheduled to open 14 new schools in August, and
since 1986 we have built 157 new schools.
Each year we must higher approximately 2,000 new teachers,
600 of whom are hired due to teacher turnover, the remainder
because of our growth and because of our own teacher
retirements. We have hired approximately 8,000 teachers over
the past 5 years and project to hire 10,000 more over the next
5 years.
We have two state universities, UNLV and UNR. We have one
state college, Nevada State College, which is 2 years old, and
also a small presence of private preparation programs of
private colleges here. During the very best years, in
combination they produce approximately 600 of the 2,000
teachers that we need each year.
We are forced to go to other states to recruit the
remaining 1,400 teachers we require each year. Recruiting for
the 2004-2005 school year, we have made 166 trips out of the
state and held 107 full days of interviewing right here on our
own site. We require that every person that we hire, and
volunteers, be fingerprinted. These fingerprints of sent
through our own school police through the Nevada Central Crime
Repository, our Nevada Highway Patrol, to the FBI. We have
believed all of these years that when we received a copy of an
FBI report, that we had the candidate's complete arrest and
conviction history from all states. I think all school
districts are under that assumption. We recently learned that
not all states submit their criminal records to the FBI for
non-criminal justice purposes such as employment inquiries by
school districts.
At first we considered eliminating our recruiting from any
state that had not released these records. However, we realized
that this action would be meaningless because of the mobility
of our population in the United States. We must have access to
records from all states.
All school districts are hiring teachers, administrators
and support staff who will spend hours each today working with,
supervising, and guiding children. These same people will each
day be alone with these children. It is imperative that school
districts be aware of any and all contacts candidates have had
with any law enforcement agencies for any felony, for any
arrest that involves violence, controlled substances, child
abuse, sexual misconduct, and so on.
If the school districts around the country were aware of
the limited nature of the information they are being given from
their FBI inquiries, they would all be here, I'm sure, en masse
to testify.
I might tell you other things that we do on our
application, we ask the candidates approximately 20 questions
regarding any contact that they have had with law enforcement
that's self reporting. Then we ask every reference to whom we
send professional references inquiries concerning their
professional competence, and on those inquiries we will also
list the very same question, do you have any reason to believe,
and then we list that this person has ever been arrested,
charged or convicted of a felony of a violence related offense,
of a sex related offense, of a domestic or violence related and
also drug-related offense. We ask every applicant, every
reference, but it is the FBI reports that we were relying upon
to ensure that we were getting accurate information.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address
you on this critical bill and to suggest that if you're looking
at things that might enable the bill to have--to have better
success with larger groups within the Congress, we might look
at a different penalty or a modification of the penalty for not
complying. It might be that we will have opposition on tying
compliance with educational funding where if there was maybe a
different penalty, that those people would come along.
Also, I think that in today's atmosphere, it might be good
to consider the suspicion part because there will be a lot of
people who will step up against that, and I would certainly, I
think we all would certainly see, hate to see this bill maybe
doomed because of those things that really do not--are not part
of the guts of the bill, which is letting us know about those
arrest charges and convictions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rice follows:]
Statement of Dr. George Ann Rice, Associate Superintendent, Human
Resources Division, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am Dr. George Ann Rice, the Associate Superintendent of the Human
Resources Division for the Clark County School District in Las Vegas,
Nevada. I am ultimately responsible for staffing the positions in our
district. We have approximately 15,000 teachers, 1,000 administrators,
and 9,000 support staff employees district-wide, plus temporary people
and substitutes.
I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the Clark County School
District, the 6th largest district in the country, soon to be the 5th
largest. I have to believe that I am testifying on behalf of school
districts throughout the country, which are not even aware that this
problem exists.
The Clark County School District is a rather unique school system.
We are a central city school system, a suburban school system, and a
rural school system all in one. Our service area of Clark County covers
7,910 square miles, which is roughly the size of Connecticut and
Delaware combined. We have 289 schools: 197 in the Las Vegas, 70
schools in the surrounding suburban area, and 22 schools outside the
metropolitan area in rural Clark County.
To keep pace with our rapid growth, the Clark County School
District opens the average of a new school EACH MONTH. We are scheduled
to open 14 new schools in August. Since 1986, we have built 157 new
schools.
Each year, we must hire approximately 2000 new teachers--only 600
of whom are hired due to teacher turnover, the remainder because of our
growth and our own teacher retirements. We have hired 8,000 new
teachers over the last 5 years, and project to hire 10,000 new teachers
over the next 5 years.
We have two State universities UNLV and UNR. We have one state
college, Nevada State College, which is two years old and also a small
presence of private teacher preparation programs. During the very best
years, they produce in combination only 600 of the 2000 teachers we
need each year.
We must go to other states to recruit the remaining 1400 teachers
we require each year. Recruiting for the 2004-2005 school year, we have
made 166 trips out of state and held 107 full days of interviewing on
this site. We require that every person we hire be fingerprinted. These
fingerprints are sent through our school police through the Nevada
Central Crime Repository (Nevada Highway Patrol) to the FBI. We have
believed that when we receive a copy of the FBI report that we have a
candidate's complete arrest and conviction history from all states.
We recently learned that not all States submit their criminal
records to the FBI for non-criminal justices purposes; such as
employment inquiries by school districts.
At first, we considered eliminating from our recruiting schedule
any state that has not released its records. However, we realized that
action would be meaningless because of the mobility of our population
in the United States. We must be able to access these records from all
states.
