Education Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1626
Act 1016
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1626 Cloud CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE B…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE COURSE IF STUDENTS REQUEST THAT … | Cloud | Notification that HB1626 is now Act 1016 |
|
HB1648
Act 1018
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…HE CHAIR CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1648 F. Allen TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS A…”
|
TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AND HEROES IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN … | F. Allen | Notification that HB1648 is now Act 1018 |
|
HB1901
Act 1026
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1901 F. Allen TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP.”
|
TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP. | F. Allen | Notification that HB1901 is now Act 1026 |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E COURSE BE OFFERED. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB452 B. Davis TO PREVENT A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM USING PUB…”
|
TO PREVENT A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM USING PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION … | B. Davis | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB490
Act 1078
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION MEMBERSHIP DUES OF A TEACHER OR A CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE. SB490 K. Hammer TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDEN…”
|
TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUCCEED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB490 is now Act 1078 |
|
SB605
Act 1083
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HERS KNOW BEST PRACTICES OF SCIENTIFIC READING INSTRUCTION. 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 |
|
SB619
Act 1084
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUCCEED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. SB619 L. Eads TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARKANS…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD. | L. Eads | Notification that SB619 is now Act 1084 |
|
SB664
Act 1088
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING. SB664 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING ASSESSM…”
|
TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND … | Elliott | Notification that SB664 is now Act 1088 |
|
SB677
Act 1089
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MENTS FOR THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD. SB677 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSESSMENTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA … | Elliott | Notification that SB677 is now Act 1089 |
|
SB349
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB349 A. Clark TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO PROVIDE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LEVELS OF SUPPORT TO CERTAIN PUBLIC … | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
|
SB539
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…rs and Staff Only'. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB539 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAX CREDIT SCHOLARSHIP AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TAX CREDIT SCHOLARSHIP ACT. | B. Johnson | 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 8, 2026
order. If everybody could find a seat somewhere and get everybody, we'll get started here. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to, for sure, the last education meeting of this session. Unless we call another one. We
hope not. All right. If I could get
Representative Cloud, I'll let you go ahead and do your concur
since you are in another committee and you may need to go somewhere else. So we'll get you in and out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be a
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
0:45
concurred Senate amendment on HB 1626. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Joe Cloud, State Rep, District 71. I bring to you an amended House Bill 1626, and on the very last line of the bill is what we're talking about. We have completely removed the mandate, if you will, for the public schools to offer this course
if 15 or more students request an influence of the Bible course, and again, that has been completely removed. And what's on here now is that the Department of Education shall identify, develop, and approve a Bible course for high school credit that meets the requirement in subsections A, B, and C of this section. That will be available for the fall of this year. I'll be glad to take any
questions. You have questions? Representative De La Rosa.
Speaker 13
1:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if you take out the 15-student requirement, what does this bill now do? because
Speaker 15
1:48
some of this is already in law, so I guess I'm not following what we actually are
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
1:55
now changing, if it isn't that. Okay. We're
changing one thing. The current law of 2013 says that schools may offer this course, but the Department of Education hasn't actually established the course. So what has happened on the six schools that have offered the course,
the schools have gone out and found the curriculum and then had it approved by the Department of Education. So with this bill, the Department of Education will already have an approved course that then the schools can accept if they so choose.
Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, Rep. Walker.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
2:39
I was curious. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was curious if 15 students, and I guess their parents, if 15 students in your
bill wanted... That bill, that's been strucken. That's what this is. They took the 15 out. But if any number of students... There's no number in there now at all. No number. They're just going to teach the Bible. They can.
They can. Now, what if some school districts want to teach the Koran? May they do so.
That would be a different bill. This bill is about the influence of the Bible.
Well, it's still about religion, and there are different Bibles you acknowledge. So my question is still the same. There are different Bibles for different kinds of teaching. So if people or a district wanted to teach religion, this bill would
authorize them to do so, right?
No, sir. This bill would
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
3:44
authorize the 2013 law already has that in place. And this bill would just simply say to add to that that the Department of Health, I'm sorry, Department of Education, is going to certify a course, and it will be available for those schools and school districts that choose to teach it. Follow-up.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:13
But the Department of Education will not certify anything other than the Bible, commonly referred to as St. James Version of the Bible. that's fine do you not see that as just patently violative of the first amendment the King James version King James yes what did I say St. James King James I'm sorry well I had a church name
St. James in fine blood you don't have to answer that you know what you're doing and it's representative Duffinball. Thank
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
4:58
you, Mr. Chair. Real quickly, again, this is all volunteer, right? No student is going to be forced to take a Bible class. That is correct. It will be an elective course. And secondly, there are several translations of the Bible, a lot. Did the bill denote the
King James Version as the text? No,
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
5:21
sir. Please, committee, understand that this is the influence of the Bible. The influence like art, literature, history, religion if you will, those types of subjects. It's not teaching the Bible. Okay, so if we don't let youngsters take a Bible
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
5:41
course that want to then we're kind of infringing on their rights. Would you agree with that?
Could you restate that? If we don't allow somebody to take a Bible course, then we're kind of infringing on their rights.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
5:58
Well, my understanding is if the school offers it and that student wants to take it, they will have that right to
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
6:11
Representative Birch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Representative Cloud, do you know whether this legislature has required the Department of Education to
identify, develop, and approve any classes on tobacco use or obesity or mental health or sex ed or suicide prevention? Not that I'm aware of. Me either. Thank you. I knew there was a purpose in that question. After
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
6:40
we ran the original bill, I was notified by the Department of Ed that they were already in the works developing this course and curriculum. Are there any other questions from the committee?
No. Seeing none, I have one signed up to speak against the bill. Wendell Griffin? If
you would please state your name and who you're with, you're recognized to
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
7:19
speak against the bill, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Wendell Griffin. I
Speaker 53
7:25
appear this morning as pastor of New Millennium Church, a congregation that was organized in 2009 in Little Rock, Arkansas.
I've been an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus since 1988. I am here to speak against this bill because it infringes on something that has existed in our democracy since 1791. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a religion,
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
8:04
any religion, mine, yours, or nobodies. This
Speaker 53
8:15
bill has language that states that the Department of Education shall, by 2019-2020 school year, identify, develop, and approve a Bible course for high school credit.
that Bible course is the sacred book of the religion known as the religion of Jesus Christians the Hebrew Bible
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
8:49
the Torah is the sacred book of the people known as
Speaker 53
9:01
Jews the Department of Education has no mandate to develop or identify a course to teach the Koran, a book of Hindu texts, a Zoroastrian text, a Confucian text,
a Wiccan text, or any other religion. Quite frankly, this bill mandates the Department of Education to identify, develop, and approve a course for one religion only. I tell you that it violates my faith that requires me to respect the dignity of all faiths, but I also tell you, this is a friendly suggestion, that you're buying a
constitutional objection that you're going to lose. This bill as written is on its face constitutional, unconstitutional. In my past life I I taught constitutional law. If I had a law student who wrote a law paper and said that this bill was constitutional, that law student would plunk that question.
Chair
Unverified
10:29
I'll take your questions. Representative Dodson, you're recognized.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
10:37
Representative Dodson, you're recognized. Representative Dodson, thank you, Mr. Chair. at the text of the bill, I don't know if you have it in front of you, but item E there on page two, line 33 to 34 that you quoted, you left off the end of it where it says the department shall identify, develop, and approve a Bible course for high school credit that meets the requirements of subsections A, B, and C. So if you look back at subsections
A, B, and C. A actually states, the State Board of Education shall allow for an elective academic study of the Bible course or courses that are consistent of a non-sectarian, non-religious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics. If you go down to subsection B, it shall offer, again, elective course, elects to offer academic study of the Bible course shall implement the course in accordance with the Arkansas Constitution
and the United States Constitution. And then in subsection C, C1 specifically, it says it shall be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt to be made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the biblical materials or texts from other religious or cultural traditions. So I guess my question for you is if the department has to develop the course in light of subsections A, B, and C,
it gives specific guidelines on what sort
of course can and shall be adopted. Do you
Speaker 53
12:19
have any comments on that? I thank you, Representative Dodson, for asking that question. I was hoping it would be coming to me. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has several clauses, one of which is called the Establishment Clause. The language of the Establishment Clause is the language that directly is violated by this bill. You cannot, I will say again, you cannot pass this bill without it being declared unconstitutional
as a violation of the Establishment Clause because the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from establishing any religion. This bill, by reference to the United States Constitution, if you may allow me to say so, condemns itself with its own language. By citing the Constitution, it acknowledges that the Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, will govern its interpretation.
And by its own terms, this bill is unconstitutional. There are no two ways
about it. Mr. Griffin, I hear you say religion on the other end. The Bible is not a religion. Now, I mean, you keep saying that. There are religions. Man's way of interpretation of a Bible can be a religion. But the Bible is a holy inspired word of God.
It is not a religion. You have a
comment? I mean, you might, I'm not going to try to debate with a judge,
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
14:08
but that would be my question to you. Mr. Chairman, your question in itself contains, contains its own answer,
Speaker 53
14:15
by invoking the name of a deity and saying the Bible is not a religion and saying that the Bible is the word of
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
14:26
God, you have ascribed sacred devotional context to
a literature, a book of literature. I will agree with you that it is possible to engage in a non-devotional study of any sacred text. However, the effect of this bill is to mandate the agency in charge of educating all students in Arkansas
Speaker 53
14:56
to develop a course to teach one book
that is universally known in Arkansas and around the world as
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
15:05
a sacred text. It is not a book of comedy. it is not a book of fiction it is not a book of romance it
Speaker 53
15:15
has romance and comedy and fiction in it and satire but across the world it is called the Holy Bible and therein
Chair
Unverified
15:25
lies your difficulty Representative Meeks, your own
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
15:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair so I guess my question is this A plain reading of the First
Amendment says Congress shall not establish a national religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That's what the First Amendment says. It's directed at Congress. Obviously, we are not Congress. We are a state. And a look back at U.S. history would tell us that several states had state religions at the time the Constitution was written.
and the Bible was taught, the same guys that approved the First Amendment recommended the Bible be taught in schools. And that was the standard practice for the first 150 years of our nation. And so I guess I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that this is a violation of the First Amendment when the First Amendment, a plain reading of it, clearly is directed at Congress, not the states?
