Blog

SB 228 – Student Right to Privacy bill. NHN supported this bill. However, the Senate Education Committee was not willing to bring the bill for a vote and instead agreed to amend two protective sentences into another “student privacy bill”. A sentence declaring that a student’s personally identifiable information and data “belongs” to the student was amended into SB 463. SB 463 was passed by the Senate. However, this protective language was DELETED by amendment by the Assembly Education Committee as was other protective language in the bill. A very watered down version of SB 463 was passed by the Assembly and “concurred with” by the Senate.

SB 25 – NHN opposed Section 2 of the original bill that authorized the Superintendent to “coordinate education programs for children from “Birth to Prekindergarten” was deleted. A modified version of SB 25 was passed and signed by the Governor. See “As Enrolled” by clicking the bill number.

SB 126 – NHN opposed language calling for “regulation and evaluation” of “any early childhood education and prekindergarten programs at both private and public schools”. NHN also opposed language in the bill allowing public school officials to “conduct a survey AT THE HOME of child whose primary language is not English”. In both cases the problematic language was removed by amendment. However, the amended bill was never brought for a vote and “died” in committee.

SB 117 – A bill adding two new vaccinations required for “school enrollment” also died in committee.

AB 221 – This bill does not affect homeschooling but was a “companion” bill to SB 463. The bill was intended to protect public school student information and data collected by the public school, the school district and the Department of Education but in reality was only a “sunshine bill”; meaning the DOE and local school districts must tell parents what info/data is being collected on their child and allow for “corrections” to the information/data to be made, as requested by the parent or student over the age of 18. Here again, there were many amendments houses to this bill before it was eventually passed and signed into law by the Governor.

SB 302 – The Educational Savings Account (ESA) bill made a surprise appearance on April 3rd. The bill was scheduled for hearing just before the deadline for bills to be heard in committee (if not heard they die). It was a “surprise” because the original bill was nearly totally rewritten by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Hammond, just prior to the meeting. NHN Officers had gone on record with Senator Hammond requesting that he protect HOMESCHOOL FREEDOM. However, although NHN Officers had been in constant contact with Senator Hammond on other bills he never informed us of his intent to use the homeschool law as a “vehicle” for students to receive tax-payer money from the state and the “controls” that go with it. Thankfully, Elissa Wahl was in attendance the day of the hearing and “opposed” the bill as written. NHN was able to work with Senator Hammond to protect those parents who DO NOT wish to receive money from the state. More information on the effect of this bill to be posted.

Dear Nevada Homeschoolers, 7/3/2015

NHN, once again, was very involved in this last legislature. Especially Barbara Dragon, who throughout the session almost single-handedly carried the weight of responsibility and action! Similar to a sports team there are times when the team is almost overwhelmed with injuries and rookies, and it’s the veteran who steps up to the plate at the most critical moments. Barb is our hero!

One issue that NHN worked on, that didn’t make it, is a privacy protection bill (SB 228) that declares that data belonging to and generated by a public, private or homeschool student belongs to that student, not to the government. NHN feels very strongly that this is critically important, and will continue to advance any efforts to get such a law passed. It is baffling sometimes to know how any legislator or anybody of any political persuasion (except those who advocate a totalitarian government) could oppose personal privacy. Clearly there are politicians who tell their constituents one thing, then vote the other way.

No doubt you’ve heard that Nevada has passed the most impressive, most amazing, law that allows parents to start an Educational Savings Account (ESA) for their child(ren). SB302 was a real challenge for NHN. Initially we opposed it because its initial wording blurred the lines between “true” homeschool parents who don’t want government money and the laws and regulations that accompany it, and those who are comfortable with accepting the money, laws and regulations. While we absolutely believe in parental choice in education, we also don’t want a law that forces regulations on freedom-loving individualistic homeschool families who are legally and effectively homeschooling their children. NHN worked with Senator Hammond, sponsor of SB302, who has been very supportive of homeschoolers. Our gratitude and thanks to Senator Hammond!