All school districts are hiring teachers, administrators, and
support staff who will send hours each day time working with,
supervising, and guiding children. These same people will each day be
alone with those children. It is imperative that school districts be
aware of any and all contacts candidates have had with any law
enforcement agencies for any felony, or any arrest, that involves
violence, a controlled substance, child abuse, and sexual misconduct
and/or abuse.
If schools districts around the country were aware of the limited
nature of the information they are receiving from their FBI inquiries,
they would all be here today eager to testify.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this critical bill.
______
Chairman McKeon. If you could introduce our next--
Mr. Porter. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd also like to enter for the record a copy of some
newspaper articles, without objection, from the Chairman,
throughout the Las Vegas area, on some challenges that we've
had here locally, for the record. Thank you.
Chairman McKeon. No objection. So ordered.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
[The information referred to has been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
Mr. Porter. Next we have Miss Carol Lark. Ms. Lark
currently serves as Principal of C.P. Squires Elementary School
in North Las Vegas, Nevada. A former recruiter of teachers for
Clark County schools, Miss Lark has used her public relations
skills to build beneficial partnerships with businesses and
community organizations. With Blue Cross/Blue Shield funding,
Miss Lark administered a pilot program that provided free
onsite dental care to more than a thousand children.
We could list another hundred different successes of Ms.
Lark, who was Principal of the Year last year, but please
welcome Ms. Lark.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF CAROL LARK, PRINCIPAL, C.P. SQUIRES ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Ms. Lark. Thank you very much.
It is indeed an honor to address this important legislative
Committee. My name is Carol Lark, and I am principal of an
elementary school here in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I have 945
students; 91 percent are on free and reduced lunch, 86 percent
of our children are Hispanic. We are a full Title 1 School, and
I wish to take a moment just to tell you how much we appreciate
the funds you do provide to our Title Schools.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the Schools Safely
Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003. Only recently did I
learn that only 21 states have ratified the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact. In all honesty, I was shocked.
I've been an administrator in Nevada for the past 14 years, and
I've always assumed that when prospective teachers were
fingerprinted, we could be rest assured that at the very least
they did not come to us with felonies on their records.
Unfortunately, interviews and reference checks will often not
reveal such information. Professionals are becoming more and
more reluctant to share negative information about employees
out of fear of being sued. Fingerprinting was the one objective
factual bit of information that we should have access to when
selecting teachers.
A few years ago I spent 7 days in an arbitration attempting
to remove a teacher based on performance alone.
When the arbitrator asked me if I had any last words, I
told him that if he were to reverse my decision, then he should
have to put his own child or his own grandchild in that
classroom. And I think the same principle applies here.
The only plausible reason that I can imagine for not
cooperating must be financial. I am sure that entering the data
would require a certain amount of manpower and womanpower. But
nevertheless, I doubt you could find a taxpayer alive that
would not support this legislation. I would much prefer to
dodge potholes in the road than allow sexual predators in my
child's classroom.
Six years ago, when I moved to my at-risk school, I hired
23 teachers from all over the country, and I have hired many
more since. I knew that each one of them had to be
fingerprinted, and I felt secure in believing that they had no
criminal record. To find out now that I was wrong is very
disturbing.
Clark County is presently the sixth largest district in the
Nation and we probably have teachers from every state in the
union. We are growing so fast that we are constantly
prioritizing our priorities, but never have we questioned the
importance of cooperating with the FBI in an area as serious as
our children's safety.
I urge you to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
Our children's safety is at stake. If we are to leave No Child
Left Behind, let us address their safety as well as their
academic achievement.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lark follows:]
Statement of Carol Lark, Principal, C.P. Squires Elementary, North Las
Vegas, Nevada
It is indeed an honor to address this important legislative body.
My name is Carol Lark and I am Principal of an elementary school in N.
Las Vegas, Nevada. I have 945 students and we are 91% free and reduced
lunch and 86% Hispanic. We are a full Title 1 School and we truly
appreciate the funds provided to Title 1 schools.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the ``Schools Safely
Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003''. Only recently did I learn
that only 16 states have ratified the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact. In all honesty, I was shocked. I have been an
administrator in Nevada for the past 14 years and I have always assumed
that when prospective teachers were fingerprinted, we could rest
assured that at the very least, they did not come to us with a felony
on their records. Unfortunately, interviews and reference checks will
often not reveal such information. Professionals are becoming more and
more reluctant to share negative information about employees out of
fear of being sued. Fingerprinting is the one objective, factual bit of
information that we should have access to when selecting teachers.
A few years ago I spent seven days in an arbitration attempting to
remove a teacher based on performance alone. When the arbitrator asked
me if I had any last comments, I told him that if he were to reverse my
decision, and keep that teacher in the classroom, then he should have
to put his own child, or his grandchild in that classroom. The same
principle applies here.
The only plausible reason that I can imagine for not cooperating,
must be financial. I am sure that entering the data would require a
certain amount of manpower. Nevertheless, I doubt that you could find a
taxpayer alive that would not support this legislation. I would much
prefer to dodge potholes in the road, than allow sexual predators in my
child's classroom.
Six years ago, when I moved to my at-risk school, I hired 23
teachers from all over the country and I have hired many more since
then. I knew that each of them had to be fingerprinted, and I felt
secure in believing that they had no criminal record. To find out now,
that I was wrong, is very disturbing.
Clark County is presently the sixth largest district in the nation
and we probably have teachers from every state in the union. We are
growing so fast that we are constantly prioritizing our priorities, but
never have we questioned the importance of cooperating with the FBI in
an area as serious as our children's safety.