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
16:35
May I respond, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That has been the law for more than a century. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Oh, we can agree to disagree, except I'm right. I mean, the problem is every law school in this country knows that the 14th Amendment of the United States applies the First Amendment.
Speaker 53
17:11
I mean, the first eight amendments to the Constitution have been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, which reads, no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any state deprive any person of equal protection of the laws. This bill deprives persons who are followers of religion other than the Bible of equal protection of the law. We'll agree or disagree
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
17:34
on that point as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I really am going to say
something here, and if I'm out of order, y'all can tell me.
But I think we're way off of what the amendment actually is. And the amendment is to take 15 people off of this to make it non. It has really nothing to do with the bill. It's just to concur on this amendment. So I'm going to say we went far enough on this speaking. You can welcome to continue. I do have somebody else want to ask you a question if you want to. but this is about the removal of 15 people on this bill, not the bill itself. So at this point, Representative Deffenbaugh, you still have a question?
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
18:25
You are recognized. Thank you. This is right on that,
I think. Judge, you know, I'm looking at the Amendment 1, and, you know, it seems like we always focus in on Congress. shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the second part, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's the part that seems like got cut out of society, that second part. But a lot of people focus on the very first part.
Speaker 53
19:12
but what about prohibiting the free exercise thereof? The free exercise of religion is not infringed upon by the non-availability of the teaching of the Bible or any course. Anyone is free to exercise their faith.
As a matter of fact, I doubt that very
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
19:35
many people in school at any age have taken an exam without exercising in their religion. I suspect that there have been so a lot of prayers played before, during, and after exams in all kinds of faiths and no faiths. The issue is whether or not the government, and specifically this bill, whether the Department of Education can mandate a course and can be required to establish a course
that requires for a school district to offer a course on the Bible. And that's my, I mean, that's my, that's my faith book. You see me with a copy of the Constitution, the United States Constitution, copy of the Holy Bible, in fact, every time you see me with a jacket on. I say that you've got one on one hand, one on the back, one side, and a brain in the middle. It helps. No.
We're going to move on. Yeah, I'm sorry. I see no more questions from here. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Anyone would like to speak for the bill? Richard Abernethy, would you like to come down, sir? This is for the amendment
on the bill. This is for the concur amendment, please. I'm sorry I let that totally get off the subject. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Richard Abernethy. It's a good
discussion, but we'll try to stay on the amendment.
Speaker 83
21:03
Good discussion, a lot more in depth than what I had intended. But we appreciate Representative Cloud working with us to amend the bill. This will allow school districts to teach a course on the Bible if they so choose. And I think, as testified earlier, we've already had six schools doing that. I think you'll see this number expand, especially if the curriculum is developed by the department. Again, we just wanted to appreciate Mr. Cloud working with us. Any questions? Seeing
none. Anyone else in the audience like to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Would you like to close for your amendment? Yes, sir,
Speaker 88
21:41
Mr. Chair. Thank you. We have one more up here. I have a question of clarity. The only thing we're doing now, the substantive part of the bill has been, is done. This is just for the 15 people that's coming off the bill. Is that what this all is about, 15
people? Yes. That's it. Okay. You can close. We're closing. We're closing. We'll do a debate after he closes.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
22:06
We had a question about if one student wanted it, and I just want to
clarify that, that this is if the school or school district chooses to offer the course that will be developed by the Department of Education. Most of the comment and most of the discussion, I would just remind the committee, seems to me it has gone back to the law of 2013. So that's already law. All we're doing now is, again, removing the mandate, if you will, of the 15 or more students and allowing, as already is in the law, the school district or schools to provide this elective that now will be developed by the Department of Education.
Whereas before, the schools or school districts had to go out, get the course, get the curriculum, get it then approved by the Department of Education. So
we're just turning one around. Thank you. What's the
will of the committee? I have a motion to do pass on the amendment. Concur. Any
discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no.
Congratulations. You have passed your concur. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, committee. All right, that was a little longer than I thought. Representative
Allen, you want to do your two concurs real quick? This will be two concurs from the Senate from House Bill 1648. Representative Allen, do I have a motion? Do you have a question or a motion? I
have a motion to do pass. I'm trying to speed things up, guys.
Motion to concur. Are there any questions from the committee on this amendment? Okay, do I have a motion? I'm not seeing anybody in the audience want to speak against this. They haven't signed up for it. So I have a motion of do pass on the concur. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Congratulations. Okay, 1901, academic support scholarship. Any questions? What's the will of the committee? Motion to do pass.
Anyone in the audience will speak against it for it? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.
Aye. That's how concurs should go. Thank you. Representative Hammer, I know you probably really pushed for
time, but I'll get you right there now. He's supposed to be in a meeting at 1030, and I'm sorry I didn't realize that was going to go so long. No problem, sir. This would be Senate Bill 490.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill is pretty simple, pretty clean. We passed a piece of legislation a couple sessions ago that for foster kids or children that are in foster care, that they could access the Succeed Scholarship. There was a cap of 20 put on that. This bill does not raise that cap, nor does it change the funding. It has nothing to do with that. This bill is very specific in what it addresses or the situation addresses. What it does is if a child is in foster care and is utilizing a Succeed scholarship and that child is adopted into permanent adoption,
then that child would be able to remain in the school where they are utilizing that Succeed scholarship and be able to continue. Now, once the child leaves that school where the Succeed scholarship is being utilized, then they cannot reenter the program later. and the purpose of this is if you have a child that's in foster care, gets adopted out, is in a stable environment in the school where they are, members believe that that child should be able to continue in that school relationship utilizing the Succeed scholarship instead of being uprooted from a school
where they have a foundation and be expected to move just because they've been adopted. It's kind of punitive that they get adopted and then would be forced to leave the school where they are. And that's all the bill does. It doesn't raise the cap, it doesn't touch the money. Just so you know, of those 20 slots, last year I think 13 was the number that was used, so there's no reason to touch the cap. And I'd appreciate a good vote, and I'll be glad to take questions.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
26:40
I can't see on that side. Representative Birch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there anything tied to transportation, or is transportation strictly up to the parent? Is there any requirement that a school or anybody or any district pay for transportation if a child's participating in this? No, ma'am, and I didn't touch
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:01
any part of that law. This is just creating that flexibility that if a child's a foster child adopted out into permanent adoption, that they would be able to reign in the school where they are until they choose to leave or they graduate, hopefully.
Speaker 105
27:15
Rebson De La Rosa Sorry Thank you Mr. Chair I like the part that's in here With the foster care kids You're trying
Speaker 13
27:32
not to uproot them And I agree with that Can you explain why in section B On the first page Yeah on the first page You're adding in or has been medically Diagnosed by a licensed physician as a child with a disability,
Speaker 15
27:47
because that doesn't have anything to do with the foster care.
No, and actually that should have been, I believe that should have
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:54
come down as amended out. I'm not sure which version you're looking at, but that was. It's the one that's on our tablet.
Speaker 105
28:02
Is there a different version than what's on our tablet, Mr. Chair? I'm sorry, what was that? Well, what I'm referencing in the bill that's on our tablet, he says, is not in the bill now. So I don't know that I'm looking at the current bill.
Speaker 13
28:20
So I just want to make sure we're looking at the right language.
I don't want to oppose something if it's not actually in
the bill. It's not showing any amendments. Okay. It should have been amended April 2nd, I think, for sure. We took that out. It's
engrossed on April 2nd. Is there an amendment after that? No, we don't have any. So I'm sorry, Representative Lauer, you
Speaker 116
28:49
got some response on that? I think the clarification on
Speaker 117
28:54
that is to address the issue that we've dealt with earlier in the session,
which would be to allow ISPs as well as IEPs. And that's what I'm trying to
Speaker 13
29:05
distinguish here, but in asking that question, he says that that section is no longer in the bill, so that's why
Speaker 105
29:10
I'm asking if I'm looking at the correct version of the bill. I just want to make sure that the language I'm looking
at is what I'm voting on. It does have it in the one on our pad. Right, so that's why I'm confused. Page 2, line 1.
Mr. Chair, we do have the tablets down in the yellow.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
29:30
Do you have a paper copy that's different? Mr. Chair, I would like to see the paper copy the Chair has in the folder, but y'all don't have those down
here. You're on the tablet. We don't have them here, but we do have one. Give us just a second. Are there any other questions on any other items of the bill from anyone? We'll take just a second to get this. is $4.90.
Speaker 13
30:08
It's identical. Paper copy is the same as on our tablet. The version that's
online is also identical to what's on our tablet. Senator Hammer, if yours was engrossed, if your paper copy was engrossed on 4 of 2 of 19,
is that correct? That's my recollection, Mr. Chair. Okay, well, the paper copy I have is exactly what's on our tablet.
It was engrossed on 4 of 2 of 19, and it does say an ISP.