Our NHN website has been giving us fits lately, so right now I can’t give you a link to get more information. I’ll attach a document that NHN composed a couple of weeks ago that gives a thumb-nail sketch of what SB302 is (copied below). Essentially it is a new 4th type of legal schooling in Nevada: public, private, homeschooling, and an ESA opt-in child.

Also, below, I’d like to invite to read an article written January 6, 2011 by Dr. Brian Ray of NHERI (National Home Education Research Institute) entitled, What If? A Thought Experiment. NHN depends heavily on his research (as do most other homeschool advocacy groups and academics). I encourage you, if at all possible, to consider a donation to NHERI using the information below.

-Frank Schnorbus
Nevada Homeschool Network, Chairman

An ESA Grant shall[1]be awarded to a qualified public school student whose parent enters into a written agreement with the State Treasurer[2]. This will be an ESA Grant “Opt-in Child”[3] and is not a homeschooled child[4]. The approved “participating entity”[5] from which the Opt-in Child will receive instruction[6] may be one or a combination[7] of the following:

1. A “Grant School”, including;
   1. A licensed or exempt private school in this state[8];
   2. A private college or university, a state college or university, or a community college in this state[9];
   3. On-line schools that are not operated by the public school or the DOE[10];
2. A “Grant Tutor”, which can be either a tutor or tutoring facility that is accredited[11]; or
3. A “Grant Parent”
   1. Who has submitted to the school district or charter school in which the child was enrolled a Notice that the child is an approved ESA Grant Opt-in Child[12], and
   2. Complies with the requirements in SB 302 Section 12, Subsection 1, including ensuring that the child takes either a norm-referenced exam or an exam pursuant to NRS 389 in math and English language arts.

[1] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 2

[2] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 1

[3] SB 302 Sec. 15.1, Subsection 5 and Sec. 16.7, Subsection 1(c)

[4] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 10 and Sec. 15.1, Subsection 3

[5] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1

[6] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 1(a)

[7] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 10; Sec. 8, Subsection 3; Sec. 9, Subsection 1(j); Sec. 11, Subsection 4; Sec. 15.1, Subsection 5

[8] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(a)

[9] SB 302 Sec.11, Subsection 1(b) and Sec. 3.5, Subsections 1 and 2

[10]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(c)

[11]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(d)

[12]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(e) and Sec. 16.4, Subsection 1

SB 228 did have a work session in the Senate Education Committee on Friday. However, due to the “complexities” of the bill it was not going to pass, so at our request, Section 1, subsections 1 and 2b were amended into SB 463, another student data bill.

We wish to thank Senators Gustavson and Denis for finding a way to get a pupil’s constitutional right to privacy regarding their student records hopefully put into statute. These are the two sections from which a new amendment will be written,

Section 1. Chapter 392 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:
1. The legislature hereby declares that all personally identifiable information as well as the
education record of a pupil is protected as a right to privacy under the Constitution of Nevada and the Constitution of the United States. This act shall be called The Pupil Information Privacy Protection Act of 2015.
2. (b) Be deemed the property of the pupil who is the subject of that information if the pupil
is 18 years old or is under the age of 18 and is legally emancipated from the pupil’s parents, or the parent or guardian of the pupil if the pupil is under the age of 18.

SB 463 received a unanimous “Do Pass” and goes to the Senate floor for a vote. That may take a few days since the LCB is backlogged on adding amendments to bill.

We’ll do our best to keep you informed as quickly as possible on the progress of this bill as moves through the process.

Barbara Dragon

Thank you to those who called or emailed on Thursday regarding SB 228 (notice put out on NV-Alert)! But we need to keep up the full court press.

If you have not already called or email Senate Education Committee members, about SB 228, please do so on MONDAY! We met with all committee members, except Senators Segerblom and Lipparelli (their schedules didn’t allow) on Thursday regarding asking Chairwoman Becky Harris to give SB 228 a work session THIS WEEK. If the bill is not passed out of committee by Friday it will die. All committee members were responsive to our meetings and said they’d speak to the Committee Chair.

