Education Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (21)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1020
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…tle SB118 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH POLICIES. HB1020 Warren TO ALLOW OUT-OF-STATE TEACHING EXPERIENCE TO BE CONS…”
|
TO ALLOW OUT-OF-STATE TEACHING EXPERIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING A TEACHER'S SALARY SCHEDULE. | Warren | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1700
Act 1040
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1700 Wooten TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO INFORM AN…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO INFORM AN EDUCATIONAL ENTITY TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL … | Wooten | Notification that HB1700 is now Act 1040 |
|
HB1890
Act 979
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OOLS TO COMPLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967. HB1890 Della Rosa TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ESTABL…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ESTABLISH IN THE STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION THE MAXIMUM … | Della Rosa | Notification that HB1890 is now Act 979 |
|
HB1933
Act 1029
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1933 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ANTI-BULLYING POLICY; TO REQUIRE A SCH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ANTI-BULLYING POLICY; TO REQUIRE A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER TO RECEIVE INFORMATION REGARDING … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1933 is now Act 1029 |
|
HB1963
Act 1064
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1963 Gazaway CONCERNING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL S…”
|
CONCERNING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE; TO CREATE A SCHOOL … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1963 is now Act 1064 |
|
SB118
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND CRISIS LINE FUND. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB118 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH POLICIES. HB1020 Wa…”
|
TO REQUIRE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH POLICIES. | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB232
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB232 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN HIGHER EDUCA…”
|
TO CREATE THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACT. | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB387
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AN INSTITUTION'S IN-STATE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT. SB387 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF LOTTERY PRO…”
|
TO REQUIRE THAT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF LOTTERY PROCEEDS BE NET PROCEEDS THAT ARE USED … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB509
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE PRODUCTIVITY-BASED FUNDING MODEL. SB509 B. Davis TO DISTRIBUTE FUNDS FROM THE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENC…”
|
TO DISTRIBUTE FUNDS FROM THE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUND TO CERTAIN FOUR-YEAR STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF … | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB553
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB553 Bond TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT UND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE … | Bond | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB591
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 2. SB591 Elliott TO PROMOTE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION AMONG ARKANSANS…”
|
TO PROMOTE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION AMONG ARKANSANS; TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS COMMUNITY REMEMBRANCE COMMISSION; AND … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB605
Act 1083
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F NET PROCEEDS USED FOR SCHOLARSHIPS INCREASE YEAR BY YEAR. SB605 A. Clark TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE C…”
|
TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING. | A. Clark | Notification that SB605 is now Act 1083 |
|
SB620
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING. SB620 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CAPITAL PROMISE SCHOLARSHIP PILOT…”
|
TO CREATE THE CAPITAL PROMISE SCHOLARSHIP PILOT PROGRAM. | B. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB633
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…on TO CREATE THE CAPITAL PROMISE SCHOLARSHIP PILOT PROGRAM. SB633 G. Leding TO REQUIRE AN EVALUATOR LICENSED BY THE STATE BOA…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN EVALUATOR LICENSED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO PLACE A PUBLIC … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB666
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB666 Elliott TO ONLY PERMIT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS TO DISCIPLI…”
|
TO ONLY PERMIT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS TO DISCIPLINE STUDENTS OR ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB668
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB668 K. Hammer CONCERNING A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS CLASS…”
|
CONCERNING A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS BEING IN NEED OF LEVEL 5 … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB675
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ICER WHEN STUDENTS OR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ARE AT RISK OF HARM. SB675 B. Davis CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINAT…”
|
CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD; AND TO ESTABLISH THE TWO-YEAR HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING … | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB676
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB676 B. Davis TO REPEAL THE STATUTE THAT IMPOSES LIMITS ON STATE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE STATUTE THAT IMPOSES LIMITS ON STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES FOR … | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB678 Elliott CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARS…”
|
CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 2; AND TO AMEND THE LAW … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB681
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB681 Elliott TO CLARIFY THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 A…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS; … | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB508
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB508 B. Davis TO AMEND THE MEANS BY WHICH FUNDING IS DISTRIBUTED…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEANS BY WHICH FUNDING IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE PRODUCTIVITY-BASED FUNDING MODEL. | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Senator Jane English
Unverified
0:00
So first thing off the bat, I would like to ask Representative Wooten, House Bill 1700, if you come please to the end of the table and identify yourself. Push your little button there so you're, push the bottom. Yeah, it takes a minute. These are not real easy
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
0:31
to work with. there you go green lights on madam chairman thank you uh this bill that i'm presenting this morning
is really a child protection bill as i toured my district before we started the session i was visiting with my superintendents and we discovered that there are there was a void as it related to the superintendents and school boards being informed of someone who applied for a job and failed the background check the party who applied got noticed but the school never received
it never the superintendent nor the school board nor anyone in authority and the bad part on this one this had gone on for 10 years the employee apparently got notice that she was ineligible and but she went ahead and went to work and nobody ever caught it until a couple of other employees became aware of it and then they made the superintendent aware of it so we got to looking
into it and investigating it and come to find out the Department of Education was not and has not been informing the superintendents or the school board that someone failed. Now, let me make it very clear. We, the superintendents, are not interested in the down and dirty about what happened the rape or child abuse all they want to know is this person can work or can't work
yes or no up or down and that's that's that's the simplicity of the bill Thank you. Thank you. thank you ma'am
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
3:05
chair kim hammer state senator district 33 yes ma'am we do have an amendment
yes ma'am this is in response to some concerns that were raised in the meeting the other day regarding some technical issues And what this does is address that technical issue.
The way I would describe it, this is the wording that would bridge the gap between what is currently in place and if this legislation is allowed to pass in the creation of two additional two-year time frames would allow that to go in place. So this is essential in order that if this legislation goes through from where we are to adding those two additional two-year time frames, We have to have this so the department can transition throughout the whole process. From the committee.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
4:18
Yeah, we need to adopt the amendment. I'm reading the amendment, page 2, but it doesn't
say what line. Which state board are we deleting? I'm supposing it's line three at the end of the first paragraph, but it doesn't tell us which section we're talking about. Does that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
4:42
make sense? I believe you are correct in your interpretation that where it says there's only one phrase, State Board, in that line.