Speaker 13
30:47
Well, I mean, it does say ISP later, but that's not, I hadn't even gotten to that question. I was a question above that, and that was in Section B, where it says, or has been medically diagnosed by a licensed physician
Speaker 105
31:00
as a child with a disability. So that's where the confusion is
Speaker 13
31:04
on that specific section. I think it is still in there, because every version I can find, it's in there.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
31:10
So just make sure I know what I'm voting on. Mr. Chair, this is what was amended, because it's got the age 21, and we had to go back and... So we have the right copy on our tablet? You have the right copy as it is on your tablet. I see the 21 on there, yes, sir. All right, could Ms. Representative
Speaker 13
31:33
De La Rosa ask her a question again, please? Okay, so back to the original question is why is that line in there? Because if the
Speaker 15
31:41
purpose of this bill is to allow foster students
to continue with the program, that's one piece of the bill, But there's another broadening aspect of this bill, which is adding any kid that's been medically diagnosed by a licensed physician is a child with a disability. Those aren't kids that have already been in the system. They're not even necessarily foster kids. It's just saying if a kid's ever been medically diagnosed by a licensed physician, you're now eligible. That's another broadening of this program. And the reason I'm distinguishing this is because I've had issues with bills in the past.
because my original understanding of the Seed Scholarship was that it was going to be for kids that have been in public school but whose needs were not being met. And that's how this program started, but we have expanded it since then and in this session to include kids that have never been in public school. And I had a disagreement with a prior bill on this, and so that's why I'm just trying to distinguish in this bill if it is doing the same thing because it appears as it is. And for me personally, that makes me vote no, which is why I'm trying to clarify my understanding of it.
I don't know what it's going to do to the other members' votes, but that's my point of clarification that I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:58
need. So that's why I'm asking. Representative De La Rosa, I would answer it this way. As this bill is written right now, I would interpret it to say that it would include those that have an individualized service plan. However, what I would respond and also say is that it is to go back up to 2A, line 27.
The student is in the foster care or has been in the foster care system, achieved permanency through the adoption, reunification, and permanent guardianship. I'm going to step down to page 2 at the top of what I'm reading, where it says, has the individualized service plan in accordance with the individual disability education that I believe I believe that is the way it is now if I'm not mistaken you could interpret I guess that it I got what you're doing now
Speaker 105
33:49
I get it okay I finally get it I get it all
right you are coordinating your language with what has already passed from his bill prior with the ISP so you're not actually
Speaker 13
33:59
trying to pass that as new language you're coordinating with coordinating it I got you now thank you you're welcome sorry to have
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:11
tripped across the goal line there. She finally got it. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, anyone in the audience would
like to speak against the bill? For the bill? Would you like to close
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:24
for that bill? I'm closed. Appreciate a
good pass. Thank you. Motion to do pass from a couple of them out there. Representative Lowry and Representative Dotson both about the same time. Any discussion on the bill? Seeing none, all in
favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Senator Davis.
Ladies and gentlemen, this will be SB 452. Senator Davis, you are recognized to present. Thank you,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
35:03
Mr. Chair, members of the committee. This bill, as I understand, has a lot of confusion around it. I think there's been groups who have been actively lobbying against this and inciting fear, telling lies about what this bill does. So I hope today that I can clear that up for you and let you know exactly what this bill does. This bill does two things.
One, it says that public school districts cannot use public school funds to pay membership dues on educational, professional organizations that then use those funds to turn around and lobby directly or indirectly. The second thing it does is it just expands the definition of what a teacher is. So currently, in law, teachers and classified staff are prohibited from using school funds for paying their membership dues.
It says it in here that you can, as a teacher or a classified employee, you can have your funds deducted from your salary,
but the school district is not allowed to pay for your funds now, or for your membership dues now. So you know who's exempt from that group? administration superintendents assistant superintendents and there's no reason that administration who are making two three four times as much as our teachers are exempt from this rule and they're allowed to use public school funds to pay for their educational professional organizations but teachers and our classified staff our janitors our a our aides are not allowed to do so so this bill simply expands the definition of what's included in a teacher and it just says that hey if you have an organization that's lobbying your public
funds can't go to that. So let me tell you what the bill doesn't do. This bill does not prohibit organizations from lobbying. Nowhere does it say that those organizations cannot lobby. It also does not prohibit districts from paying the membership dues with public funds. All it does is say you simply must separate the money. You cannot join an organization with public school funds and let that money funnel directly to pay salaries of lobbyists or contract lobbyists.
So really, it just puts it in the hands of the organization to separate their money and ensure that they are using private funds to pay for their lobbying efforts. So we know that, you know, the training they provide, they'll probably come up when they speak against this bill shortly and talk about the training they provide and how crucial it is. And I don't disagree with that. And that's what that public school money should be going towards. When administrators and teachers and principals are paying in dues, it should be paying for the training that they vitally need in school board members,
the training that they're mandated by state law to get. Those public funds that are paying their membership dues, that's what it should go towards, that training. So if you look, actually, on ASBA's website, for example, right now, There are 50 premium and supporting partners on their website right now. They get plenty of private money. You can go to AAEA's website right now. They have 44 commercial sponsors on their website. And they actually told me two weeks ago that most of their money comes from private funds.
So this shouldn't be an issue. To let them continue lobbying, ensure that their funds are separated, they use private money for their lobbying efforts to come down here and kill bills we file that are good policy, that we're trying to help educate kids across the state of Arkansas. We're trying to help with their education. They come down here and kill. Let's just make sure that they're using private money to do so. You know, we know, what we do know from some reports is that some superintendents have been using NSLA funds to pay membership dues to AAEA.
So not only are they spending on things like limos and extras at conferences, but they're also spending that money on membership dues. Meanwhile, two-thirds of our kids across the state of Arkansas can't read. And they're spending that money on membership dues of organizations that come and lobby us instead of spending that money helping kids learn how to read across the state of Arkansas. And I don't know who thinks that's okay, but obviously I don't.
But I just want you guys to understand the magnitude of what we're talking about here. Like I said, there's been a lot of mistruths passed around. about what this does, that teachers aren't going to be able to go to conferences, that we won't be able to participate in FFA, choir directors won't be able to go, counselors can't go to their conferences, library media specialists, that's not true. This bill does not have anything to do with conference fees. Nothing. It has to do with annual membership fees to organizations that lobby and just ensuring
that they separate the money that private funds they use for their annual membership fees goes to provide training to teachers, administrators, and classified staff across the state that vitally need that training. That that's where that money goes towards. And that private funds that these organizations collect can go to their lobbying efforts. I think that's a fair thing and it's up to them to separate their money. So and actually you know if you're I know like ASBA and AAEA they have separate fees for conferences depending on
whether or not you're a member so really this bill could be good for them if you're not a member of ASBA or AAEA then they can actually charge more for their conferences with public school funds because their conferences don't have anything to do with their membership fees so this actually could be good for them if they wanted to charge a little more for their conferences they could and public schools could still use public funds to pay for it and send our teachers and administrators to those conferences. So with that I will take any questions and thank you for your time committee.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
40:54
Representative Walker you're up first. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Senator Davis what's the genesis of this bill? I actually was a
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
41:06
member of the rest of the school board for nine years. And so I've gotten emails for
nine years from ASBA on calls to action and fighting bills that I think are good policy. And I see how legislators work down here and how hard they work to represent their district and try to fight for things that we think are good for kids.
And then I heard that ASBA, excuse me, AAEA actually, in addition to the lobbyists that they have
on staff also contracted with an independent lobbying firm to lobby in addition to lobbies they
already have. And they're doing that with public school funds.
Speaker 152
41:48
Follow up. Can you tell me other, well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
41:55
let me hear your words. You want to prevent superintendents who are not teachers by law.
You want to prevent superintendents and, I guess, other administrators from being able to combine in order to promote those things that they may feel are in either their best interest or in the best interest of students and teachers in the
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
42:25
state. Is that correct? That's incorrect, actually, Representative. And what I'd like to do with this bill is hold superintendents and administrators accountable
and to the same standard that we hold our teachers and our classified staff to. It is already law that teachers and classified staff cannot use public school funds to pay for professional membership fees. All I did was expand that definition to include, without limitation, superintendents and assistant superintendents. I don't think that's outrageous to say we need to hold our superintendents to the same standard that we hold our teachers to that are working weekends and almost year-round to educate kids across the state. I don't think that's unfair to hold them to the same standard.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
43:08
Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You keep saying that this is going to require them to separate, meaning
the organizations, to keep separate funds. Where is that in
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
43:22
the bill? Well, because it says that line 34 down, it just talks about
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
43:27
they can't use public school funds to pay membership dues for those different groups. That uses those funds to directly or indirectly engage in lobbying. Follow up.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
43:36
But that deals only with the school.
It has nothing to do with the organization. So how are you saying? There's no direction in
here to the organizations to separate their funds. This is just telling the school that they can't do this. It doesn't bring in the other organizations. So how are we to assume that those other organizations are going to
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
43:59
do that? Because if the organizations will separate their money to ensure that only private funds are being used for lobbying, then they would still qualify for schools to send public money to these organizations to pay for membership dues.
So it's up to them on how they set up their organization on whether or not schools can use public school funds.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
44:25
Thank you. Rip some deffing ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, Senator, we got
off on this last week, but what I focused on was you said two-thirds of the children in the state
can't read. Is that true? Yes, sir. That's my understanding.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
44:41
Who helped you understand that? Well, we've battled it out with Senator Clark's bill on NSLA funding.
We've talked about reading proficiency across the state. I mean, that's a very publicly talked-about issue. You know
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
44:51
I'm not buying that. I've been almost 40 years in public school. They've heard that, all that stuff from me. Okay, but the other question is, how do you think this bill would really, if that was true, how do you think this bill would really help? If you say it's two-thirds can't read, how is this changing this sum? Are you, how is this bill going to help?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
45:13
Well, I was just making really a point with NSLA funds that it goes back to the point that we're using public school money
that should be educating our kids, and instead it's being used to pay dues to organizations that spend their time down here lobbying. So we saw the confusion with Senator Clark's bill with the NSLA funds and how people refused to correct that narrative, even though
they knew it was incorrect. And we saw a huge fight from AAEA and our superintendents and everyone else knowing it was a false narrative. And it confuses us. It makes it hard for us to debate issues on merit, on fact. And we are policymakers, and we have got to be able to look at an issue with facts
and try to make the best decision that we can. But when we have people feeding us false information and confusing the issue, just like they've done with this bill, then it makes it hard for us to do what's in the best interest of kids across the state
Speaker 174
46:12
and kids that we represent. Okay. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 175
46:19
Representative Eubanks, you have a question? Senator Davis, this is similar to a bill that I filed. You made the
Speaker 177
46:25
statement that the school districts are not allowed to pay the dues of the classified and teachers.