Please take a moment tonight to email committee members or call/email tomorrow.
See the HSLDA E-lert for contact information. http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/elertarchive.aspx?7473

We must protect student privacy rights!

Barbara Dragon
ParentalRights.org/NEVADA Legislative Liaison

Nevada Assembly
Legislative Building
Assembly Education Committee, Room 4114
401 S. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701

RE: AB221

Dear Chair Woodbury, V-Chair Stewart, Members: Armstrong, Dooling, Edwards, Gardner, Hickey, Shelton, Anderson, Diaz, Flores, Joiner, Munford, and Swank,

By way of introduction, ParentalRights.org/NEVADA is a group dedicated to preserving the right of parents to make decisions for their children. We are writing today with regards to AB221, scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Education Committee on Monday, March 23, 2015.

Parentalrights.org/NEVADA opposes AB 221 as written for several reasons, all of which underscore the fact that this bill will not protect pupils and their families. AB221 does not acknowledge the privacy rights of students nor does it restore control and protection of student data back to the pupil and his or her parents or guardians.

Two bills – AB221 and SB228 – are being discussed this session as solutions to student data privacy concerns, but in reality they are not the same. While AB221 focuses on protecting student data from unauthorized use and illuminates what data is collected and used for, it does nothing to address the enumerated points below, failing to limit government use and release of data for purposes other than the education of the child.
1. AB221 relies on FERPA for privacy protection. It is precisely the changes to FERPA in both 2008 and 2011 that allow a broader collection and sharing of data that require the state of Nevada to now address student privacy. FERPA is no longer effective in providing protection due to recent changes and as such, requires Nevada to define privacy laws to protect our children’s data.
2. AB221 allows sharing of data beyond the local school and district, including directory information and personally identifiable information. We believe student data should be collected, managed, stored, and maintained at the local level and should not be released or shared beyond school officials of the local school or district without written consent of the parent or legal guardian, or pupil if 18 years of age. Student information should never go beyond the local level without affirmative, informed parental/guardian consent with the exception of aggregate student data needed for funding purposes by the state.
3. AB221 does not address or acknowledge that the parent/guardian of a pupil owns and controls both the data and/or the release of data until a pupil reaches 18, at which time the pupil owns their data. This leaves an ambiguous void and allows room for privacy intrusion.
4. AB221 does not limit or restrict the type of data that may be collected. While it requires the data elements to be published, there are no limitations on what type of data may be included. Data collection should be restricted to purposes that facilitate the function of education.
While we appreciate the introduction of AB221, and its intent to protect data and privacy, the bill, in its entirety, falls short in addressing the root causes for data privacy concerns. If AB221 could be amended to comply with SB228, sponsored by Senator Gustavson, we would be in support of AB221, providing real protection for pupils and families.
AB221 is a non-partisan issue – we should all take the privacy and protection of Nevada children’s data seriously. We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns and are willing to help with amending language as needed to address concerns. Please feel free to contact any of the ParentalRights.org/NEVADA Legislative Liaisons should you have further questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,

Barbara Dragon
Elissa Wahl
Frank Schnorbus
Kelley Millard Radow
Ray Poole
Legislative Liaisons for ParentalRights.org/NEVADA

Letter from ParentalRights.org/NV to the Assembly Education Committee. This bill is about public student data systems and does not affect homeschooling. However, we are taking a stand against the bill because it does not protect the privacy rights of public school students. Please share with your public school friends and family.