At the end of it. At the end of it, so it would eliminate State Board and substitute to read, and it would carry from line three to line four State Board and has not received an extension under subdivision C-1B of this section. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
5:03
Did I hear a motion? Second? All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:12
I know this was heavily debated the other day, so let me just kind of use an
analogy to capture the essence of what this bill would do.
You have a school district that's taken over, and through that process within that first time frame of the school being taken over they are working to get back to a independent status out from underneath state control during that time if they meet the measurable goals that are assigned by the department they're able to get out but here's what happens and here's what this bill is intended to do so it gets close to the end of five years and they're almost there but they're not quite yet there and that time runs out now what we have is either
a district maybe that has run out the clock or you have a district that is almost there but needs a little more time and so they get released because the department doesn't have the ability to give them a little more time wouldn't it be better to give them one month or another year so that once they get out from underneath the state they are able to stand up on their own two feet and be able to come you know go back to an independent status underneath the state and be able to not have to worry about coming back and I'm gonna tell you where
the idea came from madam chair I said in you know I spent a lot of time in leg audit and I see school districts that come back around and we see periodically school districts that are taken over by the state and so the concept of the idea was this what's the reason that they get taken over twice and sometimes it's because they needed that little extra time but the way it's structured now They couldn't get that little extra time and that's what this is intended to do so they can come in for a soft landing I've got a closing
Short closing statement. I think that'll kind of help seal it more than that But all this does is add on that extra time So if they're close to being independent, but they need a little more time now This would create that ability and that's all it does
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
7:15
Senator Hamer, since I haven't had time to digest all of your amendment,
when you say that's all it does, is that still the possibility of four more years?
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
7:26
It creates the opportunity for the department to have four more years to work with
those districts that are really close at the end of five. And I think before you walked in, Senator Elliott, made this statement. This would address the issue of a district that maybe is running out the clock on the department and would approach using the law to their advantage to do that. Or secondly, those school districts that are right there at the edge and almost there but not quite able to get there, this allows the department to work with those districts, of which at any time throughout the original time frame
or the additional two time frames, if the district demonstrates that they have met the criteria to come out from underneath state takeover, they're able to get released anywhere along the line, and that's specifically built into the two additional two-year phrases. Are you
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
8:19
aware of the Senate Bill 553 that Senator Bond had that would have allowed similar scenario you're talking about there, making progress and have a plan and so forth and so on? and as kind of to do what you were going to do except in a different way
that that would also give the State Board of Education an opportunity not to invoke what is supposed to happen after five years but to have a third way to deal with. Are you familiar with that bill? Vaguely. Okay. And so what it would do, what it would have done, but we didn't pass that bill in here. it was a similar kind of I think it came from the same kind of concern perhaps that you are here at year five and that's a long time for somebody to have been under state control but if the if the
district is showing improvements substantial improvement that does the state at that point could return the the district to state control to local control and still could of course could be involved if they chose to. So I was just wondering actually if you were familiar with it and how you felt about that proposition as opposed to further control. I would respond
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:44
by saying and speak to
the content of my bill and that is what this bill does is allow for a soft landing and for those that again they can once they show due diligence and they meet the criteria established by the department they could get out anywhere along the process this for those districts that are trying hard and get to the end and just need that little extra time this allows them that little extra time so that once they get out from underneath state control hopefully they will have matured in meeting their needs to where they would not have to come back under state control and so did i hear
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
10:21
you say as i was coming through the door that this was this was strictly
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
10:26
your idea where this idea came from as I mentioned having sat in leg audit for a long time but and seeing things that come through and and then seeing and asking the question why do schools go back into control twice I know maybe that's a small number but it's still an issue that needs to be addressed why why do school districts go back in and what I've what in my opinion part of it is it's kind of like helping a child walk we get them almost to where they can walk and then we turn them loose whether
we want to or not they we turn them loose and they fall back down again it seems to me that would be better have this where the ability to allow them to get up on their feet really stand themselves up so we don't have to take them
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
11:12
back into control again I you know your your analogy makes
his point uh except that uh and I I certainly don't think this is that you meant it that way that way but um this is so different from from that because we are talking about a group of
taxpayers adults who maybe might not need that kind of hand holding after after the five-year period and um so my other question though is um whom did you consult as you were thinking about putting this
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:48
bill together as far as the idea again i accept responsibility and ownership of the idea having been around here while watching things happen uh crafted it and um with regards to who i bounced it off of there weren't i would i would say there might be i'm trying to think who
i did because i didn't talk to that many people about it's crafted and it's before you this morning uh did not honestly talk to anybody you know on the little rock school district did not did not talk to a whole lot of people i built it i did run it by the department to make sure that technically it could be done and that it would align with what my purpose was when the bill has when the bill came out as the bill came out I have had people talk to me you know with that have interest in the future of specifically the Little Rock School District I haven't been
talked to that much by the other ones that are under state control and I do believe that and I apologize for not being in the room I appreciate Senator Johnson running the bill for me the other day um i think his name is jeff with the west little rock or with the little rock school district i can't remember his title exactly somebody spoke in favor of the bill
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
13:00
the other day yeah he as a matter of fact he i don't want to mischaracterize
what he said but he practically said you know this was his idea uh that's jeff wood who's chair of the um community advisory board
and one of the questions I ask of him is knowing what this impact is on the Little Rock School District and we have two senators who sit on this committee who've been long advocates for the Little Rock School District and we were surprised to hear him say that, who is the person who's the chair of the Community Advisory Board for the Little Rock School District.
And that's why I am so, I guess, confused about the genesis of this whole thing. And how so many times the people who are the most affected will have things just happen to them rather than happen with them. For example, I know you represent kind of the western portion of part of Pulaski County.