I urge you to pass this legislation as quickly as possible. Our
children's safety is at stake. If we are to leave No Child Left Behind,
let us address their safety and as well as their academic achievement.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Chairman McKeon. Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next we have Mrs. Stutz. Mrs. Stutz serves as President of
the Nevada State PTA, is a member of the board of the National
PTA. In addition to her more than two decades serving with the
PTA, Mrs. Stutz works for the Clark County Parenting Project
and teaches early morning seminary classes.
Also, a side note, there isn't anyone involved in the
community like Mrs. Stutz. We appreciate everything you've done
all these years, and fully two decades you've touched and
changed a lot of lives. So thank you very much, and we
appreciate you being here this morning.
STATEMENT OF DJ STUTZ, PRESIDENT, NEVADA STATE PTA, LAS VEGAS,
NEVADA
Ms. Stutz. Thank you very much, and I too thank you for
allowing me the time to provide you some information and points
of view from the prospective of PTA. Nationally, PTA represents
almost 6 million members, all of whom are concerned with the
welfare and education of our nation's children. And one of the
five purposes of this organization is to secure adequate laws
for the care and protection of children and youth.
On a side note, just last January representatives from all
54 Congresses of National PTA identified making our children
competitive in the 21st Century as one of the top three
priorities for PTA nationally, and so I am excited about the
work that your Committee does.
As a national organization, we are very serious about
properly representing the voice of our membership. Our motto is
``every child, one voice'' and it is out of our belief in this
motto that we work diligently with our membership as we develop
the positions that we take. It was only after much research,
deliberation, and finally a vote on our convention floor by the
delegates of this organization that the resolution that I have
attached to this statement was accepted as an official position
of National PTA. And the name of that resolution is Background
Checks on Teachers.
As you may note, it is our position, supported by our vast
membership, that background checks on teachers before the
issuance or renewing of a license or permit be completed by the
appropriate agencies. Our resolution also states that we
encourage the cooperation between Treasury Departments and
Teacher Licensing agencies in the investigation of background
checks on teachers. Let me tell you how pleased we are to see
that this important issue has come to the forefront of your
Committee.
On a personal note, as the mother of four, grandmother of
two, soon to be three, and the aunt of 67 children, I have to
admit that I--and I have to admit that I've lost track of how
many great grandnieces and nephews that I have strewn
throughout this great nation, I have a huge personal investment
in the education process and the protection of our most
precious national treasure, our children. It has been with
great dismay that I have heard the news reporting on the
molestation of children by teachers or personnel in the school
district where my children and many of my nieces and nephews
attend school. It is even more alarming when the reports state
that this person has had a history of such behavior in other
states that was not reported during the background checks. In
my mind, these were preventable incidences. Every child, each
precious face that we see as a victim of such a horrific crime,
deserves the assurance that such things will never happen
again, not to them, not to anyone else. I am mournful that any
of these incidences should occur. And while I realize that we
realistically cannot prevent such--all such outrages from
transpiring, it is imperative that we as a society do all that
we can to responsibly protect our nation's children from such a
travesty.
That being said, I would like to draw attention to three
issues that I believe could improve this bill. The first is in
Section 3, it's on page 3, lines 22 and 23, letter A. ``The
identity of each individual so arrested, charged or
convicted.'' My concern with this clause is that there are many
individuals who are arrested and charged with a crime but never
convicted. History is resplendent with examples of people
falsely accused, people who have had to leave their homes and
careers due to the repercussions of false accusations or
misunderstandings. And I believe that the standard of
``innocent until proven guilty'' is a standard worthy of this
great country.
Secondly, I'm concerned by Section 3 which is on page 3,
lines 24 and 25, identified by letter B, ``The identity of each
individual under suspicion of such an offense.'' This
subsection brings my concerns just stated to a new level.
Now, not only do you not have to be convicted, charged or
even arrested, but merely the suspicion of misconduct would
scar a record. I'm aware, as students are, that a cry of foul
can turn the tables very quickly for a teacher deemed as
unfair, tough, or just unliked. Just as it is important to have
each concern fully investigated, it is also important to
protect the ability of an individual to care and provide for
his or her family if suspicions turned out to be unfounded.
The final concern is that I don't see an appeals process
should an unfavorable report be found. For example, my son in-
law is named Michael Smith. The phone book tells me that there
are 41 Michael Smiths with published phone numbers in Clark
County alone. Confused identity being only one of a plethora of
possibilities of a wrongly unfavorable report, there must be
some mechanism for appeal.
I thank you for bringing this bill forward. Quite honestly,
I've been deeply saddened as I have had to explain to my
children, boys and girls alike, to watch for signs of improper
advances from all kinds of adults who should be guarding them
from such. While I believe that even if this bill passes, the
need for such warnings will still exist, I am hopeful that we
can find our way to a society that honors, cherishes, and
treasures the only asset that truly matters in this nation, or
in the world for that matter, our children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stutz follows:]
Statement of DJ Stutz, President, Nevada PTA, Member, National PTA
Board of Directors
I thank you for allowing me the time to provide you information and
points of view from the perspective of PTA. Nationally, PTA represents
almost 6 million members, all of whom are concerned about the welfare
and education of our nation's children. One of the five purposes of
this organization is ``To secure adequate laws for the care and
protection of children and youth.''