If you feel led, you can “Share Your Opinion” on this bill with Legislators and/or write Assembly Education Committee members: ‘Melissa.Woodbury@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Lynn.Stewart@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Derek.Armstrong@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Vicki.Dooling@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘David.Gardner@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Pat.Hickey@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Shelly.Shelton@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Elliot.Anderson@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Olivia.Diaz@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Edgar.Flores@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Amber.Joiner@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Harvey.Munford@asm.state.nv.us’; ‘Heidi.Swank@asm.state.nv.us’

ParentalRights.org/NEVADA
P.O Box 1090 Purcellville, VA * (540)751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org
N e v a d a

CALL TO ACTION

SB 228– “Pupil Information Privacy Protection Act” (PIPPA) is scheduled for a hearing this Friday, March 20th at 3:30 p.m. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Se…/78th2015/Reports/history.cfm…

Agenda: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Agendas/Senate/ED/Final/604.pdf

NHN is working with the bill sponsor, Senator Don Gustavson, on an amended bill to strengthen the language by protecting student information/data, including private school and homeschool students.

While the original bill is a good start, the sponsor believes it falls short in assuring that adequate protection of pupil records/data and will introduce an amended bill addressing:
• The right to information privacy for all pupils in this state; public, private or home schooled pupils
• A statement of purpose to information/records/data collected on pupils
• Ownership of and permitted use of pupil information/records/data
• Fiduciary responsibility for and breaches of pupil information/records/data

Please support the bill by going to the “Share Your Opinion” page, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/78th2015/A/ .

Contact Senate Education Committee Members by fax, email or phone and tell them, “Nevada students deserve a strong records/data privacy protection bill”. All communication should of course be polite and courteous, these are our elected officials.

By Fax: Nevada Senate: 1-775-684-8533 or TOLL FREE 1-866-543-9941
You can fax individual letters to each committee member at this number or one letter to the Senate Education Committee with: Dear, Chari Harris, V-Chair Hammond, Members Gustavson, Lipparelli, Woodhouse, Denis, and Segerblom;

Senator Education Committee Members Phone & Email:
In the subject line write: SB 228 – Pupil Information Privacy Protection Act

Becky Harris – Chair Email: Becky.Harris@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1421
Scott Hammond – Vice Chair Email: Scott.Hammond@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1442
Don Gustavson Email: Don.Gustavson@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1480
Mark Lipparelli Email: Mark.Lipparelli@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1475
Joyce Woodhouse Email: Joyce.Woodhouse@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1457
Moises (Mo) Denis Email: Moises.Denis@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1431
Tick Segerblom Email: Tick.Segerblom@sen.state.nv.us Office Phone: 775-684-1422

Also please make plans to attend the hearing in either Carson City or Las Vegas. Locations are listed on the Agenda in the bill link.

NHN Officers
Frank Schnorbus, Chair; Elissa Wahl, V-Chair; Ray Poole, Secretary; Barbara Dragon, Treasurer;
Officers: Kelley Millard-Radow, Aaron Sutherland, Kristi Casaus, Matt Alder

Link to PDF copy of the following letter.

Nevada Senate Education Committee Members
401 South Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4707
Via Email to Committee Members

RE: SB 126 – Please Vote No, or Amend per request

Dear Chair Harris, Vice Chair Hammond, Senators Gustavson, Lipparelli, Woodhouse, Denis, and Segerblom;

By way of introduction, Nevada Homeschool Network (NHN) advocates for Nevada families who have chosen to direct the education of their children pursuant to NRS 392.070.

We are writing in regards to SB 126 – Revises provisions relating to education (BDR 34-408).
AN ACT relating to education; requiring the State Board of Education to prescribe quality and evaluation measures or early childhood education programs and prekindergarten programs provided at schools; requiring the State Board to prescribe surveys and assessments to identify certain pupils whose primary language is a language other than English or who are learning to speak two languages simultaneously; requiring certain pupils to be assessed and classified as limited English proficient or English proficient upon enrollment for kindergarten; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Senate Bill 126 would require the State Board of Education to regulate any early childhood education or prekindergarten program provided at a private, public or charter school in this state based on the recommendations of the Nevada Early Childhood Advisory Council. Senate Bill 126 would also require the State Board to prescribe surveys of pupils at the home in order to assess and classify the pupil as limited English proficient or English proficient.