Is that correct? Yes, Representative. Well, my wife's a bookkeeper for the Paris schools, and the schools pay her dues for professional organization, and she receives training for it. And the fact that I haven't run the bill, and the fact that she educated me on or corrected my understanding of certain things is probably the reason I haven't run the bill. But it is my understanding that the schools do pay the professional.
Well, they do in Paris anyway for the
Speaker 175
47:08
classified personnel. So I don't think that part
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
47:14
is correct. Would you agree? Well, I mean, it says in Section 1A of this bill
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
47:20
that they can deduct from the salary of a teacher or classified employee that they specify for payment for membership dues in any bona fide teacher or classified employees' educational, professional organization designated by them.
So, you know, maybe with bookkeepers there's a, you know, it's a different situation, but that's how this bill reads.
Speaker 175
47:42
You're recognized. But they're not deducting from her pay. they are actually paying the dues
Speaker 177
47:49
from school funds. Ripson Murdoch, you reckon. Thank you,
Speaker 88
47:58
Chairman. Senator, it seems as though what you're focusing on, as I'm listening to your testimony,
is on the prevention of these entities from lobbying us and trying to stop us from passing what you call good legislation. Do you think that if this bill passes, that's going to prevent them from lobbying us? Well, no, I absolutely don't think
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
48:19
it will prevent them from lobbying us. I think they'll set up to ensure that they're just using
private funds to lobby. My intent with this is just to ensure that our tax dollars and public school money is truly going to educate our kids and help equip and train our professionals that
work in our school buildings every day with our kids
instead of going to pay the salaries of lobbyists down here in Little Rock. That's my intent.
Speaker 88
48:43
So it's not to prevent us from getting the information that they're giving us. You don't have a problem with them imparting information to us like they
Speaker 184
48:52
do on particular pieces of legislation. That's not your aim to prevent that? My aim is not
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
48:58
to prevent that. Actually, I amended this bill to ensure that they would still be able to do so, but that it would just be used with private money to do so, and I think that's fair.
is there any reason that you're both amendments on there are identical
you have two amendments on that bill that are both identical at two different dates it just shows up
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
49:22
oh yes sir yes chairman that's because i tried to have it engrossed and it never got scanned in and so then i had to do a committee amendment okay and
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
49:30
so i was just curious why it had the same amendment yes that's
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
49:40
why representative lowry you recognize you're good uh represent Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Davis, over and over in your opening comments and through
the answer to the questions you received, you continue to state that this is about teachers and classified employees, teachers and classified employees, but yet I believe you filed an amendment that's included on page one, line 36, that says, or public school district board of directors, members, educational, professional organizations. Also, up in the bill, there's language that talks about how these groups, the teachers, the classified, the board members can sign off on a document to where the district would be allowed to deduct from their pay
their part of the membership dues to these organizations. Is that correct? Yes, that's already law. School board members are paid in the state of Arkansas? They are not. They are not, correct. The second thing I want to ask is that the state mandates that teachers, classified, public school board of director members are mandated to get X number of hours a year of continuing education.
And so I'm assuming from this that you don't want the schools paying for that
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
51:00
either. They actually can pay for that training. It's up to the way that ASBA organizes their funds. As I mentioned on
their website, you can look right now, and they have 50 corporate sponsors listed on their
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
51:13
website. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Great. Thank you. So with that said, with the corporate sponsors, it just seems to me that understanding what your real issue is with this,
it would have been a whole lot simpler to just run a bill that stated that professional organizations such as ASBA, NSBA, AEA would have to be transparent and break out in their reporting money that was received from private entities that paid for their lobbying benefits as opposed to dues that was received from schools. But it seems the concern here is public funding, public tax dollars that is being used
through our school systems to pay for this. But do public tax dollars funneled through the state legislature pay for your membership dues to organizations such as ALEC and NCSL that directly or indirectly lobby as your bill states? I'm sure. I mean, I haven't had any contact with ALEC,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
52:19
those organizations, but I'm sure members would say that's what they do. Thank you.
Speaker 195
52:28
Representative De La Rosa. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 13
52:38
Chair. Always got to do this, make sure I understand this. So the way that you were trying to prevent public dollars being used for lobbying is to say public funds can't be used by the schools to pay for professional dues if that is a practice that that particular entity does.
So we're not talking about any kind of professional dues to any entity that doesn't lobby. They wouldn't be affected by this bill because they don't lobby, so they're not in this. So we're really only talking about organizations that do professional
Speaker 15
53:13
development and also lobby among, I'm sure, many other things. So we're talking AAEA,
Speaker 105
53:19
ASBA, AEA, folks like that. So my question is,
Speaker 15
53:25
who verifies how their money is delineated as to whether public funds are being used for lobbying versus private funds being used for lobbying?
So who verifies that and how? Because that's not laid out in the bill. So how do they follow this law?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
53:43
You know, that's really just left up to them to decide how to separate their money. if it's in separate accounts or a different arm or branch of the organization. I mean, that's up to
Speaker 105
53:54
them to decide. But who on our side of this verifies this? I mean, they can just say, no, we
Speaker 15
54:00
don't do that. We're good. I mean, at some point somebody's got to verify whether they are following or not following this
because that is how they're going to decide whether or not a school may or may not pay into that organization.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
54:13
Well, and maybe that's something that we could deal with next session. But it's not, you know, this is just, it still gives them the freedom to lobby and accept public money, but just
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
54:21
says you need to separate it, you know. So I understand your question. I just, I don't have the answer for you. Representative Kavanaugh, are you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
54:38
I just want to make sure I currently understand the
current bill doesn't prohibit a school from paying for teachers according to this. This talks about the deduction. of it that gives them the authorization to deduct it where in this bill does it currently say that they can't
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
54:53
pay for a teacher's this deducts from their salary so it's not the district um paying for it there is no from their
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
55:01
salary follow up mr chair so there is no current law that says a school district can't pay for their dues a teacher's dues there's there's no law that
says that in this bill that's not anywhere in that bill we keep talking about it as it currently stands there is nothing in this bill law that currently says a school district cannot pay for their teachers dues well
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
55:23
they have to i understand what you're asking they but they have to deduct it from
their salary if the if the district could pay for it like that that is true they can't teachers have to pay for their membership for things
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
55:35
like aaea follow up that's not what this bill says this bill says that it gives this as it currently stands is that it gives the teachers
There's the authorization to give the school to deduct from it. Nowhere in this bill does it say a teacher dues cannot be paid by a school district. That's not in this law anywhere currently until you add it. Is that correct? I
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
55:58
mean, it's my understanding that is the law for teachers that they have to pay their own dues to things like AEA. No, sir. Thank you. Representative Gates, you recognize.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
56:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think part of the confusion comes in is when a district pays an employee, and if they withhold it and they turn around and send in that dues, who's actually paying? At that point, it would actually be the employee paying. So if a school currently is paying the dues for a superintendent, a teacher, or anything else, and this bill were to go into effect,
would there be anything that would prevent that same school district from taking the same money that they're currently doing directly to the association and giving that to an employee and the employee then
turning around in their cafeteria plan, having that withdrawn from their paycheck, and then turning around and sending that same dollar to that same association and that association getting the same amount of money. Would that prevent this from that happening? No, it would not.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
57:15
And, in fact, I've had superintendents say, well, we would just add an additional $1,000 or whatever to our salary so we
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
57:23
could turn around and just pay for it. So follow up? Yes, sir. So if this were to go into effect, that would actually give a truer representation for what teachers oftentimes are doing right now where they're
getting paid. The district is deducting that from their pay and sending that to the association. This would basically put our superintendents and anyone else in the same category that we're doing for teachers,
where that's part of their salary and deducting it. That would put them right in line paying the associations the same amount of money that we're already paying them. It's just a bookkeeping process that it's actually go as parts of their wages versus the state giving them money because we're actually sending that employee's money versus the school. Yes, they would have the flexibility to do that if they so chose. Okay,
Speaker 160
58:12
thank you. Representative Walker, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
58:22
You are promoting this bill on the basis of what appears to be logic. if one thing is happening for somebody else in a class, then it ought to be the same for someone else. So let me ask you, is your concept that public employees may not lobby with use of public funds? Is that your concept? My
concept is specifically with this bill dealing with education.
No, no. So basically, is it your concept that for these people in education, they may not lobby with use of public funds? In this bill, yes. All right. Now, how do you jive that with the fact that the state has a lobbyist? We have lobbyists to go to Washington, to go to Cuba. We go all over. So we're saying that some can lobby and others can't. Is that right? With public
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
59:24
funds? My bill strictly deals with education.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
59:26
All right, but in education, they can't lobby.
So the people who, school boards, for instance, who don't have enough money may not use public funds to come to the legislature and ask for or seek to obtain more funds. Superintendents whose districts are being unequally treated may not use public funds to come to us to lobby for equity. That's what your bill does, doesn't it? No, they can still do that.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
59:59
I mean, like. With public funds. No, with public funds. Yeah, they can come down here and they can talk to us. We're elected to represent them. And if what they're doing. I
Speaker 209
1:00:08
said with lobbyists, with paid lobbyists. They can't do that,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:00:11
can they? Oh, with paid lobbyists, not with paid lobbyists with public
Chair
Unverified
1:00:19
school funds. Thank you. Representative Burt should recognize. I heard that tone, Mr.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:00:24
Chair. Thank you. Senator, I just wondered if indirect lobbying is defined somewhere else in this statute that this is referenced,
because that's almost like any communication at all could be considered indirect lobbying, and I worry that that can be very broadly construed, maybe overly so, to prohibit even speech between people unless it's elsewhere defined. No, you know,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:00:48
to me, indirect lobbying is mobilizing, encouraging others to advocate for or against. Like, there's just constantly sending out calls to action to your membership. I mean, so that's what indirect lobbying is.