But I just couldn't imagine doing something that affects Benton and Bryant, especially something of this significance, and not having had more conversation with the people, you know, in those districts and certainly not with their state senators. So do you think that would be –
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:36
be asking too much? I would respond this way, and I think this is good, bad, ugly. criticize or compliment either one I try to formulate what I think is a solution
an opportunity to provide and to address a need framework it into the legislation and then present it and I feel that if I can argue the merits in front of this committee or anyone else at the time it's presented and it come out then I feel that that is as good a process or it is it is a process that i choose to exercise because if i can if i can sit before you as a committee and discuss it and share it and and it can stand the the you know the questioning within the
committee then i feel the idea is a good idea on the merit of the concept not necessarily who's
Speaker 51
15:41
for or against it thank you senator thank you madam chair thank you senator cheatham
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:03
sure i would respond this way uh senator teague i believe it's addressed And I'm looking to make sure I don't misspeak. The first time it is referenced is on line three. And so the amendment would establish, I think, by definition, what we're talking about or who we're referring to when we say state board. So I would think that that would would suffice for anything that's below line three on page two.
Speaker 51
16:34
I'm here, and this is not my district, but like all of us, we may have districts in our clinic district, if some want, in the same situations, but I really have, it's a car in both ways, and I guess I'll get Mr. Tee to come back up here and be playing for me one more time, a little slow, and somebody would not do it. And I don't want to belabor this point, but scores are coming out when?
Speaker 64
17:14
Will you all take a good look at scores? Donny Key, Department of Education. The scores will be back to the schools this summer, and in the fall, that's
Speaker 65
17:25
when we will report the school ratings. And if those scores
Speaker 62
17:31
have improved enough to make you comfortable, does this legislation stop you from releasing a school board? Does it stop us from? Does
Speaker 65
17:42
it stop you from? No, sir.
No, sir. It wouldn't prevent that, no. It wouldn't prevent it. So even though if
Speaker 62
17:52
their scores are good, you think it's okay, I don't want to see them kept under state control. if there's potential that could
Speaker 64
18:03
be released this year. Well, we agree, and that's, I mean, just for clarity, the department's neutral on this bill. When you say this year, you're talking about the result from the results of this year's assessments, and the exit criteria are very clear for certain schools
that are currently rated as F schools, and that's that their growth is sufficient and there is a mark that we expect to see there of 80. It's not a percentage, but it's a rating that we look at to see if the students, this isn't proficiency, this is growth. And this is one of the changes under our new accountability system is schools get credit for student growth,
even if they're not meeting proficiency. Then what we've set as exit criteria are that the number of students performing at the lowest level, that there are basically more students out of that category than there are in that category. Again, this doesn't mean that a school may not still be a D or an F, but it shows that they are moving students the right direction. now that data is the kind of data that we should see sometime in the summer
school then that gets turned into the school rating calculated and the school ratings come out in the fall but I think your question senator was does this bill prevent us from releasing a school if they meet the exit criteria no if they meet the exit criteria the state board can release
Speaker 62
19:49
a district so that school district is looking at if we pass this additional years if they don't meet the requirements you just
stated but as it is if we don't pass this and at the end of the period of time the end
Speaker 64
20:09
of the five years uh state board has options of which are annexation consolidation or reconstitution of a district. And that does provide a number of avenues, obviously, for a district the size of Little Rock. Annexation or consolidation is not practical. So how would the state board reconstitute the district, which could include some turn back to local control, could be full,
It could be partial authority of an elected board. I mean, there are a number of options that are in place now that weren't in place prior to the passage of Act 930 of 2017. All right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
21:00
Key, if you don't mind, stay. I want to make sure that I understand the timeline. Well, let me preface this. commissioners of education
don't want to take over schools you have enough on your plate Tom Kimbrell didn't want to do it Ken James didn't want to do it I understand we changed it's not your fault it's probably our fault I think we did it in a responsible way but we changed the rules of the game in the middle of this five year period with Act 930 because we were trying to get away one because federal law changed, one because our accreditations changed and how we grade schools and how we measure them
because beforehand to get an exit strategy and an exit criteria was what, 50.5?
Speaker 64
21:51
It was based on the old benchmark. It was established based on the benchmark exam and it was based on students scoring 49.5% or more scoring proficient on the combined math and ELA benchmark exam. And when that went away to ACT Aspire, then we had a, or actually went away to PARC and then to ACT Aspire,
we had a three-year period where there was a testing transition. And then in 2017, Act 930 created the requirement for exit criteria. The rules were finalized and approved, I believe, in October of 2018, and then the exit criteria were established early this year. And then when you were answering
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
22:42
Senator Cheatham's question, you said beyond just the combined score,
now we have the flexibility to give points or credit for growth. They don't have to be at proficiency levels, but we give credit for growth. I'll say this at the risk of my own detriment, but we actually somewhat made it easier to get out if you could show that you were making progress already under Act 930. At least that's my assessment is that we're not doing some number out there that says you have to get to this point, but we're now going to give credit under an exit strategy that you show progress, you show growth,
you show that, like you said, fewer students are failing, and then we'll go from there. and it's based on each school, not the district,
Speaker 64
23:32
school level. Is that? Yeah, growth is a component that was added. It wasn't, but just to be clear, the addition of growth was not about state takeover in any way. It was about having a more well-rounded accountability system
that gave schools credit and acknowledged the work that they are doing in bringing low-performing students up to higher levels of success, but not tied solely to a level of proficiency as had been in place before
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
24:07
with the benchmark. So they've got this January of this year, 2019, the exit criteria. January or February?
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
24:25
February. Yeah, February, Senator. February. Okay. And you said that after this spring's test scores that they'll get back this summer. This summer, yes. We'll go from there until next January when the five-year mark would happen. That
Speaker 78
24:39
would be the timeline. January of 2020 is the five-year mark since the State Board took their action. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
24:46
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
24:53
Commissioner Key, when we were, when this bill was run on Wednesday, you mentioned something about
some technicalities that, in the bill, that you had concerns about. Is this amendment, does this amendment fix that? Yes. That's all I know. I don't need you to go over it again. Commissioner Key, has anybody, has anybody ever had any conversation with you about creating a school
Speaker 64
25:19
district in West Little Rock? uh there have been public conversations about that with the state board uh through the there
was a boundary study that was performed uh there was uh another group that the state board put together so yes there have been conversations about a school district in west
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
25:38
little rock but no conversations beyond
Speaker 64
25:41
those public meetings well no conversations as far as how to get there because that encompassed Pulaski County School District, which we have been very clear that until Pulaski County is released by the federal court
that the state can have no, we cannot start any process that would change the boundaries of PCSSD. The conversations that had been in place before included some type of West Little Rock and PCSSD West Little Rock district. But no, ma'am, there have not been any conversations outside of private conversations that dealt with those public conversations.