SB 126 infringes upon the fundamental parental right and responsibility to direct the education of their child and increases governmental control of young children in this State. This bill also allows the government to invade the privacy of a citizen’s home in pursuit of information via an undefined survey. SB 126 is excessive in its scope, will adversely affect free-market PreK programs by offering free government “competition”, saddles private early childhood education programs with government regulation, and categorizes pupils unnecessarily.

We hold that:
1. Parents act in the best interest of the child with regards to choosing when, where and how their child is educated. In this bill private preschools would now be regulated by the State, abolishing the parental right to choose ECE programs that are not controlled by the State.
2. The Nevada Constitution (Article 11 Section 2) specifies the purpose of common schools is instruction but instruction in a school for very young children has been shown in many studies to have detrimental effects. Therefore, increasing State spending on pre-Kindergarten programs is not a wise use of tax-payer money. According to the Governor’s office, December 2014, the preschool population will increase by 58% over 4 years.
3. Early childhood programs for children birth through age 4 should solely be the parent’s responsibility.
4. Programs offered and regulated by the government that are at first “voluntary” often become “mandatory” in the future. NHN has testified against bills nearly every legislative session over the past decade, aimed to lower the compulsory attendance age from 7 to 6 or even 5 as was the case in 2013.
5. The Nevada Early Childhood Advisory Council is appointed by the Governor but does not include a single parent representative; clearly the input of parents regarding the early education of their child has been disregarded in this process and NRS 432A.076, adopted in 2013, is punitive to Nevada families.
6. Private early childhood education and preschool options should not be regulated by the K-12 public school system. Governor Jim Gibbons acknowledged that parents know what’s best for their children in his 2009 Veto of SB 378 that sought to establish provisions relating to certain early childhood education programs.
7. This bill also allows for government officials to invade private homes to identify children whose primary language is not English. The home is the sanctuary for the family. The state should not seek entrance to a home without warrant or probable cause of danger to a child or others in the home.

We’d again like to take this opportunity to direct your attention to a recent paper by Scott A. Woodruff, Esq., an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association refuting the need for government sponsored ECE programs. No Lasting Gains from Early Education or Preschool extensively documents the failure of early childhood education efforts to produce “lasting gains” in the educational experience of a child which would include both ECE programs, pre-Kindergarten as well as all-day Kindergarten. The paper contains the results of many sources of research, with each item summarized very succinctly and footnoted.

Based on the above, it is our request that you vote NO on this bill to minimize the expansion of formal early childhood academics which are shown by research to be detrimental, costly without benefit, and contrary to parental right.

However, if the Legislature decides that this bill is still necessary for funding and regulation of public ECE and PreK programs, NHN requests that the Senate Education Committee amend SB 126 as follows;

1 Section 1. Chapter 385 of NRS is hereby amended by adding
2 thereto a new section to read as follows:
3 The State Board shall prescribe by regulation quality and
4 evaluation measures for any early childhood education program
5 and prekindergarten program provided at [a private school or] a
6 public school, including, without limitation, a charter school. In
7 prescribing such measures by regulation, the State Board shall
8 consider the recommendations of the Nevada Early Childhood
9 Advisory Council made pursuant to subparagraph (4) of
10 paragraph (d) of subsection 2 of NRS 432A.076.
And in Section 2, page 3 :
1 prescribed by the State Board pursuant to this [paragraph.]
2 subparagraph;
3 (2) Prescribing a survey to be conducted [at the home] at a public or charter school of a
4 pupil that provides for the identification of pupils whose primary
5 language is a language other than English;
6 (3) Requiring the use of an appropriate assessment for the
7 identification of pupils who are dual language learners in:
8 (I) An early childhood education program;
9 (II) A prekindergarten program;
10 (III) Kindergarten; and
11 (IV) Grades 1 to 12, inclusive; and
12 (4) Requiring any pupil in an early childhood education
13 program or a prekindergarten program at a public or charter school identified as a dual
14 language learner to be assessed and classified as limited English
15 proficient or English proficient upon enrollment for kindergarten.