No, it's not defined in this bill. You're welcome. What tone was that? Representative Lauer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The
Speaker 117
1:01:20
question has been raised of how do we ensure that funds are private and public funds are separated by an organization. Isn't this bill the best way to do that?
Yes, I would agree with that. I mean, you've already indicated that these organizations, school board association, educational administrators, they receive private funds. They can use those private funds for their lobbying purposes. And by this bill, we are making sure that the public dollars are not going for that purpose. We are not doing anything to, matter of fact, what we're clarifying is that payroll deduction
can continue to be used, not only by teachers, but now we've defined administrators in that, that they could use payroll deduction so they can still be a member of this professional organization. They just have to pay for it themselves, which is leveling the playing field. It's treating administrators the same way that teachers and classified employees are treated. That's correct. Correct. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?
Seeing none, we're going to go to, without objection, I'm going to
limit testimony. We have quite a few that have signed up against and some for. Yes, I'll recognize you. I have a question for the department, whenever the proper
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:02:56
time is. They're not on this list, so if you want
to call the department, you're talking about Department of Ed? Yeah, Department of Ed. You can call somebody up. I don't know who it would be, but who would you like?
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03:09
What would you like to talk about? Yes, specifically with regards to if there is, in current law, prohibition on districts paying membership dues for teachers and classified employees. Lori? No, Lori. Whoever you
want to send up, if you want to, if you can, answer that. I don't know if you can. You
don't know? They don't know. Okay. That's a good answer.
Good answer. I mean, it's an honest answer. I mean, you're not lying about it. Okay. Without objections, I'm going to limit testimony to five minutes per for and against. Is that okay with committee if there's no objection? You want to go less? Give me a motion. I have a motion, Representative
Speaker 214
1:04:04
Lowry. I move that we limit debate to 10 minutes per side. Testimony? Testimony.
Yes. Okay. Sorry. Yes. Clarification. Any questions on that? Can we? That's just for the testimony, not the questioning. That's right. Representative Murdock, yes.
Speaker 88
1:04:24
Well, so that you don't, one individual don't take all of that time, but we do per side. Can we do per person like he was going to do? because
Speaker 223
1:04:32
then everybody gets a chance. That's up to them to coordinate. They're not together, though. I'm not going to hear that motion. That's
not fair. Let's do two people per person, two minutes per person.
That's your motion? That's my motion. Okay, we have a motion of two minutes
Speaker 57
1:04:53
per person. Any discussion on that motion? Yes, sir. Does that allow for closing as well? I will let them do
it. Unless you get an immediate consideration after the motion, then we will let her close, yes. And I have a motion for two minutes per testimony. All in
favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. I knew that was coming. All right.
On our first against, Delaina McCoy. You are recognized, and we will give you two minutes. When the buzzer
rings, I will stop you. Just state your name and who you're with, please. Delaina McCoy. You'll have to turn that mic
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:05:33
on. Dillene McCoy, I'm a secondary teacher of gifted students at Berryville Public Schools. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, for allowing me to speak against SB 452. I won't rehash the goals on this bill.
Senator Davis has presented them to the committee very well. I understand the rationale behind this and can appreciate that. However, as a member of a number of different professional organizations, I think some of the greatest attributes of these organizations and groups can be overlooked by concerns of legislative activity. I've been a member of Arkansas for Gifted and Talented Education, AGT, National Association for Gifted Children, NAGC, and also NMSA, National Middle School Association, and the AAA, Arkansas Activity Association,
and ACSS, Arkansas Council for Social Studies, for most of my educational career. and for the past two years, the AAEA. All of these organizations offer a great deal of professional learning and opportunities for growth in my field of education. Please take note, many districts only have one, or in my case at Berryville, two people serving gifted students. The gifted population is usually 8% to 10% of the student population. We, the GT staff, have no other professionals in the district to draw from.
I have been in professional development through AGEA, AGAT, AAA, NAGC that has allowed me to have growth as a professional, gifted educator, and has made me more effective in the lives of my students. I've been able to step into formal networking situations with experienced and knowledgeable educators that has created exceptional growth for me and opportunities in education and awareness for me personally. Honestly, often educators are left to be an island in their classrooms or schools and not given opportunities such as the aforementioned.
This makes for a stagnant, uninformed individual, and I have seen this happen. Teachers, staff, and administrators depend upon the quality, professional learning opportunities, professional development, and structured networking events and the connections that these organizations provide. I'm sorry your time is up. I feel it's important for you all to hear that, and I thank you for your time and your audience. Thank
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:41
you for your testimony. Well, Representative Walker, you have a question? Do you think we as a state really
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:07:49
much care about education? I think you affectionately and passionately care about education.
All of us do. And I'm reminded of a story of a school board that never met without an empty desk sitting in front of them. That way, they kept the student at the forefront of their decision-making. And I would beg this organization to keep the student at the forefront of your decision-making.
Thank you. All right. For the bill, we have Dallas Green. Is that right?
Dallas Green
Unverified
1:08:28
Can I get ten minutes? Because I'm probably the only
person in my mind. You will have two minutes. You will state your name and who you're with. I'm Dallas Green. Turn your mic on. Thanks. Representative Evans, you're going
Dallas Green
Unverified
1:08:45
to have to help them down there once in a while. My name is Dallas Green. You recognize this. I'm a volunteer with the Arkansas Dyslexia Support Group, and I'm against this bill. First of all, I'm for the bill. I'm confused on what I am today.
I am for this bill. First of all, I'd like everyone to know that in 2014, they put out something at one of these education committee meetings I went to, and we pay our administrators 8% more than the national average. So they have plenty of money to pay their own dues. As a parent, I find it that it's not student at the forefront, and our administration is not informed because as soon as they become an administration, they are automatically put
into an association and you're eliminating a choice. Maybe they wanted to go with a different association. So you're automatically saying that administrators have to go with this certain association because you pay their dues. So they automatically belong. And I might be wrong, but I've never seen any of these people. Representative Deffenbaugh wanted to know how that affects the reading rates. Well, they're private corporations that sponsor a lot of
these people or whole language and balanced literacy reading publishers. And there's not anything about science of reading and dyslexia. So that's how they keep it. And most people are not like me. They're not going to quit what they're doing for four years to come up here fight for two sessions for kids because I am student focused because I see how this is affected normal everyday people we're just going to work and taking our kids to school and thinking that
everything's going the right way but we have a lot of people up here lobbying for their pocketbook I'm sorry your
time is up are there any questions seeing none thank you at this time uh
Tony I hope you're not going to read all that, because we're not going to give you time. If you'd
state your name and who you're with, please, you're recognized to speak for two minutes.
Speaker 239
1:11:13
Thank you, Chairman and Committee. I'm
Speaker 240
1:11:15
Tony Prothero, Executive Director of the Arkansas School Boards Association. A couple of weeks ago, this bill was amended to include school board members, a different group from what we've talked about previously. as far as lobbying. The school board members are not paid. They don't get a salary for dues to be drawn from, as this bill specifies within the first page and second page of this. There's been board members that are today, as they're out there, some are on a tractor,
planting crops. Others are homemakers at home with kids. Some are performing surgeries. Some hopefully are doing some of your taxes at this time and can't be here. What you see in front of you are the 200 bills, approximately 200 bills that ASBA has been tracking this session with amendments. There are over 1,600 bills that have been filed. We keep track of these. So if you can imagine this stack plus seven more, how in the world would a board member with that organization
be able to know what the bills are, what the intent of the bill is, and then what the bill actually says in language without our association showing what the bill actually does. The other thing I would point out is the bill talks about direct and indirect lobbying. Someone I think on the committee pointed out indirect is not defined. What I'm talking about doing here is that indirect lobbying when we're giving them information so that they may turn around and lobby you as legislators, how far deep does it go?
There are no guidelines for the indirect piece of this. I can very easily say that we could look at the definition of direct lobbying that was given, and I have copies of definitions of lobbying. That's very easy, but when you get into the indirect aspect of it, how far down the ladder does it go? It's almost impossible. Impossible. We've had attorneys look at this since this bill was filed to try to determine what does that mean?
I'm sorry, your time's up. We have questions for you. Stay right there. Representative Lauer, you're first.
Speaker 117
1:13:27
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the term lobbying is defined elsewhere in statute, specifically the prohibition on state legislators' lobbying. would that definition not suffice to give clarification? Not when you add indirect to it. Direct lobbying would be easily defined, but when you
Speaker 240
1:13:48
add indirect, there is no definition of it. Is it the things that go behind lobbying in support of that?
How far does that go? For instance, what I just brought out here, direct lobbying would be very easily defined. Indirect is not. Okay. All
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:14:10
right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Dodson, do you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brothrow, would this bill, as it's written, still allow your organization to provide
Speaker 246
1:14:19
professional development and have the districts actually pay for that? If we did not lobby.
Speaker 243
1:14:27
Okay. Or if we did not use public funds for lobbying, which goes beyond dues. I
Speaker 246
1:14:35
guess, follow up, Mr. Chair. You're right, Matt. How many of your funds are, I guess, public versus private funds? I couldn't tell you exactly
Speaker 240
1:14:45
on that. Senator Davis talked about we have about 90 sponsors. Some of those sponsorships are basically just to come to our conference and to get a booth space. Many, many of those are. Okay.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:15:00
As far as, like, former school board members and... You're recognized. I'm sorry. How many of your members or former members are part of your governing structure? All of them.
Speaker 240
1:15:13
Are school board members not? Yeah, our governance structure is made up solely of currently sitting board members.