As a national organization, we are very serious about properly
representing the voice of our membership. Our motto is ``every child,
one voice.'' It is out of our belief in this motto that we work
diligently with our membership as we develop the positions that we
take. It was only after much research, deliberation, and finally a vote
on our convention floor by the delegates of this organization that the
resolution I have attached to this statement was accepted as an
official position.
As you may note, it is our position, supported by our vast
membership, that background checks on teachers before the issuance or
renewing of a license or permit. . . be completed by the appropriate
agencies. Our resolution also states that we ``encourage the
cooperation between Treasury Departments and Teacher Licensing agencies
in the investigation of background checks on teachers.'' Let me tell
you how pleased we are to see this important issue come to the
forefront of your committee.
On a personal note, as the mother of four, grandmother of two soon
to be three, and the aunt of 67, and I have to admit that I've lost
track of how many grand nieces and nephews I have strewn throughout
this great nation. Therefore, I have a huge personal investment in the
education process and the protection of our most precious national
treasure, our children. It has been with great dismay that I have heard
the news reporting on the molestation of children by teachers or
personnel in the school district where my children and many of my
nieces and nephews attend school. It is even more alarming when the
reports state that this person has a history of such behavior in other
states that was not reported during the background checks. In my mind,
these were preventable incidences. Every child, each precious face that
we see as a victim of such a horrific crime, deserves the assurance
that such things will never happen again. Not to them, not to anyone
else. I am mournful that any of these incidences should ever occur.
While I realize that we realistically cannot prevent all such outrages
from transpiring, it is imperative that we, as a society, do all that
we can to responsibly protect our nation's children from this travesty.
That being said, I would like to draw attention to three issues
that I believe need to be changed to improve the bill. The first is in
Section 3, page 3, lines 22 and 23: ``(A) the identity of each
individual so arrested, charged, or convicted.'' My concern with this
clause is that there are many individuals who are arrested and charged
with a crime, but never convicted. History is resplendent with examples
of people falsely accused ``people who have had to leave their homes
and careers due to repercussions of these false accusations or
misunderstandings. I believe the standard of ``innocent until proven
guilty'' is a standard worthy of this great country.
Secondly, I am concerned by Section 3, page 3, lines 24 and 25:
``(B) the identity of each individual under suspicion for such an
offense.'' This subsection brings my concerns just stated to a new
level. Now, not only do you not have to be convicted, charged, or even
arrested, but merely the suspicion of misconduct would scar a record. I
am aware, as are students, that a cry of foul can turn the tables very
quickly for a teacher deemed as unfair, tough, or just unliked. Just as
it is important to have each concern fully investigated, it is also
important to protect the ability of an individual to care and provide
for his or her family if suspicions turn out to be unfounded.
The final concern is that I do not see any appeals process, should
an unfavorable report be returned. For example, my son-in-law is named
Michael Smith. The phone book tells me that there are 41 Michael Smiths
with published phone numbers in Clark County alone. Confused identity
being only one of a plethora of possibilities of a wrongly unfavorable
report, there must be some mechanism for appeal.
I thank you for bringing this bill forward. Quite honestly, I have
been deeply saddened as I have had to explain to my children, boys and
girls alike, to watch for signs of improper advances from all kinds of
adults who should be guarding them from such. While I believe that even
if this bill passes, the need for such warnings will still exist, I am
hopeful that we can find our way to a society that honors, cherishes,
and treasures the only asset that truly matters in this nation, or in
the world for that matter, our children.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you very much.
7,900 square miles, about the size of Connecticut and Delaware.
I was in Delaware last weekend giving a graduation speech, and
I was talking to some of the people there and they said it's
about a 2-hour drive from top to bottom, and I thought, my
district goes from north LA County to above Bridgeport. It
comes to Nevada. So we're neighbors, and that's why it's good
to be here with you, but our district from top to bottom is
about 450 miles and a couple of hundred miles east to west, and
I come from the fastest growing part of LA County, Santa
Clarita, and I thought we were, you know, we were having real
growth problems because we had to add a few schools. We are
nowhere near what you're facing here.
Then I go to the north, which is very rural, and have Inyo
County, and we have a problem there just trying to get enough
children to fill the schools. We have a school that was built
for a hundred kids, we have 60 kids. We have 500 children in
one school district spread over about 3,500 square miles. Very
difficult. So I see very rural and I see very, very rapid
growth in a much denser population. So I think I understand a
little of what you're going through in your school district.
I am really, really glad that I'm here today and I've had a
chance to hear this testimony because, you know, in Congress we
have 435 members in the House of Representatives, we represent
all kinds of districts, and we get involved in our particular
subject, and some of us become quite familiar with--like I
chair this Subcommittee on higher education, and I've really
gotten involved over the 12 years I've been in Congress in
those issues, but this is something I've never even heard about
until today, and I was on a school board for 9 years before
coming to Congress, and I guess I just took for granted that we
were able to do background checks.
Although I was kind of questioning how you're able to ask
all these questions because I come from a business background
and I've hired people, and I know that you can only ask--
legally now we can't ask questions really except ``Are you
alive?'' ``Will you perhaps show up if we hire you?'' I mean,
it's so vague on what you really can ask people that I wasn't
aware that you were able to ask all of these kinds of questions
when you hire someone.
Can you explain how that works?
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, there has
been case law in our state that says when people work directly
with children, that we are able to ask these questions.
Chairman McKeon. That's just a state law.
Dr. Rice. There is case law in our state and so our
questions have been approved by our legal department and there
are about 20 of them.