Unknown speaker
26:30
All right, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:09
Madam Chair, there's a couple on this sheet down here. I'm not sure you have, but just. Madam Chair, you'd like me to move to the side. Okay.
Speaker 96
27:39
Good morning. I'm Jenny Blankenship. I work for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. But more importantly, I'm a mother of a son in the Little Rock School District, and I'm here to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of other families who could not be here. Personally, my family has not had a school board since my son started pre-K in 2015. Today, his friends are getting ready to take standardized tests that will determine the fate of our entire district and, frankly, the economy of our city as a whole next week.
I have attempted to mediate this takeover situation between opposing parties for almost five years while also spending countless hours and money to help meet teachers' and students' basic needs and encourage more effective reading interventions. There are many other parents and advocates who have done far more than me, not just to regain our school board, but more importantly, to help children in all parts of this city. But sadly, most teachers and parents now feel helpless and broken, and we are tired.
We are tired of the games that are being played. We are tired of the lack of meaningful results after four years of state control. And I mean no disrespect to the department because it was not built to manage local school districts. It didn't ask to do this, and it is doing the very best it has the capacity to do with LRSD and a growing number of other districts. but it does have the authority to make critical changes like getting rid of some people who are still in charge of the same problems at the district and school levels and so far that has
not been done. Now we've been blindsided by our own community advisory board as you witnessed on Wednesday. That board does not speak for this community at all. Then the state wonders why fewer and fewer people are showing up for meetings but neither has the state board itself nor the senator who has brought forth this bill. And by the way, legislative audit does not discuss districts in academic distress. Parents are exasperated by the state board's lack of urgency until far too late in the game.
In December 2018, I asked the department for a copy of the exit plan for releasing the district back to state control
Speaker 100
30:05
as required under statute. Thank you. Next. Here. She's
Senator Jane English
Unverified
30:11
for it. Ms. Huggins, would you like to come and speak for the bill?
Could I identify yourself, please? You'll be recognized. My
Elizabeth Huggins
Unverified
30:28
name is Elizabeth Huggins. I'm a product of the Little Rock School District. I have a son who graduated from Parkview last May and another son who still attends Parkview. I'm an educational advocate and a dyslexia tutor. Three mornings a week I volunteer in a second grade class at Stevens Elementary, one of our F schools, helping to teach kids how to read. Though I know this bill does not mention Little Rock School District, we all know why this bill came about during this legislative session. I've battled with the school district since 2015 about providing my son with dyslexia services.
I tried to tell administrators and members of the CAB for years that the district was not following the law, and everybody seemed to be surprised when the ADE audit came out saying just that. My son is now receiving the services that he should have years ago, but there are thousands of kids who are not. There are thousands of kids not reading on grade level. I attend SBE and CAB meetings, and the people I know who are screaming for local control do not. I believe that the CAB's eyes have been open to the issues in the district. If a school does nothing else, it must teach kids how to read.
I believe the CAB is trying to make changes. I know that the ADE and parents have been lied to for years about the dyslexia services. Though I personally don't feel like the ADE has taken steps to improve the district, I don't have first-hand knowledge of that. I believe that an exit plan should be developed as soon as a district is taken over, just like a doctor has a treatment plan for a sick patient. Over the past few months, I've been called a lot of names, and threats have been made against my personal safety. I'm sure after today there will be more.
I fully believe that if this bill is defeated, that in January of 2020, if local control is returned, the citizens of West Little Rock will move to form their own district. Over the past 36 hours, there have been a lot of rumors to that effect swirling around, and while they are just rumors, there is always some truth to every rumor. If West Little Rock is able to form its own district, it will decimate this district. They already have an elementary school.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
32:46
Ms. Huggins, is that right? But would you tell me what you mean about Little Rock
Elizabeth Huggins
Unverified
32:54
forming its own? What are you referring to? They have their own elementary school out in West Little Rock they work for. And I understand the population has grown west. They have their own middle school now, which is adding ninth grade this coming school year. There have been talks between that area of town and the Robinson schools about sharing students and sharing spaces.
and so the talks are already out there whether they're official talks or not it's already happening and if the if the district goes back to local control in 2020 then it's it's going to happen and so what I'm sorry what's the it you're talking about the the West Little Rock School District okay all right which I will that's the largest tax base of the district and if you lose that tax base
then these schools who are already struggling the Stevens doesn't have a 3d printer Roberts has a 3d printer there's already this this disparity in the in the schools as it is and if you lose that tax base then it's just going to get that much worse that's my opinion okay all
Senator Jane English
Unverified
34:11
right thank you thank you very much uh
the next person for that's against is antoine philippe
that person here all right so um then mr uh bill kopsky before you start the timer i think
Speaker 113
34:34
antoine might be on his way and i know that there are other parents who are just now finding out this happens
Speaker 114
34:39
and i know there are three more at least three more moms on their way right now identify yourself sure thank you my name is bill kopsky i'm the director of the citizens first congress and i'm also the parent of a six and an eight-year-old here in little rock school district my kids are thriving in the little rock school district
blowing out all their tests I'm not sure who the father is but the they're exceeding any expectation and it's certainly blowing out mine I'm going to focus my comments for a moment I think we need to rethink our approach to struggling school districts there's our organization believes strongly and we need to follow an evidence-based approach to school reform and providing opportunities for our children and there is simply no evidence the State Department has ever been effective at helping a school district and academic
distress turn around. It hasn't happened. The sad fact is that there's not a single instance of a school district and academic stress being left in a better place when ADE has been done. Providing four more years is not likely to change that outcome. We need to look at the evidence, take a step back, and rethink our approach. Nearly every district taken over for academic distress has very high levels of poverty the evidence is clear on what would help improve the educational opportunities for kids in poverty expanding
dramatically expanding access to quality early childhood childhood education improving and retaining teacher quality improving after-school and summer opportunities addressing root causes of poverty like bringing many school districts have been successful at bringing parents in to do workforce development and parental engagement in the evenings after regular school day is done etc etc we need to rethink our approach to schools and academic distress what we are doing now is not working and doubling down with Senate
Bill 668 simply prolongs the failure that we're currently doing this is not ADE's fault they are simply not equipped to do the job we're asking them to do they don't have the right strategies to do the job that they were asking them to do we need to consider this over the interim we need to rethink our approach to kids in poverty and schools and academic stress what we're doing now simply does not work thank you i'd be happy questions
Speaker 120
37:03
Yes, my name is Charlie Edward McAdoo. I was elected on the Little Rock School Board in 2013 as one of the persons who were taken over by the state. I would ask us to just be reflective on when the shoe's on the other foot.