Speaker 243
1:15:19
Okay. Thank you. Rep. De La Rosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're one of
Speaker 13
1:15:28
the entities that I wanted to ask this question of.
I'm making the assumption the others are going to speak against this, so I'm going to ask them the same, but it goes back to my original question in terms of separation of funds because this bill specifies public funds can't be used for lobbying, which means you would have to use private funds for that. How do you delineate something like that so that you would be able to
Speaker 105
1:15:53
verify to whoever's asking, even though we haven't said who that is, that you would be following this law should it be passed what would we what we
Speaker 240
1:16:02
would do in the case if it was just
direct it would be it'd be fairly simple to be able to pull out those those entities that are directly associated with lobbying this group and it would be very easy to pull that out however with the indirect do we look at copier and what aspects of copying is it the you know what is runoff on that copier. We go to regional meetings, and in those regional meetings, we at times talk about legislation. Is that lobbying? The definition of indirect is so vague that
we would all have an opinion
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:16:45
of what that would mean. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Representative
Walker. Are you aware that school board members are often admonished and also admonish others to talk to your legislator to try to get more support
for public schools? That they're admonished to not talk? No, they're admonished to do so. I
mean, school board members often are admonished to talk to legislators as well as administrators
are encouraged to talk to administrators to seek more support for public schools. Yes, sir, without a doubt. And for programs and the like. Yes, sir, without a doubt. Now, that being the case, lobbying is represented by Representative Davis with the use of public persons, some of whom are not paid and some of whom are paid, is not that providing a service in the public interest?
Yes. And it's not contrary to any educational value of which you know, is it? No, sir. Thank
Speaker 57
1:17:53
you. You got three also. You have another one? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir,
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:17:59
you seem to focus directly on the indirect wording of this language. I was just curious if you had approached Senator
Speaker 243
1:18:05
Davis about taking that out. We had sent an email to Senator Davis earlier, but had not received a response to date from Mr. Jordan.
If that was taken out, would you support
the bill? No. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks, sir. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak for the bill? I have Amanda Britt against the bill.
If you would state your name and who you're
Speaker 264
1:18:47
with, you will have two minutes to speak. Sure. Amanda Britt, Arkansas ASCD. I'd like to thank everybody for the opportunity to be here today. I'm here as the president of Arkansas ASCD. which is a professional organization in Arkansas that has over 300 members in the state that includes various roles. We have occupational therapists, counselors, teachers, administrators, I mean basically anything that promotes the development of the whole child, that's our
constituency. We also go from pre-kindergarten all the way through college and many of our districts currently pay for the memberships to these organizations but we're so much more we we do advocate for the whole child however we're so much more and I think that this bill could have a judgmental effect on our organization or has the possibility to furthermore I'm also an elementary principal and a former superintendent and a former high school
principal and I also in those roles have paid for my teachers and administrators and different you know business managers and others to be a part of various organizations around the state and I'd like to point out that you know with the current state of teachers right now with 43% living within the first five years, many more who are not traditionally trained in teaching,
and also the teacher shortage. I think that being a part of professional organizations can absolutely help the profession. I believe that in rural school districts, we have teachers who might be, there might be one math teacher for the whole district. It is vitally important for them to be members of organizations where they can get this information. I'm sorry, your time is up.
Speaker 265
1:20:52
It's okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Speaker 267
1:20:56
Representative Hodges. Thank you. This is my third term on education, and I don't
Speaker 264
1:21:04
think I've come across your organization yet. Do you all lobby on issues? We take pride in that we advocate. I think the indirect wording in that could possibly be termed lobbying. I don't really know.
I don't know what that means because does that mean that if I'm here today that I'm lobbying? Does that mean that if I simply or one of my constituents contacts the legislature, is that deemed lobbying? I don't know what
Speaker 271
1:21:39
that means. One follow-up. You're recognized. Do you think that your organization would be capable of, if you decided you needed to lobby, doing
Speaker 264
1:21:50
that without public funds? I'm unsure. I think it could possibly have an effect on our organization.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:21:56
Thank you. Representative Walker. Can you tell me the difference between advocating
Speaker 264
1:22:03
and lobbying? Well, we take a very firm role in that we simply want to state the facts. You know, we generally don't support a bill for and against. I mean, I am here today, obviously, against the bill. But, you know, when I have been involved in trips to Washington, D.C., we simply state the facts. This is how it will affect students in the state or in the nation or whatever,
and these are pros and cons for it. But we generally try not to take a stand if
we can help it. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Does anyone like to speak for the bill? Against
the bill, I have Richard Abernathy. I still have two more after this.
Please state your name and who you're with. You're
Speaker 81
1:23:06
recognized for two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Richard Abernathy, Executive
Speaker 83
1:23:11
Director of AAEA, and I am a consultant or an advocate. You can call me either one of those, but I don't know if I lobby or not. But, no, the association is much, much broader than what we do here because this is a small part of what we do. We offer over 48,000 hours of professional development that our participants earned last year. We also started offering certified public accountants where they can get there and continue in education, scholarships, et cetera.
But what we're really talking about is public funds down here for lobbying, and that has been an issue for a while. So it continues to be brought up that teachers are treated different than administrators, and that's just totally untrue. So we just ran a real quick survey from school superintendents out there on what professional organization do you pay teachers' membership for. So I'm just going to rattle off a few here. ASCD, Arkansas Activity Association,
Arkansas for Gifted and Talented Education, Arkansas School Counselors Association, Arkansas School Nurses Association, Arkansas Literacy Association. It can even go down the Chamber of Commerce, whether that's individual dues or district dues. All those professional organizations, some of them have hired professional lobbyists. So it's much, much broader than school superintendents. And yes, in fact, teachers are paid, can pay for their professional dues. So another thing that Arkansas has done over the years is they've dropped adoptive standards
for effective leadership. In the past, it's been the ISLIC standards, and in 2015, they adopted professional standards for educational leaders. This document is adopted by Arkansas, and it's also in the LEADS evaluation system for principals. So if you go over here on Section 8, meaningful engagement of families and communities. Effective leaders, what do they do, and what are they being evaluated on?
Advocating for school and district and publicly advocating for needs. We do have questions.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
1:25:14
Representative Gates, you're first. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 279
1:25:20
Chair. Is your association a private or public entity? We're a nonprofit. It'd be a private entity, I guess. Okay. As a private entity?
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
1:25:31
You're recognized. Thank you. Follow-up? The last couple of weeks, you've said at the end of the table, representing a private entity, saying that you believe public money should never go to a private entity.
I think we were talking about a voucher program. How do you now say it's justified to go to a private entity, which we have no control over, but on previous bills it's not ever justified for public money to go to a private entity? When is
Speaker 279
1:26:03
it now okay and last week it wasn't okay? When you're talking about educating kids and state money going
Speaker 83
1:26:10
to private schools, that is certainly an issue. When you're talking about membership phase,
our actual school paid membership of our budget is about 13%, and the rest of that all comes from the
Speaker 214
1:26:30
other sources. Thank you. Representative
Speaker 117
1:26:34
Lowry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So your advocacy or your lobbying today speaks in favor of these public funds being used to be able to advocate for education.
So is it also your advocacy that teachers union dues to AEA or organizational dues to school teachers association, that those should be paid by school districts as well? The school district do
Speaker 83
1:27:02
pay professional dues to memberships for teachers.
Speaker 117
1:27:06
I'm talking about the union dues. Should that be paid by the public school since you're advocating that that is a necessary public function?
Speaker 83
1:27:17
That's been considered different because, for instance, professional memberships, we don't go out and advocate for administrators' rights. We don't represent administrators' hearings and those type of things. So, that's a little different.
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
1:27:37
Yeah. Robson of Lyra, you have upset
Speaker 288
1:27:44
the baby. Well, I just, yeah, well, I just,
Speaker 117
1:27:49
I've been accused of that before.
My children still remind me of the times I made them cry. Yeah. Well, let me speak to the Arkansas School Teachers Association is an association. They don't lobby. They don't do collective bargaining. So anyone that wants to be a member of ASTA, school districts should pay for that? Now, let's go back, because school districts all make up
Speaker 285
1:28:14
their local policy and what they want to do. For instance, the ONARS Association,
Speaker 83
1:28:18
which is kind of what this bill is aimed for, or certainly one of them,
School districts don't pay for all their memberships. It is a small part of what actually school districts pay for. We have individuals that do payroll deductions. We have individuals that just write a check to us. So they don't pay for all of ours. But, again, that's a
Speaker 214
1:28:40
district-level decision that we would support. All right. Okay.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:28:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask
you a question because I asked Senator Davis the same question. and trying to get some clarity,
and I have also text the Department of Education, or the department. Currently, there is no law that prohibits a school district from paying a teacher's dues. There currently is no law that does that. Is that your understanding? That is my understanding. Okay, thank you. Ripson and
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:20
Dotson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, your consultant, are you registered as a lobbyist?
Speaker 83
1:29:30
to clarify. Well, and I wanted to go there because actually we thought about not registering because so many of them are not registered. They're advocates or consultants or whatever the case may be. I do not consider myself a lobbyist at all. But, yes, in
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:47
fact, we register because it's been a longstanding tradition of the association. Okay. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? So you said that 13% of your funds
Speaker 280
1:29:56
are public funds. 13% of my budget comes
Speaker 83
1:29:59
from memberships that are actually paid by the school district.
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:30:04
Okay. But you're a private organization. We're a 501c6. With public funds. So is your, how much this session have you paid
for direct lobbying or spent by your organization with outside contracts for lobbying outside of your
Speaker 280
1:30:32
organization? With our professional lobbyists?
Professional contract lobbyists that are not salaried staff. I have to go
Speaker 83
1:30:37
back and count up as far as that. but several thousand. Okay. I would have to get that number for you. I guess is your salary public
Speaker 300
1:30:50
knowledge? That's a really good question. Mike Wickline asked me several years ago and I gave it to him, but I don't really know. Thank you. Representative Speaks.