Now, we don't, one of the things that we cannot do is make
a definite decision just on the basis of finding that out. We
have to look at the overall application. And what we also do is
ask anyone who on that application indicates that there has
been an arrest, you know, a charge and/or, or and a conviction,
we ask even on an arrest, you may give us an explanation, give
us a copy of the arrest documentation, give us a copy of the
court disposition, and give us your explanation.
So by that same case law I can't make a decision solely on
the basis of finding that out but I may look at the entire
application including that information.
Chairman McKeon. Well, I have six children and I have 26
grandchildren, and I've led a pretty sheltered life.
I mean, I've heard things in the last few years, or you
watch TV and you see different episodes of, you know, they
portray real life, and you find out about sexual predators and
sexual molesters, and I just, I really didn't know that went
on, and, I mean, until--when our children were young, I wasn't
even aware of these kind of things. But now we have a
granddaughter staying with us, she came Saturday, she'll be
with us, a 10-year-old little, pretty little girl that will be
with us for a week, and our bedroom is upstairs and we have a
guest bedroom downstairs where she's staying, and I was helping
my wife make the bed, and I said, ``You think she'll be safe
down here? You know, this is a ground level. Somebody could
break in one of these windows.'' I mean, that is something that
years ago I never even would have thought of, and then we
figured, well, nobody will know she's here, you know, we're
probably OK, but that's--it's a scary thing that we have to
even think about things like that, but, you know, we've seen
things where people have been stolen right from their home,
right when they have a sister in the room with them. I mean, we
live in some really tough times, so I again want to commend Mr.
Porter for bringing this legislation and for you for being here
to testify today.
And I think you've given us some real good, some real good
additions I think that could be made, changes that could be
made in the legislation. And that's the process. That's why we
have hearings, is to see how we can look at the proposals, if
there are ways that we can improve them, and also to get some
publicity so we can get information out so we start building
support and groundwork for these.
I think the comment was made, why don't we have something
like this already and why would it be so hard to get something
like this passed. Well, out of the 435 members in the House of
Representatives I know that there will be--there is always
somebody that is opposed to something. That's just the way it
is works. And that's how it should work. That's the system. And
so it takes--it's difficult getting things passed. Even things
that you would think that nobody would oppose, you'll find that
there will be some people that--on the other side that, why
should we take away people's privacy? Why don't we protect
people from these kind of things.
But my personal feeling is I would protect the children
over anything else, and I think of our grandchildren, I think
of your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, all children
that we send to school and expect that there they would be
protected and kept from harm and then find that maybe we're
sending them into harms way. That's something that really,
really concerns me, and I commend you for moving on this.
Let me ask, what is the typical time period for background
checks on a teacher that you're hiring.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, what happens is we send it to--
through our school police, and they send it to the Central
Crime Repository, and then it's sent to the FBI, and
approximately 3 months, there's a 3-month lag time.
So when we're making offers, we begin in December,
sometimes even earlier, making offers for the following year,
and what we require is that fingerprint cards be sent back with
the acceptance of our offer trying to get a jump on that 3-
month period.
We also require that all student teachers coming into our
schools and all practicum students coming into our schools to
observe also be fingerprinted in addition to volunteer coaches
and people like that.
Chairman McKeon. You make the offer before you get the
fingerprint.
Dr. Rice. What we do is make the offer, and we will not--we
don't accept the offer in most cases without the fingerprint
card, and those fingerprint cards have to come back through an
authorized police agency.
Sometimes the people will send back the offer and then we
have to scamper in order to get the fingerprint, you know, the
fingerprints.
Last year our Legislature did not adjourn and did not pass
our funding until the end of July. We were hiring 800 teachers
after the end of July. That did create a problem for us as far
as that lag time, but normally we get as many of those as we
possibly can as early in the season as we possibly can.
Chairman McKeon. Do you think this legislation would
increase that lag time, would be--would exacerbate the problem.
Dr. Rice. I am--Mr. Chairman, I am confident that with the
technology that is available to us, that that should not be a
problem. And I would say that if it were a problem, it would
certainly be worth the while of the entire country to hire
additional people, or even to buy additional computers, in
order to allow this to happen.
I can't believe that we have a situation in 2004 where
we're testifying that we need this. It seems like it should
have been here in 1000 rather than, you know, in 2004. So even
if it did exacerbate the problem, we need to find solutions,
because this has to be passed.
Chairman McKeon. I would think that when you stick your
credit card in to buy gasoline and they can authorize it that
quickly, we should be able to--the technology is there that we
should be able to solve that problem.
Thank you very much. Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I first heard about the problem, I think it was
probably Mitch Fox, I think Mitch has left the room, but Mitch
told me I had to get a hold of Dr. Rice as soon as possible
because George Ann had an idea and a problem. I'll be honest
with you, I was shocked, I was shocked that we weren't able to
get the proper information to check on teachers.
Now, in fairness, we have some great teachers and we have
phenomenal teachers that have hearts of gold and go the extra
mile and invest in the classroom and invest in the kids, but
there are a few out there slipping between the cracks, and
again, as a parent, I was shocked that we didn't have some
check and balance.
Dr. Rice, explain to me and for the Committee the dollars.
It costs what, 70, $80 or something per check, isn't it pretty
reasonable.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Porter, I believe it costs
around 40, $45 for the FBI and for the Central Crime
Repository, that's how much, and we even take that from the
teacher's salary over an extended period of time so it is not a
burden.
Oh, I had an important point and it's gone.
Mr. Porter. So if I may help you a moment, the $45 that is
paid for by the applicant, by the teacher themselves, but it's
over a period of time.