Parents are the best early childhood educators and efforts should be made to support this vital component of every child’s life without government direction. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Schnorbus, Chair Elissa M. Wahl, Vice-Chair

NHN Officers: Barbara Dragon, D. Raymond Poole, Kelley Millard Radow, Aaron Sutherland, Kristi Casaus

Internet address for:
Governor Gibbons’ Veto Message; https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/75th2009/Reports/VetoMessages/Veto_SB378_052809.pdf
No Lasting Gains from Early Education or Preschool; http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/Issues/S/State_Early_Education.asp

RE: February 10, 2015 Senate Education Committee Hearing, SB 25

Nevada Senate Education Committee Members
401 South Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4707
Via Email to Committee Members

Dear Chair Harris, Vice Chair Hammond, Senators Gustavson, Lipparelli, Woodhouse, Denis, and Segerblom;

By way of introduction, Nevada Homeschool Network (NHN) advocates for Nevada families who have chosen to direct the education of their children pursuant to NRS 392.070.

We are writing today with regards to SB 25 – Revises provisions relating to public schools (BDR 34-316). Although there are many items of concern in this bill we would specifically like to address Section 2, Item 7 amending NRS 385.175 to add, “Coordinate educational programs for children from birth through prekindergarten” to the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s duties.

NHN opposes SB 25, Section 2 as it infringes upon the fundamental parental right and responsibility to direct the upbringing, education and care of their child. We do not support this new language because:
• NHN believes that parents act in the best interest of the child with regards to choosing when, where and how their child is educated. Free government programs force private schools (and day-care businesses) out of business thereby reducing parental choice, and collect data on the child and family.
• Kindergarten is offered by the public school system for 5 year olds (optional, not compulsory).
• NRS 385.175 clearly limits the Superintendent’s responsibilities to the system of K-12 public education.
• The Nevada Constitution (Article 11 Section 2) specifies the purpose of common schools is instruction but instruction for very young children has been shown in many studies to have detrimental effects. Therefore, educational programs for children from birth through age 4 do not, nor should they, fall under the superintendent’s purview.
• Participation in programs that at first are “voluntary” often become “mandatory” in the future. NHN and others have fought bills nearly every legislative session over the past decade, at least, to lower the compulsory attendance age from 7 to 6 or even 5 as was the case in 2013.
• At present, there are plenty of private options available to parents seeking to provide additional educational opportunities outside of the home for their children from birth to preschool. Governor Jim Gibbons acknowledged this in his 2009 Veto of SB 378 – Establishes provisions relating to certain early childhood education programs.

We’d also like to direct your attention to a recent paper by Scott A. Woodruff, Esq., an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association refuting the need for government sponsored ECE programs. “No Lasting Gains from Early Education or Preschool” extensively documents the failure of early childhood education efforts to produce “lasting gains” in the educational experience of a child which would include both ECE programs as well as all-day Kindergarten. The paper contains the results of many sources of research, with each item summarized very succinctly and footnoted.

NHN requests that the Senate Education Committee delete Section 2, Item 7 of SB 25, allowing parents to continue to maintain full responsibility for the education of their babies, toddlers, and preschoolers. Parents are the best early childhood educators and efforts should be made to support this vital component of every child’s life without government direction.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Schnorbus, Chair
Elissa M. Wahl, Vice-Chair
NHN Officers: Barbara Dragon, D. Raymond Poole, Kelley Millard Radow, Aaron Sutherland, Kristi Casaus

Internet address for:
Governor Gibbons’ Veto of SB 378 in 2009, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/75th2009/Reports/VetoMessages/Veto_SB378_052809.pdf
“No Lasting Gains from Early Education or Preschool”; https://nevadahomeschoolnetwork.com/related-legislative-issues/Woodruff.ECE.SKMBT_36113050615120.pdf-1/