I'm reminded of Zora Neale Hurston's statement when she says, if you are silent about your pain, they will kill you and say you enjoy it. I've not enjoyed it since 2015. As soon as we were taken over, the laws would change so that no other majority white school board district would be in the same situation as we were. Kind of the elephant in the room is that no one in the state wanted a majority black board being over $300 million.
And so with a school district that had over 60% of the students that were either brown or black, that was very evident to us when people got to looking at it. And as I look back on what has happened, I call it the race collective, those who saw what went on and continued to do what they're doing. And doing this now, just briefly from Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail. Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?
And then he goes on to say that why is it that our first name becomes nigger, our middle name becomes boy, and no matter how old we are. Our mothers are mistreated. And then lastly, it goes on to say, then you will understand why it's difficult for us to wait. We waited too long. When the shoe's on the other foot, you never wait. But when the shoe is on African Americans, particularly those in Little Rock, you always say wait. This wait might last to 3,546 if we keep doing it.
So I come today and ask you to please reinstate
Senator Jane English
Unverified
39:29
the Little Rock School District. Thank
Speaker 123
39:31
you, Madam Chair, Antoine Phillips, born and raised in Little Rock, graduated Little Rock School District, proud MacLedan grad, currently practicing law, and I was
a member of the State Board. The stakeholders commission that was appointed by the state board a couple years ago to identify the issues that are pressing in all the schools south of the river. And one thing that we came to realize, and it's still apparent to this day, that under state control there has never been a plan for the Little Rock School District. As recently as December, when I attended one of the state board education meetings, one of the state board members literally said, this would be a lot easier if we had a plan.
There is no plan. The Little Rock School District has been under state control going on five years, and I don't know why anyone logically would think that after five years that hadn't been a plan, that hadn't been an improvement, that we all hope for our kids in Little Rock School District, why one 24-month period or a second 24-month period would make any difference. I, among a lot of other people, were before the State Board asking for a plan years ago. There still isn't a plan that has been demonstrated to the public.
I don't trust that there will be a plan. I don't trust, speaking for myself and people similarly situated as me, that another 24 months or another 48 months will make any difference. I think our country is founded on democracy. And every day that there is not local control in Little Rock School District, we are violating the democratic principles of this country. And by extending it for 24 months or 48 months, we are continuing that violation of democratic principles with no evidence that shows that it's working.
So I would implore this committee to vote no on this bill and give Little Rock a chance to practice democracy as this country has been founded on. Thank you. Teresa
Teresa Knapp-Gordon
Unverified
41:45
Knapp-Gordon, can you identify yourself please? My name is Teresa Knapp-Gordon and I'm the president of the Little Rock Education Association.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
41:53
Go ahead McGinn. Go ahead. But you have to do it without your iPad or your phone. Without my what? can't read off of your iPad you just need to give us your testimony
Speaker 129
42:09
oh it's just not it's just bullet points first of all I want
Speaker 130
42:14
to say that we have in Little Rock we were taken over in January of 2015 educators have been working hard every day since then with every student who comes into their
classroom to educate those students educators and parents currently have no voice in Little Rock School District. To extend this situation, we'll continue that no voice situation, and it would be a kick in the gut to the educators of Little Rock. Test scores are only a snapshot, and we keep changing the test, and we keep changing what we're doing as far as the rules pertaining to the test. We are the only state left using the
the ACT Aspire. As an educator, when you have a large percentage of students not doing well on a test, you have to look at the test. Are you aware that the 80% growth, which is now our bar in Little Rock School District for being released, there are 1,061 public schools in the state. There are 48 charters that are independently operated. Of those, 30 charters
scored below the 80 percent last year, and 467 traditional public schools scored below the 80 percent. That's 63 percent of the charter schools and 46 percent of the traditional public schools. None of them are being taken over. Rules changed, and exit criteria wasn't clear when we were taken over it just got developed as Commissioner Key said growth is the new exit criteria the 80% growth rate the new law the new federal
law ESSA is about support for struggling school districts not punishment what we're doing is left over from No Child Left Behind and takeovers are punishment the chairman of the Community Advisory Board testified in support
Speaker 129
44:16
which was against the wishes of the little rock school district community
Senator Jane English
Unverified
44:22
thank you okay let's see emily cox coy or is it cox is it emily cox okay
Emily Cox
Unverified
44:35
good morning madam chair members of the committee my name is emily cox and I'm here on behalf of mayor Frank Scott of Little Rock to speak against the bill Mayor Scott has been clear that local control is needed for the Little Rock School District yesterday and this bill allows for additional time for state control and as such the mayor opposes this legislation that hampers the ability for local control. Mayor Scott has also been in constant conversations with Superintendent Poore, Governor Hutchinson, and Commissioner Key about
the need for local control for the Little Rock School District. So respectfully I am here to ask you on his behalf not to vote for a bill that lengthens the time frame for state control for the Little Rock
Speaker 50
45:20
School District. Thank you. Thank you very much Vicki Hatter
Speaker 135
45:31
good morning I'm Vicki Hart Hatter I'm a parent of the Little Rock School District as well as an
advocate however I will speak from a parental stance so our district was taken over just about about four years ago on the 28th of January of 15 and I've been active before takeover and I've been extremely active after our takeover And we have not had an aggressive approach to correct the issues that were at hand back in 15, which was six schools failing.