Dr. Rice. That is correct.
Mr. Porter. So the actual hard cost to the district is
really minimal other than a staff time, which you do it
electronically, or do you submit it through the mail, or how do
you submit the request.
Dr. Rice. We submit it. We had the--we're buying, and we
bought a number of them already, the electronic, where you put
your hand on the glass and it's sent electronically, but we
also still receive the manual ones because two thirds of our
teachers, actually three quarters or 70 percent of our teachers
are actually coming from out of state, so however we're able to
get those fingerprints, and most of the time of course it would
be by card, by actual rolling of the prints, but here locally
we do it by the hand on the glass. I'm not sure what that
technology is called, but that's the way we do it.
Mr. Porter. Do you remember if that was expensive, that
technology.
Dr. Rice. I believe that ran about $7,000 per machine. And
we first saw those in LA, at LA Unified, where they do, as far
as I know, all of their fingerprinting. I think at the time
they had approximately 12 of those machines, and we came back
and looked into that and thought that that was a much better
way to go than what we were doing.
Mr. Porter. The process is such that it takes about 90
days, did you say, to get the information back, is that
correct.
Dr. Rice. That's approximately what it's been running.
Mr. Porter. And that is prior to using the new hand scan,
that's the manual check, or do we know the--
Dr. Rice. That's correct, and I'm not sure how long it's
taking with the ones that we're actually sending.
Now, we can get from our local Metropolitan Police, we can
get that report turned around in a matter of hours, because we
do go through our own school police. It's not like we as a
school district are submitting directly, it's through our own
school police to the Nevada Highway Patrol and then to the FBI.
So things are being checked along the away.
One of the things a number of years ago that we asked that
the Nevada Highway Patrol do, and a bill was actually passed,
was that if there is a check on a school district employee, and
the point I want to make is the point that the Chairman just
made, that 99 and 9 tenths of our teachers this is not an
issue, and I want to make that very clear, this is not an issue
for 99 and 9 tenths percent of our people, but if even one gets
through, then it's worth the time of everybody involved and
it's certainly worth the passage of the bill to ensure that
even one does not get through.
But that is submitted, and the bill that we put before the
State Legislature that was passed is that if any school
district in Nevada submits fingerprints and there is a later
addition or hit to that particular record, that that school
district would be so informed. Because unless there is
reasonable cause, we can't later fingerprint someone on a
regular basis, and so we said if a school district checks on
any employee or any volunteer and later there is an entry into
that record concerning the particular criminal offenses that
we've talked about, that the school district would be notified.
And so that's an important thing, too, because it may be
years between fingerprinting and you're not sure, you know,
what's happened along the way.
But I think that might be too ambitious, maybe we can come
back and visit that after this is passed.
Mr. Porter. Dr. Rice, in your travels nationally with the
different districts, what do you sense is the problem for those
that don't comply with this? Why aren't districts doing this.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Porter, Mr. Chairman, the way that we even
knew about this is one of our administrators went to a national
conference called NASDAC, and that is the national association
that deals with licensure. They had an FBI person speak at one
of the workshops. The FBI person announced to the personnel,
school district personnel people who attended that meeting,
that he had something that would really jolt them. Did they
know, and he gave this information. And my colleague said that
all the air in the room disappeared as people gasped, because
no one knew this was going on. And I do not think that people
connect the fact that their legislature has to pass this with
the fact that their children, you know, that they may have
employees, school district employees, teachers, support staff,
administrators, whose backgrounds have not been adequately
checked because of the need to pass this law.
I think there is a disconnect between me and my personnel
function and knowing that the state legislature has to pass
this so that the FBI will release this data for non-judicial
purposes. I think there's a disconnect, and our superintendent
just stepped down as the president of the Council of Great City
Schools, and I've asked him if he can bring it to their
attention as well as all of the member districts that this is
something that we really all need to rally behind because it is
so vital.
Mr. Porter. I have found that historically when it comes to
education, there is a lot of turf. You have local governments
that think that, well, education isn't my job so they don't
really always get engaged. And you find maybe even legislatures
at times have their own thing going, and they assume that the
districts are doing everything that they're supposed to be
doing. But I think in the last couple of years we're starting
to see more of a global approach to education.
I would assume that part of the problem would be that a lot
of the districts just assume someone else is doing it, maybe
someone else is checking the background, and not unlike, I
guess, applying for a credit card, if that individual does not
have a record of bad credit, that the credit card company or
the bank or the business isn't able to track that information.
So I guess part of the reason for the penalties that were in
the language of the bill was to have some encouragement other
than please, because please really hasn't been working.
Are there some other areas that you think that we could
look at, as our guest panelists today, other than from a
funding perspective, and again every district in the country
needs additional funding, and I understand the concern when we
look at reducing funding, but would you have any other ideas to
encourage the districts to reach out beyond their normal focus
and get engaged in this to help, you know, protect our
children?
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Porter, first of all let me say
that I think the problem is not that they are assuming someone
else is doing it, I think they are assuming they are doing it,
and when they get the fingerprint, the report back, they're
assuming that that contains all of the information.