Speaker 273
1:31:05
Representative Hodges. Thank you. So if I understand the bill
Speaker 267
1:31:11
correctly, If you all used private dollars to lobby, then you could still get memberships paid for by districts. So why can't you just use private dollars to pay for your lobbying activities? Well, I think
Speaker 83
1:31:27
the indirect part is a problem. And honestly, it's not going to impact us as much as it is some of the other associations that would not have that same opportunity.
um there and matter of fact senator davis and i talked about this earlier there are other funds and then the question comes are what's considered uh public dollars so when we host a conference or we host a professional development training or we do something like that and in school administrators or others come and attend the conferences though are the public dollars or is that not public dollars you know
Speaker 302
1:32:02
would a conference be lobbying do what would how is a conference lobbying conference wouldn't be
Speaker 83
1:32:08
but if you're using public dollars so that those dollars will
go in the pot and so then do i use those dollars to help pay for lobbying fees i don't know if if all we're actually after is trying to determine you know how we're paying for lobbying i'd be more than glad to sit down with you or the chair or anyone else and and take a look at it that seems like the purpose of the bill it goes beyond this when you're talking about indirect lobbying We have Arkansas Activity Association. They indirectly are down here influencing legislation and lobbying, speaking for and against bills.
We pay for teachers to be various coaches, get their membership card there. We have all sorts of people. He probably has 50 different activities from gifted and talented, not gifted and talented, but Quiz Bowl and all those corporate sponsors, band, music, et cetera, that schools pay for. Like I said, it's going to hurt others more so than this. I think, as the
Speaker 267
1:33:03
Senator said, that wouldn't affect any of that, just the lobbying piece. And if I could be recognized for one final question. This was asked earlier, and since you brought up, it seemed to be you'd be okay with it
if we just didn't have the indirectly engaged in lobbying. Would you support the bill if it did
Speaker 83
1:33:21
not have the indirect lobbying? I would still have some concerns with it, but the indirect
Speaker 303
1:33:26
is even a bigger concern. So no. That
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:33:33
would be a no. Representative Meeks, you recognize. I guess my question is just on
a basic philosophical level. Do you believe taxpayer money should go to pay for lobbying efforts? As a taxpayer yourself, would you support the idea of your tax dollars going to pay for someone to lobby?
Speaker 83
1:33:51
No, but I also want it much broader than just K-12. And I think it's already been brought up about some of the things here that also organizations are lobbying. So higher ed also has advocates or whatever. So it's broader than just, you know, focusing on K-12. Follow up? So philosophically, you're against
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:34:13
public money going to lobbying. It's just a matter of the devil's in the details. Would that be a correct summary of your statement? Okay.
All right, I still have two more. We have four. I'm just going to let your committee know we have four more bills we're going to hear after this, so we're going to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:34:34
be at 1 o'clock, but that's just what I want everybody to hold. So we're going
to continue on. Representative Walker, you're next. Mr. Abernathy, do you have an opinion as to whether taxpayer money is routinely used to promote state interest, such as higher education as a concept, choice?
In terms of allowing people to make school choices and associations, would you not agree that it's used all the time? Yes, sir. And what's the difference here when you use it to promote the interest that we want, some of us want, around the table, as or against what's in the best interest, what educators may perceive is in their best interest? I don't think there's any difference in that. Thank you.
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:35:25
Period. Ruffin and Birch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me just say, are you familiar with
the PLC, the professional learning communities and the millions of dollars that the state put into that program? Are you familiar with the term, this is kind of all one thing, the term singletons, those independent schools, or the schools that just have one teacher, one professional, and that the whole premise of the singletons and a big
part of that PLC study is requiring these teachers that are the singletons, and particularly we have a lot of them in a rural district. That's one of the big conversations I had with a lot of my districts, is we require them to collaborate and to be a part of these organizations so that they can reach the benefit and get the benefit of the bigger parts of the education and learning. Would this bill impact that premise and the ability to do that where we've already spent millions of dollars adversely?
Speaker 83
1:36:30
It could. And again, some of that's going to go back to what indirect lobbying is. But if you go back to what school districts are currently paying for in professional organizations, many of those teachers would not be able to participate in some. And all of us know it's about networking. It's about learning from each other. It's about sitting down across the table and doing either a PLC, but networking together so you can figure out what's working and what's not working. And we would not want to do anything to hamper that networking.
Speaker 176
1:37:03
All right. Seeing no more. Thank you, sir. I
have two more left signed up. Sharon. I'm sorry. Hold on. I have a motion here. What's your motion? Mr.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:37:17
Chairman, I think we've been debating this over an hour, and I think most of us know where we're going to vote on this, and so I'm going to
Speaker 313
1:37:25
make a motion that we end public debate. That's
a proper motion, non-debatable. It takes two-thirds of the quorum.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion is passed. Okay, the public debate is over. Sorry for you that it signed up. Not really. No, we did want to hear from you, but I understand it is. We do have four more bills we've got to run, so due to the time constraint. Would you like clothes for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:38:04
As I've mentioned, training, professional development, none of that will be impacted in any way. and indirect Mr. Abernathy is actually a registered lobbyist he qualifies under state ethics laws as a lobbyist he is registered and he comes and lobbies himself and on behalf of his organization and that is direct lobbying they also as an organization send out calls to action to their membership regularly to fight bills and oppose them and mobilizing their membership which I
believe is indirect lobbying um it's registered lobbying mobilizing other people indirectly to then come lobbyists and that's my understanding so in closing i just ask that you consider this as i mentioned earlier the arkansas school board association has 50 premium and supporting partners on their website right now so while we mandate school board training by law um they the districts will still be allowed to pay for membership for school board members they will not have to pay for it themselves. ASBA has plenty of private partners that they can use and funnel that money
into their lobbying efforts. They also have conference sponsorships available. In fact, if you look on the mission of the Arkansas School Board Association, it says promote student-focused leadership in public education. And one of the key questions we ask ourselves in executing our mission is, is it good for kids? But they're down here with the other organizations fighting some bills that we know to be really good education policy. And so my question is, do they really ask themselves that before they come down and fight every bill? On the AAEA website, as I
mentioned, they have 44 commercial sponsors. Their mission statement on that page says, AAEA has committed itself to supporting school leaders through legislative representation, advocacy, and professional learning opportunities. For businesses wishing to reach and influence today's educational marketplace in Arkansas, AAEA is the partner that can get you there. That is how they are promoting themselves to corporate sponsors. Do they vet their corporate sponsors? Do we know who
they are? They just say, hey, it doesn't matter if you're good or bad,
pay us some corporate sponsorship fees, and we'll get you in touch with educational leaders in the state of Arkansas, the ones making policy decisions. And that's exactly what they're doing. They're bringing people in, and they're lobbying us with our public tax dollars that should be going to educate our kids
and they're you know they said most of what they do lobbying is a little piece of what they do most of what they do focuses on training and professional development but what I read from their
mission statement on their website listed first and foremost is legislative representation and that if businesses are looking to influence today's educational
marketplace in Arkansas look no further than AAEA and I have a problem with that and I think we should have a problem with that because as I mentioned most of the kids in the state of arkansas they can't even read and we're spending some nsl nsla money on it so the point again is simply just to say if you want to join an organization that has registered lobbyists then you can't do so with public funds and i think that's simple i think that allows the money then to go that stack of bills that dr protho had that that money can go to train school board members
to let them know about bills you can send out emails without calls to action you can let school board members know across the state what's going on in Little Rock, that's not considered lobbying. When you start doing calls to action and mobilizing people and coming down
here and sitting through every education meeting, that is lobbying. And they're registered lobbyists because of it. So the thing here is just simply that public money shouldn't be used to pay for lobbying in the educational space. If they want to use private money, which they have plenty of, I think, unless I misunderstood that only 13% of AAEA's money comes from school funds.
Did I understand that correctly? So the 87% of their money is private money. They certainly can pay for their
lobbying if they need to. This in no way prohibits that. I've spoken with AAA several times. I've spoken with several of these other organizations that offer professional development to different people within the school, and they will not be impacted by this. So with that, I will not take up any of your time. I appreciate so much the debate and the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:42:20
questions and your attentiveness to this very important issue. Thank you, members. What's the will of the committee?
I have a motion to do pass from Representative Dodson. Any debate on the motion? Seeing no debate, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. No. I'm going to say the
Speaker 318
1:42:44
no's have it. Knew it was coming. Representative Meeks. Aye. Representative Deffenbaugh. No. Representative Eubanks. No. Representative Walker. No. Representative Lowry. Yes.
Representative Dotson. Yes. Representative De La Rosa. No. Representative Hodges. Yes. Representative Beck. Yes. Representative Sullivan. Yes. Representative Speaks. No. Representative Gates. Yes. Representative Vought. Representative Vought. Representative Birch. No. Representative Allen.
No. Representative Kavanaugh. No. Representative Garner. No. Representative Evans. No. I'm sorry, your bill has failed. Thank you, committee. I appreciate it. Representative Vaught
is not in the room. Is that correct? Just for question, I have Senator Elliott that has two bills to run.
Is there anyone in the room to run Senator Clark? Just trying to get a clarification on that. If not, I'm going to have somebody run it. Well, we've got, I think, okay, we've got two that can. Senator Illich, you can take
Speaker 329
1:44:28
the chair. Any preference on order? 677 is first on the list.