We have had a more aggressive approach to gut our district, to defund our district, and now create a talk of creating another district out west. That is not improving the lives in the right of our 24,000 students we have in our district. We have an appointed community advisory board, but they do not speak for the body, the parental body in the right of our district.
Mr. Jeff Woods, he came and he spoke right in favor of this bill. Well, as a person that have organized and been a part of community meetings about our district, we have had more parental participation and conversations and outreach about creating a partnership and working towards solutions for our district and trying to pull in the stakeholders to help us.
But our CAB meeting members have never attended our meetings. We have had upwards of hundreds of people right at our meetings. And to say that they represent us, they don't. We do not know them.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
47:35
Now, so I would appreciate you guys to vote against this bill. Thank you very much. Okay, we
have another amendment here that
Speaker 100
47:52
we need to, a technical correction, corrects
Senator Jane English
Unverified
47:55
those things that asked second all in favor I let's we need to vote
Speaker 141
48:02
this yes go ahead need a motion made a motion to adopt to adopt this amendment Oh, sorry.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:21
We'll give it to you. Yes. Uh-huh, please. May I explain the motion, Madam Chair? Yeah, just for the corrections. I got a feeling staff must have been watching because Senator Sturge, this has addressed your issue where it added line three, page two, line three.
And I think staff must have picked up on that, and that's why this is important. excellent staff we have an excellent staff who's been worked very very very hard
Senator Jane English
Unverified
48:43
this session okay do i hear a motion all in favor thank you okay proceed madam chair am i
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:52
allowed to close is that one yes okay thank you so briefly members just a couple things uh the the question was raised thank you the question was raised a while ago about who did that I talked to about this, and as I sat there and thought about things,
I realized nobody talked to me about Senator Bond's piece of legislation a while ago. I'm the new senator into the area representing this part, and it dawned on me as I was thinking about that, I didn't know about Senator Bond's legislation until it got filed. Just a point of reference on that conversation. Second of all, let's focus back to what the bill does. It does not mandate four additional years. It creates the opportunity to assist school districts. this language specifically says the school board may it not shall but it may that brings us back
then to what I think may be the meat of some of the conversation today local communities have that opportunity to work out from underneath state control throughout the process whether that's in the first phase that has been on the books now or the newly created two additional options and for the school districts that are close to the edge I just simply remind you of this and here's the analogy you have a bad accident and you go and you have to go into rehab and along rehab you have a team that's helping you along the way to get you to where you can
be independent again but what happens right at the end of the time that you're about to get independent the team that's there to support you and I heard the conversations in the room today of the dip seems like the lack of communications but set that aside you get right to the end and the team that's about to help you stand up as you rehab from your accident says, sorry, time's up. We got to walk away and leave you. What happens? They fall back down. Some districts and districts that want to work toward getting that independence and right there on the edge,
that's what this bill will help do. And I appreciate a good pass, Madam Chair, members of
Senator Jane English
Unverified
50:45
the committee. Thank you very much. What is the will
of the committee? is that as amended madam chair as amended yes i'm sorry thank you all in favor
all opposed i think the ayes have it
thank you very much thank you madam chair members committee okay moving right along here let's see we have some So, Representative De La Rosa, are you in the room?
Are you still here? Okay, let's see. Representative Gathaway, are you here? Is he outside the door? Can you do gasways? Delorosa, be my guest.
Okay. All right. Let's do representative Delorosa's bill. Well, Andy just sent me a thing, so. Oh, here comes Representative Delarosa now. Do you want to run your bill? Okay.
Oh, that's how you work that. If you would identify yourself, please,
Speaker 157
52:48
you will be recognized. Thank you. Representative Jana De La Rosa. House Bill 1890 was brought, the issue was brought to me by my school district kind of late in the session, which is why this bill is kind of late in the session. I normally don't like to file things as late because you don't know if they'll get through or not. but in 2015 we passed a law that said if teachers want to teach over the maximum number of students per day
as set in the standards for accreditation they were originally set in standards of accreditation and had been for years, decades if you want to teach over that number of students you may, you may volunteer to do that for extra pay and that's what we did in 2015 and that was for grades 7 through 12 worked fine. 2017, because it was kind of unfair for those in middle school, we expanded that to grade five. So we changed the law to say five through twelve. That's actually causing some
issues because they're still restricted by class size. So this bill doesn't change that. But essentially what this bill seeks to do is take the number 150 out of statute and put it back in the standards for accreditation so they can modify the number depending on the course that's being taught, the age that's being taught, because the one size fits all that we put in statute isn't fitting all. It's too big for some, it's too small for some. So some schools that are doing block scheduling can end up putting more students in there without paying the teachers and then once you go down to the elementary school level
you've got some teachers demanding extra pay even though they're teaching the same number of students they've always taught. So it's too big and too small. So I spoke to the Department of Education, we tried to work out a way to fix it in statute And basically, we just worked out the only way to really do it would be to put it back in the standards of accreditation and let them do it the same way that they've actually set it for decades prior to us making this change so that they have the flexibility to make it make sense for everyone and that it's fair. So we're keeping the program that says you can make extra pay.
That stays the same. But what the maximum number is, this proposes to give it back to the Department of Ed so
Speaker 158
54:58
they can set that number more appropriately. And that's what the bill
Speaker 153
55:12
seeks to fix. I'd be happy to take it. Yes. Yeah, they're, I
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
55:57
You guys are too high-tech for me in the Senate. Representative Jimmy Gassaway, Paragould. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. I'll start with House Bill 1933. This is a bill regarding the anti-bullying policies that we have here in Arkansas.
And I want to first just kind of tell you how this bill came to be. This started to become a matter of interest to me back in November of 2017. We had a young girl in my community, Paragould, who was 13 years old and in the sixth grade at Greene County Tech, who made the tragic decision to take her own life. And the news, it rocked the school,
and the news filtered down to the third grade where my daughter, who was eight years old at the time, heard the news and was discussed between her and several of her friends. She came home and began to ask my wife and I questions about why this young girl who was 13 years old would make a decision to take her own life. And that was just a very difficult conversation to have with a child that young and to know that this is happening among children that young in our state.