I think probably, and this would be in combination with the
passage of a bill mandating that this happen, I think
publicity. I think that if school districts became aware
through the PTA, through the PTO, through the Council of Great
City Schools, that this is happening and that their legislature
needs to pass this bill if that's required, or maybe, I don't
know if there's a possibility that maybe this could happen
without the passage of that bill, that it--Congress could
change its mind and say that this will happen without the
passage by each state legislature for school districts only,
I'm not talking about non-judicial causes for Caesars Palace to
hire people, I'm talking about people who are going to be
working with children and for children. And so I would say that
maybe if there's a possibility of changing that bill or
overruling that part as it deals with school districts, and
then I would say the publicity each of us, the PTA, the Council
of Great City Schools, the National School Principals,
Secondary School Principals, all of us need to make sure that
the word is out that until, unless we can overrule that
particular law, that until this is done, we're not getting
complete information, and even if one state doesn't pass it,
then we're all in jeopardy.
Mr. Porter. I would wish for nothing more than to not have
to have legislation to mandate or/encourage districts, and I
would concur from your testimony this morning it may well be
that they just don't understand what information they're not
getting, but what do you do now then if the individual is
applying from a state that's not in the 21? What do you do with
that individual.
Dr. Rice. Not being--Mr. Porter, Mr. Chairman, not being in
the 21 is really--doesn't solve our problem because like I was
saying, we just wouldn't recruit in those 29 states, if that
would solve our problem, we would only go to recruit in those
21. But we have no guarantee that that person that we're
recruiting hasn't lived in five other states, four of which do
not report, and so it has to be all of us in order to close
that loophole.
Mr. Porter. Yes.
Ms. Lark. I would just like to add that I believe that you
need to approach it from all fronts. If, in fact, your school
board are your policymakers, and your superintendents should be
the most knowledgeable in areas of this nature, and they are
informing school boards, school boards need to, I believe, take
some strong action to put pressure on state legislators
throughout the nation, and there are organizations designed to
address these kinds of issues, and your support in the form of
legislation should be going on simultaneously. I feel we take
it from every approach, every organization. I'm a member of the
Elementary Principals Association, and I will certainly be
bringing that to their attention. I honestly believe it was
lack of knowledge that led us to the point that we are today.
Mr. Porter. Carol, what happens in the classroom or in the
schools now if you hear of an individual that may have been
involved in pedophile or sexual predators.
Ms. Lark. It is such a serious issue that we immediately
turn it over to the police authorities. There is a complete
investigation done immediately. There's not a minute lost
because our children's safety is at stake.
Granted, we're very, very concerned because so is that
teacher's career at stake, and we value the credibility of both
sides of the issue, but it would be thoroughly investigated
immediately.
Mr. Porter. It's tragic the impact on an innocent
individual.
Ms. Lark. Oh, it is, it's tragic.
Mr. Porter. I can imagine it would ruin their career.
That's why it's very, very sensitive.
But let's assume for a moment that we find another state
that an individual was charged but plea bargained and was able
to leave. Is that information that you think you should have or
not.
Ms. Lark. I'd like to defer that answer to our attorney,
colleague here.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Porter, we do need to know that
information about arrest. We need to have the complete
information concerning arrest. We can then investigate further
to see if there has been a charge or a conviction.
I might tell you when Carol says that we turn that
information over to the authorities, we also suspend that
person, we remove them from the classroom until we have
assurances that there is no danger.
But again I want to emphasize this is 99 and 9 tenths of
our employees and volunteers are people who are as appalled at
anything that they hear of this nature as we are. And so we
need to keep that in mind, too.
Mr. Porter. Assuming the system is working well and you're
doing the background check and you have all the right
information and you find that someone may have a challenge in
their past, what happens then, and I guess No. 2, how often
does that happen? Again, if the system is properly in place,
how many times do you find someone that has had a charge and
they've been arrested, and if they have, what do you do.
Dr. Rice. On the application we ask those approximately 20
questions concerning this very same thing, and again on the
reference form we ask that.
If indeed a person does come forward and gives us the
explanation, the arrest record, the court disposition
documents, all of that information, then that plays into our
decision. And I can tell you if it involves sex-related abuse,
anything of that sort, violence, anything of that sort, then
that weighs very, very heavily in our decision. The case law
prevents me from saying that would eliminate someone, but that
weighs very, very heavily in our decision.
If indeed someone does not tell us on the application, they
do not self-report, no one of their references is aware or
willing to come forward with that information, then we get, in
this perfect world, the FBI report. Then we have them, not
because they've committed the offense, but because they've lied
on the application, and so what we do is remove them, and
generally that would be a termination offense.
Mr. Porter. What about existing employees? You touched upon
this a little but, you can't do a check again, so what do you
do about your existing staffing.
Dr. Rice. What we try to do, again through the Nevada
Highway Patrol, was to say, to have in place that if there is a
subsequent hit on that record or a subsequent addition to that
record, that that would be reported to us by the Nevada Highway
Patrol. As far as I know, we've never received anything, so it
could be that everyone is behaving as they should, all of us,
or it could be that maybe something is wrong with our system,
but that was passed a number of years ago in our legislature.
What we would like to do is to have every time that a
person renews their license, we would like for the state to
require fingerprinting. Otherwise, we have to have reasonable
cause for, you know, to look into something of that sort.
Chairman McKeon. I'd just ask, how often do they renew
their license.
Dr. Rice. If they have a bachelors degree, it's every 5
years, a master's every six, a doctorate every ten.
Chairman McKeon. OK.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Mrs. Stutz, from a National PTA perspective, you mentioned
that this is a high priority. What do you think that we can do
as Members of Congress to help elevate the importance of this
and as a priority to districts? Is there something that we can
be doing separate from passing laws.
