Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Speaker names can be wrong. Names are identified automatically through voice matching and may contain errors. Always verify speaker attribution against the video before citing it.
Committees
No committee participation found.
Recent Meetings
Recent Transcript Excerpts
hey, I need to transfer as long as I can find two willing districts. I question, for example, when you say it has to be contiguous. Now, again, I'm preaching and I'm not asking questions, so I'll shudder my comments from
I think this is an extremely difficult issue for us to grapple with. But as I read the bill, and I guess because of a little bit of my background with Representative Armstrong, I come up with the idea that there really isn't a reason why you can't transfer. I don't know why we cluttered the piece of legislation with all these other factors when, like I said, I'm not the most creative person in the world, but I don't think there's a reason why any parent couldn't say,
I would think any parent could find one reason out of ten to say I need to transfer my child. So if that's the case, then race is really a non-issue, and so why is it here? If, in fact, we already know that that is one of the things the court has said, you better be very careful not to deny a person a transfer based on the race issue. Like I said, and I really am very complimentary.
Board of Education. Well, I mean, again, help me with this, because I'm reading all these factors. Now, if race does not control, like I just asked, then for what reason couldn't they transfer? In other words, are you saying then that each of these are equal, that there's no controlling thing? If you have ten reasons, and I'm not even the most creative person in the world,
then this transfer cannot happen. Is that not correct?
where, like I said, I was thinking it was one way, but in reality, the controlling factor here still is race. Without any question, it appears to me, we've walked ourselves right back into the same circumstances because if race again is affected,
one just follow-up question with you. And as I understand it, again, the way this is written, there are a series of reasons that a student may or may not transfer as long as the two districts.
If that's the case, then I don't understand the restrictions regarding race, then, as part of this, as a prequalifier. It is not a restriction. It's an option. And maybe if
that they can go ahead and transfer regardless of the other factors? In other words, there's no prequalification. You're just saying as long as you can find one reason that's acceptable, then you can transfer. Any one of
and they can track where their students are. Okay, let me ask another question here because I'm a little bit confused with the numbers now. And I apologize. Again, I may have just thought. Let's say that we have eight reasons that a child could transfer. are you saying then that as long as there is one of the reasons that's acceptable
down to the school having that choice. In other words, it's not to prevent. It is the fact as long as the other school district okays it, then that's an acceptable reason?
and you're actually saying to them because of the law that they would not be able to transfer because it's not a contiguous district. I don't understand the reasoning.
readdress it if that didn't. It doesn't really answer what I was
getting. I don't understand why that should be prevented if you're talking about trying to serve young people. And as we look at districts geographically, it appears to me that in many cases parents come to the district and say, I'd like to transfer. I happen to work at this particular area for a variety of reasons, child care, a number of other things with family,
What I'm saying is if you analyze the 16,000 students, how many of them would actually be barred by your current bill? To my knowledge, because that complies with
Representative Hammer, do you have any statistical base on the 16,000 students that have already transferred? Are there individuals that have actually transferred to districts that are beyond the district that is contiguous to the original district? In other words, you mentioned in your particular bill that this will be prevented. In other words, by, I won't say hopping a district, but attending a district that isn't necessarily the next one to the district.
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 232 simply allows the state employees to have a deferred savings plan, of which, again, it's voluntary. They're automatically enrolled, however, they may opt out at any time. Any questions? Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Carnine has explained the bill. Does anyone
Any questions? I appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative
Representative Carnot, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senator, Senate Bill 509 is simply a shell for the purpose of receiving grants for the AIMS program in science and mathematics. The current funding of this program, which has been extremely successful, has been eliminated, and this is an effort to allow this particular program to move forward based on additional grants, both federal and state.
and if it's amount that we're talking about you said 10 million almost potentially could be there you fought this battle before as i remember what my question i guess is is right now we've got this bill setting here wanting to mandate it's going to be okay no no no on the other hand we've got senator key's bill which says it's going he's going to actually potentially put the money there but it's not a mandate is that correct
Bills Discussed
No bills found.