And so my wife, who teaches at the school, heard that this young girl was being bullied at school and that that was what was behind this young girl taking her life, and my daughter had heard the same thing. And so at that point, I began to look into what we had in Arkansas with respect to anti-bullying policies. And what I found was that we actually had good law on anti-bullying in Arkansas. We had a good definition of what constitutes bullying. We had added cyberbullying a couple of sessions
ago, which was a good step forward. And I looked at what some other states had done. And what I found was is New Jersey is highly regarded as having the strongest anti-bullying laws in the country. And so I filed a bill, pre-filed a bill actually, and incorporated a lot of the language from the New Jersey law, and what I quickly found out by talking with folks, especially my local superintendents, the Department of Ed, and the School Administrators Association is what works well in New Jersey doesn't work well in Arkansas.
So this is not that bill, because many people had heard from their local superintendents and school officials about the bill that I originally pre-filed, so just to be clear, this is not that bill. So this is a much pared-down version that takes into consideration suggestions made by the Department of Ed, and so the other thing that I found in the course of really investigating this issue was that I came across the 2017 CDC statistics, the school surveillance
survey, which out of 39 states found that Arkansas, by percentage, has the highest percentage of high school students in the country who had reported being bullied on school campus, highest in the country. They had the highest percentage of high school students who had reported within the last year as feeling sad or hopeless, the highest percentage of high school students in the country who had contemplated suicide and made a plan as to how they would commit suicide, and the second highest percentage of high school students in the country who had
actually attempted suicide and so with those statistics in mind and plus the what we see what we have seen in my local community and then also just around the state that's how this bill came to be so now let me tell you what it does the first thing it does it requires some professional development it requires two hours one time only for school board members on the issue of school safety and student discipline because bullying affects the school safety environment and it's
also a discipline issue. I think it would be helpful for school board members to get some training on that, although it's just one time only. It puts into the rotation for teachers two hours on bullying prevention and the relationship between bullying and student suicide rates. And then probably the biggest component of the bill is what I would call the parental notification part of the bill. And that says that if there is a credible complaint of bullying, and I want to make that, I want to emphasize that point, credible, because if the school determines that this is not
truly bullying, or if this was something that's just not, was made up and is not a legitimate complaint, then it doesn't apply. But if the school determines there is a credible complaint of bullying, then the school is to notify the parents or guardians of the victim of the bullying as soon as reasonably practicable, because the fear would be that we have a student who's suffering in silence, who's being bullied at school relentlessly, and
they're not saying anything to their parents. They're not saying anything to anyone else, and the school may know about it, but they've not told the parents and then that child goes home and one day makes that tragic decision to take their own life. So we ask that the parents or guardians of the victim of a credible complaint of bullying be notified as soon as reasonably practicable. Then after the investigation is complete and if it's determined that it was truly bullying, then notification would go to the
parents of the perpetrator of the alleged bullying. And so that's really the biggest thing that the bill does. The bill also asked the Department of Ed to issue a guidance document, and this is one of the things that I heard as I talked to my local superintendent. I talked with the Department of Ed and Commissioner Key. I talked with School Administrators Association. There's still some question in the minds of a lot of school officials about with regard to the student discipline, what is and what is not bullying, and unfortunately we live in a society today
where bullying is the buzzword, everybody's offended. If you say something that hurts somebody's feelings, you're being a bully. And that's just not the case. And there are certain types of conduct that truly are bullying, and there are certain types of conduct that aren't. And I think this guidance document that the Department of Ed will issue can help clear up in the minds of school officials and parents what is and what is not, and how best practices in prevention, investigation, and just dealing with the issue.
And so it does that. And then we add into the law the definition of cyberbullying along with our current definition of bullying to say that that also is a part of our state anti-bullying policies. And so that's what the bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there questions from the
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:03:17
committee? Senator Sturge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:03:20
Gassaway, I just want to make sure old habits die hard when you're talking about professional development. So I want to make sure that, one, you've cleared it through the department that they can do it either through Arkansas Ideas
or that they'll put together the curriculum for the professional development and they have adequate time to do so. Yes. Okay. And so this will be, there's no date, so I guess it's going to be after Sonny died, 90 days. So it will be for the next school year when the application will start? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. appreciate it thank you
madam chair other questions from the committee is there
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:03:57
anybody in the audience who would like to speak against the bill for the bill what is the will of the
committee second all in favor all opposed thank you very much you passed that bill now we can share
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:04:20
you on to the next one All right. House Bill 1963, this is a bill that concerns the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Psychiatric Research Institute and the development of a school safety and crisis counseling line.
This is in part follows the recommendations of the School Safety Commission, which when they issued their report one of the things that they recommended was that schools develop an anonymous tip reporting mechanism so that students could report anonymously threats or tips about school safety and and threats to the school and also this would allow students the ability if they were
suicidal or being bullied or struggling with depression or other serious psychological issues to access crisis counseling through the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Psychiatric Research Institute. This bill is supported by the Attorney General's office. It's supported by UAMS and PRI and I can tell you that in October of last year I went to Utah with members from the Attorney General's office, where we toured their program that is along these lines called the
Safe UT program. And so this would be modeled after the Safe UT program that they have in Utah. And again, several states around the country have implemented programs to allow for the anonymous reporting of school threats. Colorado was the first state to do it, and they did it in response to Columbine. They have a program called Safe to Tell, and that's with the Attorney General's Office and the state police in Colorado. Then we've seen Utah, Arizona, Oregon, and many other
states around the country who have implemented these types of programs. And so this is our response to that in Arkansas, again, which will be modeled after the Utah program. I will say this does not require an appropriation the estimates are that this would be about 1.5 million dollars a year would be the cost but this does not require an appropriation this will just simply set up a fund so that when money is available it would allow UAMS to start that program they'd started as a pilot
program and I think they're looking at 12 school districts once that money were to become available. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there questions
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:07:02
from the committee? Senator Sturge. I'm sorry,
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:07:07
Madam Chair. I want to make sure that I'm reading this right because when you're talking about things such as this, even though it's anonymously reported,
we still allow if the operator then has a concern that they could be given over to a law enforcement agency or school personnel or officials or whatever. So is there any concern with HIPAA information being violated or anything like that that we ought to
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:07:38
be aware of? Yeah, that's a good question. And so ultimately the idea here is that there would be an app developed that would be available to every K-12 student in the state.
and again this would be a partnership with UAMS and PRI that would allow for text conversations to take place or phone calls and you're correct in that those text conversations can constitute a medical record because if it's regarding counseling and that sort of thing and they have a student who's struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression Those records are in the nature of medical records, and they are subject to HIPAA.
Utah has dealt with that. They store them. They just have to ensure that they're HIPAA compliant, and I think UAMS knows how to handle those issues, and they're aware of that and prepared to do it. So it would be in the wheelhouse of UAMS? Yes.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:08:39
They would be the one to cope? Okay. Yeah. Thank you,
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:08:48
Madam Chair. Senator Eads. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, you said that the monies for this probably would come from donations and things like that. How do we give them spending authority for that without an appropriation then?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:08:59
So my understanding is so this bill sets up a fund on the books of the state treasury, the Arkansas Safe Schools Fund, and it can take donations, whether that's private, if the attorney general, for example, wanted to put money into the fund, they could, or if, say, you know, when the fiscal session gets here or maybe, you know, the next general session, if we identify some funds and we want to make an appropriation and put money into those funds, we can do that. Or if UAMS had extra money and they wanted to fund the program,
they can do that. But it doesn't require us at this point to spend any money.
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
1:09:36
Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:09:44
the committee? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak against this bill? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee?
Do I have a second? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you very much. You passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Clark, would you like to do yours, please?
SB Senate Bill 605. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:10:22
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Senate Bill 605 simply changes the name of the National School Lunch Fund to the Enhanced
Student Achievement Fund. I'll be happy to take any
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:10:39
questions. Questions from the committee? Is there anybody
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:10:47
in the—oh, excuse me, Senator Johnson? Can you repeat that name so I can remember it, Senator? Enhance student achievement. I like that, and I appreciate you doing that. I don't need to ask you why, but I would compliment you on doing so.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:11:05
okay anybody in the audience would like to speak against the bill seeing none what is the will of the committee all in favor all opposed thank you very much you passed
your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee. Okay, so let me see here. We have Senator
Letting, are you? Nope. Okay. You know what? I think we're finished. I was going to move
Speaker 181
1:11:45
633 to the deferred list. 633 to the deferred list.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:11:49
Okay, we can do that. Okay, I think we are complete. Here, Thank you very much. Everybody's attention. This is our last meeting.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB232 K. Hammer TO CREATE THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACT.
SB508 B. Davis TO AMEND THE MEANS BY WHICH FUNDING IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE PRODUCTIVITY-BASED FUNDING MODEL.
SB509 B. Davis TO DISTRIBUTE FUNDS FROM THE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUND TO CERTAIN FOUR-YEAR STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BASED ON AN INSTITUTION'S IN-STATE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT.
SB387 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF LOTTERY PROCEEDS BE NET PROCEEDS THAT ARE USED FOR SCHOLARSHIPS; AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF NET PROCEEDS USED FOR SCHOLARSHIPS INCREASE YEAR BY YEAR.
SB605 A. Clark TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING.
SB620 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CAPITAL PROMISE SCHOLARSHIP PILOT PROGRAM.
SB633 G. Leding TO REQUIRE AN EVALUATOR LICENSED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO PLACE A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN INTENSIVE SUPPORT STATUS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE TEACHER EXCELLENCE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM.
SB553 Bond TO AMEND THE LAW TO ALLOW A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO BE RETURNED TO LOCAL CONTROL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB666 Elliott TO ONLY PERMIT SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS TO DISCIPLINE STUDENTS OR ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF A POLICE OFFICER WHEN STUDENTS OR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ARE AT RISK OF HARM.
SB675 B. Davis CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD; AND TO ESTABLISH THE TWO-YEAR HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD.
SB676 B. Davis TO REPEAL THE STATUTE THAT IMPOSES LIMITS ON STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES FOR ACADEMIC AND PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS.
HB1700 Wooten TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO INFORM AN EDUCATIONAL ENTITY TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL IS APPLYING WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S BACKGROUND CHECKS.
SB678 Elliott CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 2; AND TO AMEND THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO AWARDS GRANTED UNDER THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 2.
SB591 Elliott TO PROMOTE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION AMONG ARKANSANS; TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS COMMUNITY REMEMBRANCE COMMISSION; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE.
SB668 K. Hammer CONCERNING A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS BEING IN NEED OF LEVEL 5 - INTENSIVE SUPPORT; AND TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO GRANT EXTENSIONS OF ITS ASSUMPTION OF AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.
SB681 Elliott TO CLARIFY THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS; AND TO REQUIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO COMPLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1890 Della Rosa TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ESTABLISH IN THE STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT A TEACHER IN GRADES FIVE THROUGH TWELVE (5-12) IS PERMITTED TO TEACH PER SCHOOL DAY.
HB1933 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ANTI-BULLYING POLICY; TO REQUIRE A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER TO RECEIVE INFORMATION REGARDING SCHOOL SAFETY AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE; AND TO REQUIRE A BULLYING AND CYBERBULLYING PREVENTION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
HB1963 Gazaway CONCERNING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE; TO CREATE A SCHOOL SAFETY AND CRISIS LINE; AND TO CREATE A SCHOOL SAFETY AND CRISIS LINE FUND.
SB118 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH POLICIES.
HB1020 Warren TO ALLOW OUT-OF-STATE TEACHING EXPERIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING A TEACHER'S SALARY SCHEDULE.
Adjourned
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE MEETING JOINTLY WITH ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, Apr 5, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 25
Speaker 51
Speaker 64
Speaker 65
Speaker 62
Speaker 78
Speaker 83
Speaker 96
Speaker 100
Elizabeth Huggins
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 114
Speaker 120
Speaker 123
Teresa Knapp-Gordon
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 130
Emily Cox
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 135
Speaker 141
Speaker 157
Speaker 158
Speaker 153
Speaker 163
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Senator Lance Eads
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 181