Ms. Stutz. Well, of course passing the law is something
that we're really encouraged about. But once again, I think
that Dr. Rice has hit on it very well, is getting the publicity
out, letting parents know that--if you can get parents behind
you and get them really onto something, miracles happen. It's
amazing how quickly things can move along. This is something
that is near and dear to parents' hearts and they're very
protective of their children in this area, and I think that
with the right publicity you would see an upswelling of support
that would be maybe amazing even to you.
Mr. Porter. The classroom itself, Ms. Lark, we touched upon
it a moment ago and I want to add something for the record,
that your school is currently meeting the average early
progress standards of No Child Left Behind, which is pretty
amazing, congratulations, but have you experienced in your
professional career a staff person that has been charged or
arrested with this type of behavior.
Ms. Lark. In my 14 years I had one reason to suspect, based
on something that a child reported, and that teacher was
investigated immediately, and when the investigation was
completed, the child, it was a fifth grade girl, and she
admitted that she made the whole thing up and that there was no
factual basis for that, and I felt very sad that the poor
teacher had to go through that entire investigation, that
entire experience. But those things will happen, and on the
side of being safe, again, we will always investigate. But I've
only had the one experience.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Chairman McKeon. What happened to the teacher in that
situation?
Ms. Lark. They remained in our school district doing an
excellent job.
Chairman McKeon. And they were exonerated?
Ms. Lark. Exonerated totally.
Chairman McKeon. And people accepted that.
Ms. Lark. Yes, I believe so.
Chairman McKeon. Let me ask, does the NEA, have they taken
a position on this, do you know.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, they were not
aware of the bill until recently, and they have not taken a
position that I'm aware of.
I do know in informal discussions that our local
association has not taken a position either but have expressed
some concerns about the funding connection and the suspicion
reference, but they have not taken an official position and no
one with authority to take that position has spoken to me.
This is just rumblings that I hear.
Chairman McKeon. This would be very important.
I know I've sponsored a bill that they wanted, that the NEA
wanted, and the California Teacher's Association wanted. In
fact, they loved me for this bill.
In California if you--
Mr. Porter. It didn't help me, Mr. Chairman, but I like the
bill.
Chairman McKeon. In California, and Nevada is affected the
same way.
Mr. Porter. Yes.
Chairman McKeon. Because of the retirement plan, if you
don't pay into Social Security, then when you retire, you get
hit on your Social Security, you know, the offset.
Are you familiar with that--with that?
Well, because it's so important to the NEA, they have been
a tremendous help on the hill in getting cosponsors, and we
have now about 300 cosponsors to that bill. So that's why I
bring that up, because they could be very helpful or they could
be very harmful in getting this passed, because they do have
quite a bit of effect on the hill.
By the way, we've introduced a different, another bill, we
have not pulled our bill back, we're still working on it, but
in the interim Mr. Brady introduced a bill last week that
helps, it gets us about a third of the way there, and so I'm
sure you've got a colleague on it and will be supporting that
bill and we're hopeful that we can move forward on that one,
but that would be, you know, it would be very important for us
I think to get a meeting with them, with the NEA, and see where
they--because if they came out in support, it would be very
helpful.
Mr. Porter. Can I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McKeon. You bet.
Mr. Porter. First, I'm a proud cosponsor of your bill and I
realize the importance of making sure that the retirement
benefits are taken care of properly and proud to be a part of
that.
Actually today on our agenda was Mr. Ron Lopez, who had
agreed to testify, with the Clark County Education Association,
so we have been communicating with the Teachers' Association.
I sense that there is some discomfort with some of the
points that were mentioned this morning, and I can't speak for
the Teachers' Association, but I feel convinced that in
concept, they support the direction that we're going, but
they're having some challenges with a few of the points, which
of course that's why we have the meeting, and I wish that they
were here to testify to express their concerns, but they were
invited and Mr. Lopez did say that he would testify, and over
the weekend he chose not to. But know that we are communicating
with the Teachers' Association.
I agree it's important, especially the rank and file
teachers out there want to make sure, as does the association,
that we have the best, the brightest, and the safest in our
classrooms.
Chairman McKeon. Well, as I mentioned, nothing is easy, and
when you do try to move legislation, like I said, I think if we
were to have a vote here right now we could get it passed, but
that will be things that we have to deal with as we move
forward, and it's important that we do reach out to everybody
that would be involved and that we do address everybody's
concerns.
Like I say, you brought up some really good points that I
think would be helpful in the legislation today.
Mr. Porter. We are in a political arena and, of course,
it's an election year for Members of Congress, it's an election
year for the White House, the President, plus many U.S.
Senators. I guess my plea to the educational system nationwide
would be to set aside partisan politics and do what is in the
best interest of our children. And as we're again in this
election season, I think you're going to see, I know I'm
speaking to the choir, but we're going to see a lot of
decisions based upon who may or may not win an election as to
who supports what, and I would hope that this legislation would
become a priority separate and apart from the political
partisan bickering that we see in Washington every day that
gets in the way of good decisions, and I believe in this
legislation, although it's not perfect today, this is a
concept, thank you Dr. Rice, that I pledge that we will do
everything we can to make acceptable but also that it works to
protect our children. But I would hope that together as we work
on this improve, modify and compromise, which is what political
service is all about, that we will have a successful
legislation with your help, the PTA, the teachers, the
administration, and families across this country.
Thank you.
Chairman McKeon. Well, you picked up an ally here today on
your legislation.
I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable time, for
your testimony, for the work that you've put in on this and
what you're doing to help our children. That's very, very
important.
If there is no further business, then, this Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]