I'll do that first. That's fine. Okay. Senate Bill 677, you're recognized.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:44:35
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Some of you, if you've been here for a while, you know that I've been on this mission along with a lot of other people who have been helpful to make sure that our kids are learning to read based on the science of reading. We have a problem right now, and I think it's really important to note the context of why we have a problem. It's not that people are not teaching reading. It's not that kids can't learn how to read. It's just that in the last 30 years or so, we've been using
a method of teaching kids how to read that we know is not working for them. We don't have to have an argument about that. But we do know today that the science of reading will, if used with fidelity and used correctly, every child can learn how to read and read at a high functioning level. So I started this journey actually in 2011 with kids who are dyslexic and it's morphed into coming to an understanding that if we have dyslexia interventions, those are based on the
science of reading and what we know about that has informed us for all kids learning to read And the Department of Education and many folks who were in the legislature have become advocates. We've done all that for K-12. What this bill does is takes us to those kids who are in any of our juvenile centers. Many of them who are there, of course, cannot read, and they need the ability to be able to read. And so working with and having the support of DYS, this is the bill I'm bringing you today
so that those kids will have the same opportunities to learn to read and to be taught by teachers who are well-versed in teaching according to the science of reading, so that we create from K-12 through our juvenile centers that everybody has a systematic, thoughtful way to teach kids how to read that's based on science, and that's what the bill does. And DYSs, we've worked with them, and DYSs is in support of this, And I don't know of any opposition to it, Mr. Chair,
so I stand to be surprised if there is. So that's my presentation in case anybody has any questions. We already have a motion on your bill,
but I've got to take questions. Are there any questions? You can sit there. No. Got a question? We have motions all over the place. Any questions? Okay. Anybody in the audience like to speak against the bill or the bill? Do you like clothes for
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:47:06
your bill? I'm closed for my bill, Mr. Chairman.
I have a motion from a couple of different ones right down that order.
So we'll take Representative Gates. Has a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations, you passed
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:47:26
your bill. Let's go to 664. All right, thank you for that vote, committee. 664
kind of completes the circle here Because if we think K-12, the folks who are in the juvenile centers, and this centers on the folks who are in our Department of Corrections.
I don't know if many of you know or not, but the Department of Corrections has a complete school system. And so working with the superintendent, Mr. Glover, and working with Solomon Graves, who is their PR person, We sat down and took a look at the other bills that are making sure that the people that we've been referring to were taught via the science of reading. We had to create a little bit different kind of bill just because of the clientele. So when somebody is taken into ADC, they get an assessment right then regarding their reading.
And so we had to structure theirs working together that they would start this just with the folks, the new ones they're intaking. And after that, we structured into the bill to give them the leeway to be able by a date that we both agreed to, that they would come forth with a plan that they would present to the Joint Education Committee for how they would begin to make sure the rest of the clientele that's in ADC would be taught according to the science of reading.
The other thing that's different about these folks, because these are adults, so we have to offer them whether or not they wish to be screened for dyslexia, because something like 40% of folks who are in prison and some even higher are dyslexics. And when people can't read, that leads to other things that lead to them being in prison. So we had to structure it a little bit differently. But the whole idea behind this bill is to make sure we square that circle, so to speak,
so that every student, no matter how old they are, that we are in charge of, that we are doing what we can to make sure they get an opportunity. And every opportunity starts with being able to read at a high function. So that's what this bill does. you ready for questions
Speaker 18
1:49:45
i am any questions perhaps some gates
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
1:49:50
you recognize thank you mr chair this session we've made a lot of inroads in trying to deal with those that are in the
department of corrections coming out getting a good fresh start in life yes um as somebody who grew up under the i called it the look and say program but whole language and not hearing the word phonics until i was in my early 20s right those that are in right now under our supervision of department of corrections when we're preparing them to get out if we're not preparing them how to be functionally literate we can do everything else but if they can't get a good paying job because they can't even read properly this bill basically will address some that may be like this
never been tested for dyslexia and don't even know that they've got they they don't know what they don't know this aims at helping reduce recidivism the recidivism rate that we have in our prisons simply on the science of reading it absolutely does
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:50:51
and i mean there's there's no question they many of them ended up there i
wouldn't say solely because they can't read But absolutely, that is an impact because if you can imagine the frustration of day by day, whether you're in school or not, you are doing the best you can and you still can't read and you think something is wrong with you and people begin to call you lazy and that happens and people begin to say you don't want to do any better, then it leads to folks acting out and eventually that escalates into somebody ended up in prison based on something that we can do something about.
And I will tell you real quickly, you know, the time that I realized how helpless and frustrated you feel when you can't read. I was in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, with a bunch of kids camping out in a pasture. And all the kids were supposed to have revealed to us if they were taking medicine, if they had any allergies. But there's always one who doesn't, who gets stung by the wasp. And so when it happened, you know, I was rushing into town because I knew how to get into the city.
to get some Benadryl and I got it and I headed back and I knew this kid needed it really badly and somebody was called in the hospital or whatever this was before cell phones you couldn't just pick it up and go and call and call somebody and when I turned around to go back on one side of the street signs in Tahlequah it's in English on the other side it is in Cherokee I did not know that. And I was reading the street signs as I was going.
And just a frustration. I kept thinking, a child is somewhere dying. I just need to get Benadryl. That's all I was assigned to do. And I can't find my way back because I don't see Spruce Street. I don't see Pine Street. And I could not read. I could not read because it was in Cherokee. And I will never forget how that felt. And people live that way every day. And so this
is just something I think we can do. We can change people's lives, and we can do that through these bills, I think.
Any other questions? Seeing none, anyone in the audience for or against? Would you like to close? Hey, I didn't know you were here. I think I
Speaker 230
1:53:13
have someone for. Quickly, please, sir. I have
a committee that is going to riot if we don't hurry. Well,
Speaker 341
1:53:27
I understand that. I'm Charles Allen, Chief Administrative Officer for the Department of Correction School System, and this is a great bill.
I appreciate Senator Ellett working on this and working with us, Dr. Glover. I just want to remind this committee, you members, that the school system has not had an increase in funding for three years, and this will cause an unfunded cost. I'm still speaking for it, but next year, when you come back, I want you to remember that we may have to ask you for additional funding.
It initially will cost us an additional $50,000, and then in two years it will cost us $200,000. But I do support this bill, I do support this legislation, and I thank you, and thank you, Senator Elliott. Representative Scott will find
that money for you. And I will
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:54:27
say, committee members, I'm hearing this for the first time, but I'm willing to help. I did not hear that before, but thank you.
All right. Anybody else for or against?
Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? Motion. I have motions all over the place, Representative Gates, Representative Vaught. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Can I say
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
1:54:48
one thing in discussion? If you hurry. But having hired in the last year and a half, having hired a number of adults who have come out of prison, I hired a lady last year, she's in her 40s, out of prison, couldn't read a menu. And so she came to work for me, and I found out after I hired her she couldn't read.
So she couldn't write. She couldn't even spell proper people's common names she couldn't even spell. they're such a disadvantage and they can't expect to get jobs and stay
out of trouble if we don't do this. I think this is a great deal. How do they fill out the
Speaker 239
1:55:26
application for employment? I don't require written applications. We figured that it was
verbal like a lot of mine I think we've all been in our route if you have a small business you've all had people work like that. I had one couldn't even read his paycheck so alright we have motion
do pass. All in favor say aye any opposed no? Congratulations, you're passed your bill. Representative Vaught, you're recognized. Two more short ones. Thanks,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:55:53
Mr. Chair. SB 619, you're recognized. I'll
go fast, fast. Senate Bill 619 is just changing it to where someone who has graduated from a two- or four-year college can be appointed to the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Any questions?
Representative Allen, we have a motion.
Any other questions? Anyone in the audience for or against? Seeing none, close for your bill. Yes, sir. I have a motion to do pass. Representative Allen, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations. Thank you. All right, SB605, one of you two going to run it? All right, that's great. It doesn't matter to me. This is to amend the name of the National School Lunch Categorical Funding, And I think all that does is just a name change.
Speaker 13
1:56:43
Is that correct? According to the bill I read and according to the sponsor that I've spoken to before, yes, that's all it does. It changes the National School Lunch State Categorical Funding name to Enhanced Student Achievement Funding name. Nothing else changes. It is a name change because it is the most confusing name I have ever had to explain. So
we're changing the name. Anyone for or against? Seeing no questions from committee. I have motions. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thanks for your endurance this year. Y'all have been a great committee. And as far as I know, we are done. We are adjourned. I got a new pass? Thank you.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1648 F. Allen TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AND HEROES IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
HB1901 F. Allen TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP.
HB1626 Cloud CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE COURSE IF STUDENTS REQUEST THAT THE COURSE BE OFFERED.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB452 B. Davis TO PREVENT A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM USING PUBLIC FUNDS TO PAY THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP DUES OF A TEACHER OR A CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE.
SB490 K. Hammer TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUCCEED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
SB619 L. Eads TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD.
SB677 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THAT DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES' TEACHERS KNOW BEST PRACTICES OF SCIENTIFIC READING INSTRUCTION.
SB605 A. Clark TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING.
SB664 Elliott TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE CORRECTIONS TEACHERS KNOW BEST PRACTICES OF SCIENCE-BASED READING INSTRUCTION.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictions
DEFERRED BILLS
SB349 A. Clark TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LEVELS OF SUPPORT TO CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS BASED ON READING SCORES; AND TO AMEND THE PURPOSES ON WHICH NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDS MAY BE SPENT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 9, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart Chair
Unverified
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 24
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
Wendell Griffin
Unverified
Speaker 53
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 88
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 105
Speaker 116
Speaker 117
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 152
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 174
Speaker 175
Speaker 177
Speaker 184
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 195
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
Speaker 160
Speaker 209
Speaker 214
Speaker 223
Speaker 57
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Dallas Green
Unverified
Speaker 239
Speaker 240
Speaker 246
Speaker 243
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Speaker 267
Speaker 271
Speaker 81
Speaker 279
Speaker 288
Speaker 285
Speaker 295
Speaker 280
Speaker 300
Speaker 273
Speaker 302
Speaker 303
Speaker 176
Speaker 313
Speaker 318
Speaker 329
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 230
Speaker 341
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified