House Education Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1770
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1770”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1877
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1877”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1485
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1485”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1708
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1708”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1786
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1786”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1844
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1844”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1854
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1854”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1910
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1910”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1976
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1976”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1995
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1995”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2010
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2010”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2011
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2011”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2205
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2205”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 5, 2026
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
0:00
Not just us, but a couple of things I'd like to mention before we get started. Of course, we're going to look at house bills today first, because if house bills do not get out of this committee today, they're not going to have a very good chance of getting down through the system and becoming acts. So we're all going to look at house bills first. You know, two weeks ago we made the comment here in the committee that even though we have four pages of bills, If I remember right, I asked you to come to me and tell me if you were going to run a bill.
We actually have an auxiliary list. I think there's some misunderstandings about that, but we have a list of bills up here that we know are going to be run, and that's the ones we're going to try to deal with first. And then if there's additional bills, we will look at those if we have time. We're going to meet at least twice today. If we have to, and we're going to give everybody a fair chance, we will meet after adjournment this afternoon. We're going to try to get these bills out anyway. again we're going to do house bills first and then we'll do the senate bills because the senate bill comes here
they'll be sent to the house the next day so they'll be ok even running Thursday they'll be ok but we'd like to run this entire list today if we can the other thing I would ask you I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings or make anybody mad but just remember we have limited time And in testimony, if you have someone testifying for or against the bill, let's be short, let's be brief, let's be fair, and because we are going to be pressed for time.
And my co-chair is somewhere. I don't know where she's at, but I'm sure she'll be here in a minute. Okay, we're going to,
and first thing we're going to do this morning, Ms. Hobbs, we're going to
go back to your bill, House Bill 1485. And I think at that point we were in testimony against that, and I think they spoke and I think they may be through so if you would like to close for your bill we'll listen to you and then we'll proceed from there Ms. Hobbs you're recognized oh I'm sorry one other thing I did go ahead Ms. Hobbs have a seat
I didn't mention and I'm going to make her mad but my lovely wife is sitting against the wall over here you may recognize her face in front of the house stand up Ms. Cheatham
And she said after 40 years, she's not quite as young as she used to be.
Speaker 4
2:31
But anyway, but she married well. Mr. Chair, she works a lot longer than you do.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:40
Yeah, you're right, about quite a few years. Ms. Hobbs, we better get to you before I get in
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
2:46
trouble. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Did you say you want me to close for the bill? I just want to make sure I understood that correctly. Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. I know it's been a few days since we met, but this bill essentially will give parents another option that they don't have now. As I stated earlier, you know, I was blessed in that my children were able to attend a public school.
They didn't have the sensitivities to light and sounds and these other things that some children simply cannot deal with. This did come through an ISP. People worked on it for a couple of years to come to this conclusion, and I would just appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Committee, any other
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
3:33
questions? Ms. Hobbs, before we proceed, I would entertain a motion. Ms. Clemmer? Do pass.
Okay. Committee, we have a motion to do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Believe the no's have it. Thank you, Ms. Hobbs. Ms. Hobbs, we will if you want to, but it's up to you. Okay. Yes, I noticed they put us on their little blog there, so I guess we will have a roll
Speaker 17
4:09
call, I guess. Representative Bradford. Representative Webb.
Representative Webb. Representative Pierce, Representative Peirce, Representative Hutchinson, Representative Stewart, Representative Brown, Representative Baird, Representative Summers, Representative Hobbs, Representative Carnine, Representative Dale, Representative Hopper, Representative Klemmer, Representative McClean,
Representative McLean. Representative Dickinson. Representative English. Representative Steele. Representative Steele. Representative Wren. Representative Roebuck. Representative Roebuck. You want to vote, sir? No. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
5:17
You've only got eight votes. Okay. Eight votes. Your bill
is failed, Ms. Hobbs. Committee next, we're going to look at Representative Stewart has two bills we're going
to look at. Mr. Stewart, we're not going to run your Senate bill this morning. You've got some there, but we'll run House Bill 1770 is the first bill we're going to look
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
5:41
at. Mr. Stewart, you may proceed. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
1770 is a minimum sick leave bill. Part of it was brought up when we changed the start day of school to an earlier date,
and I brought up at that time that we would look at the sick leave because the current law says you get one day of sick leave per month of contract or a major portion thereof. There have been two Attorney General's opinions saying that needs to be described what a major portion thereof. Is it calendar days, work days, et cetera? So what we did in here was say that 12 or more days in the calendar month. As you all know, teachers also are required to do in-service prior to the start of school,
traditionally five or more days, and they will very easily go above the 12 days. And I chose 12 days because that's the, there's only the maximum number of work days in a month are 23, using any month. That's the maximum days. So 12 would be a major portion thereof. And we have a definition now of what that means. So a teacher who works a traditional school year, 190-day contract, would get 10 days of sick leave.
I brought this up to the AEA and the School Board Association. They said, well, we think everybody's already doing that. So I had Ms. Tackett, who works for this committee, do some research. She called 18 schools, and six of them were not doing it. So fully one-third of the schools were still only given nine days instead of the 10. but two or three of them did say that starting this current this next school year they would give 10 so they are addressing the fact that we're using an earlier start date and it will necessitate 10 days of sick leave
the second part of the bill on the back page a teacher may be required to do professional development throughout the year they can pick a date in June or July but there's going to be a mandatory professional development day If the teacher misses that day because of sickness to themselves or somebody in their family, they can miss it. They are charged the sick day. But by law, they are required to make that day up, that day of professional leave. Currently, that sick leave is not being reinstated.
They make the day up, but they got charged that day of sick leave. So this says if they make the day up on a non-contract day, on a day that they're not on the contract, then they get the sick leave reinstated. If they make it up on a contract day, in the afternoon or at night or something, they don't get the sick leave. It's just if they make it up on another non-contract day. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Committee, Ms. Clemmer. I'm ready to make a motion at the appropriate time.
Speaker 10
8:27
Any other questions, Committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
8:34
this bill, follow this bill? Seeing that, none. We'll come back to the committee. We have some thumbs up in the audience, but we'll come back to the committee and we'll take a vote on this. All those in favor of House Bill 1770 say aye. Aye.
Opposed, like signed. I believe the ayes have it. Mr. Stewart, your next bill is 1844.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
8:58
Hi, Mr. Stewart. 1844, and I'll ask the Department of Education to come and sit with me
on this. Okay. hoping they're not being taken by surprise this is a cleanup bill
from the Department of Education and the requirements for forming the school board directors after annexation and consolidation over the years this
this legislation had been patched together several times as we've changed of law, this is a cleanup bill to bring all of the statutes, all of the definitions into one central location to make it much easier for a superintendent, a school board, directors to understand what's going to happen to them during the consolidation or annexation. And I've got help here to help explain
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
9:52
it. Committee, anyone have any questions on this bill? 1844.
Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Seeing none there, we'll
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
10:11
come back to the committee. Ms. Clemmer? I thought we were going to get a little more explanation on the bill's objective. Do you have a question? I just
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
10:18
thought he was bringing Mr. White to the table. Okay. Mr. White, Ms. Clemmer wants to hear
Speaker 46
10:23
you give your side of the story. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark White, Staff Attorney for the Department of Education. What this bill does, of course, number one, we're not doing anything in regards to the reasons for consolidation
or making it easier or harder to consolidate what we're doing is we're trying to clarify and give some additional flexibility for districts when they do consolidate and how they set up their interim boards and how they set up their permanent boards there aren't a lot of significant differences with current law where there are differences we've done our best to try and just give more flexibility to the districts so they have a little more control over their destiny any other questions mr. summers motion mr.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
11:04
chairman mr. summer this is the proper time I believe okay committee we have a motion do pass all those in favor say aye opposed no Let the ayes have it. Ms. Stewart, thank you for those two bills. Next, we have House Bill 1877 by Representative Pierce. I think he also has two bills, 1877 and 1910.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
11:43
I've got my department heads headed this way on this one. Okay. I won't take a whole lot of your time. I know we've got a lot of bills. Mr. Chair, this is the governor's bill for the category of funding bill, and, you know, it's a bill that we've got to get out
of here for the schools to get their category of funding. And, you know, if you've got any questions, we'll be glad to take them. Appreciate a good vote.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
12:13
committee any questions on 1877
mr. woods has there been any changes are there just strictly changes to update this legislation 1877
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
12:36
right now right that's right Yes.
Speaker 64
12:59
We got it. We got it. Okay. Okay, you're speaking to... Mr. Woods, would you identify yourself with the
Speaker 66
13:09
record, please? Sorry, Tony Woods, Department of Education. You're speaking to House Bill 1877 dealing with balances in regard to foundation funding? That's correct. Okay. The initial comments have been made on NSLA or categorical funding. This bill proposes that foundation funding will be expended in the year in which the revenue stream is generated by the state.
Now, there are a number of conditions that impact that. If you have a district that has an 80 percent, and I'm hesitant to use, there's some vagueness and work for the department to do should this become law in regard to the academic achievement of a district. If their academic achievement reflects an 80 percent level, and there would be indicators that are yet to be determined on what would define that 80 percent level of academic achievement. If they were in that category, we'll call that Category 1, then they don't have any responsibility to expend all of their foundation funding.
In other words, the $6,023 this year would not be required to be expended if they were in that category. In fact, they could carry over unexpended funds of categorical funds and use them as they saw fit, and they wouldn't be defined to be expended in regard to advocacy. If they fall in a category between 65% and 79%, they would be required to expend any carry forward of categorical funds that had not been expended in the prior year. They also would be required to expend 100% of the categorical funds in the current year.
So that would be a requirement of expenditure placed on the district. It would be subject to their judgment. There wouldn't be outside guidance given to the expending of those funds. If they fall in a range between 50% and 64%, then it becomes directive to a degree in that they have to be expended in a manner that will support children that are not achieving at a level that we would like to see them achieving. If they fall below 50% in regard to this academic standard, then it would be directed by the Department of Education in regard to how these funds would be expended for the improvement of academics for children.
So basically that kind of overviews the situation. Thank you, Mr. Woods.
Speaker 49
15:23
Committee, any questions? Seeing none, we'll
Speaker 61
15:25
go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill? Mr. Abernathy, you
Speaker 67
15:34
want to speak against this bill? You may come to
Speaker 68
15:46
the table, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Richard Abernathy, Executive Director of the Administrator's Association.
We have several concerns with this particular bill. The concept that Representative Pierce is trying to get to we think is very good. We went to him a month and a half ago and told him that we felt like this probably needed to be addressed. However, we've not been involved in any part of the conversation. So let me point out just a couple of things that we see problematic with the implementation of this particular bill. If you look over on page two, and it's talking about foundation funding, and I'm on line
19. Foundation funding means the amount of funding per school district is required to spend. Right now, there is no requirement to spend foundation funding. As a matter of fact, foundation funding cannot even be identified through ABSCAN. There are different reports out there that has prorated expenditures on what foundation funding is compared to local taxes but it cannot be identified at this time it is something where we're working towards and I think again we do need to be able to identify that but it is not identifiable right now if you look down
on 27 where it starts talking about the student achievement criteria and this is totally open at the department's discretion right now the way this bill is written you would think that you might want to use in the course exams benchmark exams but there's nothing in this bill that would limit what the the department may want to set up as far as the academic achievement criteria. It could be strictly that we're just going to use the ACT assessment or NAEP or anything that's out there. It is totally at their discretion.
Then when they do select whatever assessment they're going to use to set up this criteria, what's going to be the cutoff marks? How do you get 80%, 65%, 50%? Again, that's totally at the department's discretion, and we don't think that that's probably reasonable to turn that much authority away from the General Assembly and to the department. If you look on the bottom of page 2, line 36, it says the amount of school district foundation funding carried forward
existing on June 30, 2011. Again, I've mentioned those funds cannot be identified, and yet we're placing in law that those funds will be placed over in designated account as of june 30th 2011 that's impossible beginning with 80 percent on page three now sets up the criteria 80 percent i believe you heard mr wood say that if a district has 80 percent of a student achievement based on whatever criteria the department sets up and they can spend the
funds any way they want but once you get below 80 percent then it starts getting into if you look on line 19 um i'm sorry line 21 it says shall spend during the school year all foundation funding which again you go back up to line one we cannot exist we cannot pinpoint that right now but all foundation funding and carry forward to provide an adequate education for students we believe
that that is exactly what the legislature intends to do but let's just talk about adequate and what is adequate for instance if you go to the matrix which we consider the matrix as being provided funding for an adequate education if you have a matrix provides your school five teachers for instance in second grade to meet the standards which is what is considered adequate and the district wants to hire seven teachers would we be able to pay for those additional two teachers with foundation funds, or is that something that's going to come from
local funds that, again, is not coded correctly? Where does that leave athletics? Is that part of adequacy, or is it not? There's a pretty good bit of discussion right now on how transportation fits into that. Is it part of the adequacy, or is it not? If you spend more than $297, whatever it is, on transportation, is that part of adequacy, or is it not? We don't know. We think it's very open, and probably I hope it's someplace that the legislature does not want to go at this point.
When you look at the maintenance of facilities, again, I'll point out your athletic facilities. Can you spend adequacy money, foundation funding or carry forward funding, on maintaining your athletic facilities? I don't know. It's not defined in here. I think that's going to be problematic for districts as well as the legislature to try to defend when rules and regs are developed on this. When you look at all this, again, I'll go back, and I did go to Representative Pierce when I read the report that many of you received back around the middle of January.
It needs to be addressed. This bill does not address it, and it's not ready to be approved at this time. I would encourage you, it is something that we need to study, but we need to do it correctly and make sure that we get all the answers before we enact legislation that I think might be detrimental to schools in being able to provide an adequate education. I'd be glad to answer
Speaker 70
20:57
any questions. Thank you for your comments.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
20:59
Committee, any questions? Mr. Abernathy? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Abernathy, for your testimony. Mr. Abernathy spoke against the bill.
Anyone in the audience want to speak for the bill? Mr. Hutchinson, I believe you're signed up to speak for the bill.
Speaker 71
21:18
Recognize yourself to the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Richard Hutchinson, Arkansas Education Association. We do support the bill. We think it's very important that we begin to address this issue in a serious way, how to ensure that school districts are spending their money appropriately to address the academic and other deficiencies of the students that are enrolled in those
schools. We think this bill is an important first step. We think that, as Mr. Wood indicated in his testimony, there are some things that will have to happen in order to implement this. We feel confident, based upon our understanding of what the department is trying to do, that They will take the necessary steps to ensure that implementation of this will work right. Thank
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
22:05
you. MR. Committee, any questions of Mr. Hutchison?
Speaker 74
22:11
Ms. Steele. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 76
22:15
Mr. Hutchison, on page 2, line 29 and 30, where it speaks of a school district or a public charter school, how would
Speaker 77
22:25
charter schools be affected differently with this? I think charter schools would be
Speaker 79
22:31
affected the same way as this. This should apply to all public schools. Charter schools are public schools. Right, but I mean, no, but some
Speaker 76
22:41
of their funding mechanisms are a little different than the
normal public school. Am I correct with that? Well, they receive foundation funding.
Speaker 71
22:49
And also private funding. Well, yes. So would that mean
Speaker 76
22:52
just the public funding, or would that also include the private funding? I don't know that we could. I'd have to let someone
Speaker 71
22:58
else from the department or the sponsor answer that. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't think that would apply. Mr. Campbell, you want to comment? Yes. If you
Speaker 83
23:07
don't mind, Representative Steele, it would only apply to the foundation-level funding. The foundation funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 10
23:15
Any other questions, Committee? Mr. Hutchinson spoke
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
23:19
for the bill. Anyone else want to speak against the bill? Mr. Harder you may come
Speaker 86
23:30
to table. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ron Harder, Arkansas School Board Association. There is not much that I can add to Richard Abernathy's testimony, but I would like to revisit on page 3 in terms of on line 23 on the restriction of the use
of the funding, a second division 65 to 80 percent school would be required to spend all of its foundation funding and carry forward to provide an adequate education. And Richard spoke to that, but it is our understanding of an adequate education, what is in the matrix and what the matrix is founded on is the 38 units. It's nothing beyond that. So would
a district then that had a bunch of extra courses, your AP courses, extra science, extra math, would they be required to pare all of that back? It's a legitimate question. This This is an issue that does need to be addressed. We just don't think that the bill has all of the issues covered in it, and it will create more problems in the short run than it will solve. Thank you.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
24:52
Thank you. Committee, questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Harder. Anyone else
Speaker 10
25:00
want to speak against or for this bill in the audience?
Speaker 89
25:14
Mr. Abernathy. Thank you, Mr. and Bill Abernathy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. The concept that you're trying to get to here needs to be addressed.
We've discussed it. But at this point, it's not ready to become law. What you're doing here is passing a law, if you pass this bill, and you're having faith in the department, which I do too. But the law would be passed that could close down every school by the criteria. They could take over their spending. It's just not ready to become law. And I really hope that you will let the education community help develop this
on into a refined law, shoot with a target instead of a shotgun, and get a good bill out of this because what Representative is trying to address needs to be addressed, but this is not ready to become law. So I hope that you would want to study this more before the legislature just turns it over to someone and hope they'll do right that could take over the spending of all the schools should
they want to. That's what this bill would do. Thank you. Thank you. Committee questions?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
26:37
Seeing none, we're back at this. Mr. Kimball, would you come back to the table? Let me just, I'll I have a question or two before we take a vote on this issue. Yes, sir. Okay. Evidently, you've had Have you had conversations with the Administrator's Association about this bill? Yes, sir. Have you agreed to, has it been some kind of agreement to work together on issues that
Speaker 92
27:01
they have? These issues have been brought to our attention. This is, again, Representative Pierce's legislation. We've worked with Representative Pierce to put this into place. We know that there are some concerns and you're pretty much in the late stages of this session as you're well aware so
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
27:20
I guess is I hate to you know I just hope that the department will of course it's up to you to set up the rules and regulations that will actually do this and I
would hope that you would have conversations if this
Speaker 92
27:33
legislation passes well I can tell you that if this legislation passes before we set up rules we'll bring all the stakeholders into
Speaker 99
27:40
into play we'll ask questions we'll bet the rules out there before we even put them for public comment. That's one of the things that we do now. We don't just sit in the back rooms and develop rules and then put them out for public comment. We ask people to come, help us develop the first initial draft of the rules. So we would be more than willing to do that to ensure the rules. And
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
28:01
looking at fund balances, it's hard just to be looking at a fund
balance at snapshot in time. It's hard to understand, especially with my feeble mind, but sometimes you wonder. But again, I hate to see us put rules on someone that's going to make them spend money unnecessarily, I guess what I'm trying to say. And I think that we've got to have good
Speaker 92
28:20
rules and regulations. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, sir. We'd have
Speaker 99
28:23
to have those. Now, understand, this isn't fund balances over and above anything that's generated above the
Speaker 96
28:29
$25 million URT foundation-level funding. For instance, this year, it would be $6,023 times the three-quarter ADM last year.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
28:35
Thank you, Mr. Kimbrell. Committee, we're back to you. I would entertain a motion. Mr. Pearson made a motion to do pass oh yeah I'm sorry Mr. Pearson you want to close for
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
28:51
your bill I'll let you close Mr. Pearson thank you Mr. Chair it seems like you know you start out and everybody says it's not the right time it's not the right time when is the right time to start doing what's right for the kids nobody is asking anybody to take their money away from anything else
we're just asking for the URT money which is 25 meals I sat here and listened to a superintendent talk about everything but the kids. He talked about football fields. He talked about basketball fields. One time that he didn't say one word about the kids. We are sitting there carrying over money in failing school districts, and that's all we ask them to do. We're not asking for the people's money that's over the 25 mils. That is their money. But right now we've got all I heard when I started this thing three times ago, and it was it's not the right time, it's not the right time,
because we mix red money with blue money. But when they mix that over 25 mils in with the blue money, it always becomes red money. There's a time and a place where we've got to stop and say, you've got to start spending the money on kids. When you're running it over and you've got over two-thirds of what you have left in your fund balance and you're a failing school district, that is a shame on Arkansas and that is a shame on us for letting it happen. That is not right. We've got to stop it. Everybody said, you heard the twos that's talked against. It says, now it's not the time.
Now it's not the time. Nobody is trying to take anything away from the 25 mills, which is the state, I mean, above the 25 mills. The 25 mills belongs to the state of Arkansas. We're asking them to spend that in a way. We've got to separate the red and the blue money. We'll never understand where it's going. Right now you have the districts out there, and there's $1.5 billion, I said with a B, billion dollars in excess funds right now in the state of Arkansas. We have a prison population problem. We have a problem with our spending our money. When the school district fails, it fails the kids and it fails the whole state of Arkansas.
We're not using our money. And that's all I'm asking for is us. This is not the rules I started out with. I had to work with the attorney general, the education department, and the governor's office. Because if it had been up to me, it would have been a lot stricter. This thing is so watered down, it doesn't do what it has to. In this arena, you have to compromise. But when you're asking for them to spend their money on their kids, that's all I'm asking you, 25 mils. If we don't ask, what happened to the thing when we come across 50% in Arkansas,
we're asking to get it 50%. We ask that to be bumped up. If we do not ask our kids to achieve more, what are we expecting out of our kids? We say, I was on the board for years, and when we got to 50% and we got over, we pat our staff on the back and say, oh, thank you, we did great. Then we would fall down. It must have been the test. Well, folks, we are the test. We are the ones that are setting these goals for these kids. So why is it not that we do not spend the people's money in the right way on our kids? And that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking them to mess with anything above the 25 mils.
But everybody you heard testify against says it's not the right time. Six years almost now this is going on the fifth one. It's never the right time. But I appreciate a good vote on it, and thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Committee, that's your motion. I mean, Mr.
Speaker 47
31:53
Pierce, that's your motion. Motion to do pass, I'm assuming. Yes, sir. Committee, we
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
31:59
have a motion to do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. I believe the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. You have one other bill I believe that is non-controversial. Is that correct? Aye. Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. 19-10, committee.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
32:24
19-10. I'd make a due pass on it, too, if it worked. You can present your bill, Mr. Pierce. This is the category of funding bill for the governor of
Speaker 109
32:31
Arkansas, and we've got to get this thing going, it seems like. So he's been on my case. Thank you very
Speaker 61
32:38
much. Committee? Mr. Wood, you might be making any comments, or are you the same way? The governor's on your case, too?
No comment. Mr. Summers, do you have a question?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
32:51
No, sir, I have a motion. Any questions, committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak
Speaker 112
32:59
against this bill or for this bill? No, sir.
Speaker 10
33:02
Mr. Harbin, you want to speak for or against this bill? Okay. In less than two minutes.
Speaker 113
33:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
Speaker 86
33:16
Ron Harbin, Arkansas School Board Association. Almost every objection we had to the last bill is taken care of in this bill. We think this is a good bill. We support this bill. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Committee, I thank Mr. Summers. Do you have
Speaker 117
33:30
a motion? Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. Committee,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
33:35
all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Leave the ayes. Have it. Mr. Pierce. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Committee, at this time, we're going to go back and look at Ms. Hutchinson's bill, 1786. That was a good year. 1786 Mr. Chairman yes sir Mr. Steele can I
Speaker 74
34:04
move that we withdraw House Bill 1436 from further consideration that will be a proper
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
34:11
motion all those in favor aye I'll oppose like signed thank you Mr. Steele alright
Committee, we've got a handout we're going to give you before we get started on this 1786, and it's coming to you. Ms. Hutchinson, you can go ahead and start
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
34:45
your presentation if you want to. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Most of the goals of the remediation caucus, which I've been a member of, have successfully been passed through Representative Roebuck's and others' bills, which I have
co-sponsored, I think generally the remediation caucus has been very successful. We've worked for years, and we're beginning to see the light of day. However, we had one goal that was not reached, and that was Jody Mahoney's bill that was passed in 1993. It was House bill 1757 you have that bill in front of you in front of the top part it's a very short bill it said the department of higher ed shall develop a system to calculate the total amount of state
funds spent on remediation of first time entering freshman students the amount spent on remediation at public four years shall not exceed the amount spent as of 1997. It's already law. It's in the Arkansas Code. Back in 2009, when we were looking at it, we wondered why it wasn't enforced. We had an accountant from the higher ed look at it, and he informed
us that only the university, Arkansas State University in Jonesboro was consistently obeying this law. Governor Beebe voted for this law in 1993, and we had hoped that he would support this law when he became governor, but so far he hasn't. And like the previous governors, we've learned that apparently there's some laws that are enforced and some that are not. So the bill I sponsored 1786 came into being. Now remember Jody Mahoney's bill
was passed in 1993, that was 14 years ago. My bill would have given higher ed 10 more years to obey this law but no one was, they weren't excited about my bill so I've decided to pull it down. However, we're back to where we started again. We still have Jody Mahoney's bill. It's still law. It doesn't matter if I pull mine down or not.
Jody Mahoney's bill is still law. It's still part of the Arkansas Code. I don't know who the next director of higher ed will be. I hope he'll follow this law and develop, as it says, a system to calculate the total amount spent. However, if he doesn't accomplish this, and we don't see movement in it, there will be a lawsuit toward the end of 2012. We can't pick and choose the laws we want to obey and the laws we want to ignore.
I think our state, in a most cold-hearted manner, closes good schools if they drop under 350. And when people complain about it, they're told, well, it's the law. We're sorry. Well, I think the four-year colleges need to hear that statement also. They need to obey this law that has been on the books for 14 years. I hope the new director will be announced soon, and he can start figuring out how to calculate a system.
But I encourage Mr. Shane Broadway to even now begin to tackle the problem. I'm hoping that by 2012, when we look at this again, there will be no need for a lawsuit because the State of Arkansas will be obeying this law that was passed by Mr. Jody Mahoney. And that was a promise I made to him before he passed away. So thank you very much. Ms. Hutchinson, we have one question.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
38:40
We may have more than one, but we've got at least one. Representative Roebuck has a question.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
38:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hutchinson, for bringing this bill. I am your co-sponsor, and I'm sure I speak for Senator Key, who's also your Senate co-sponsor. Just to clarify for members, when Mr. Mahoney sponsored House Bill 1757 and the governor at that time signed it into law and it became Act 1141, is it your understanding that the reason that that law was never really understood or obeyed was because there was no penalty attached?
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
39:17
Correct. There was no encouragement to obey the law. It was just floating out there, so the bill that we worked up, our remediation caucus, we wanted to put a little bit of teeth in it, so it would encourage people and the universities to obey. And we gave them another 10 years. In other words, they would have had 25 years to obey this one law. And since this bill wasn't accepted, we're now down to one year or a lawsuit will prevail.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
39:47
And my next question, if I can, Mr. Chair, is this bill,
House Bill 1786, the result of months of work that you, as the leader of the remediation interim study, that you actually chaired that and that you worked on and this is the result of that work? Yes.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:06
I remember, and I'm sure many of you will remember all these maps we had around the walls and we passed a law and the schools had to tell us how many students needed remediation mediation. This study has gone on for years and years. This just isn't come out of nowhere.
The discussion started when Mr. Mahoney was still alive. So this isn't a late blooming idea. We have been discussing for years how
to get the state to enforce this one particular
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
40:39
law. Last question, Mr. Chair. Isn't it true, Representative Hutchinson, that the amount of money that we're currently spending in our two- and four-year institutions exceeds $82 million total that
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
40:52
we spend on remediation? Yes, and it's also very hard to even figure that out because schools use different criteria,
different ways of measuring, and that's why Mr. Mahoney's bill gave higher ed the responsibility to develop a system so that we can be speaking the same language. Some schools thought they were obeying the law, but we found out they weren't. Some schools were giving the wrong information and therefore got more money from the state than they should have. The four-year universities have basically just been wandering in the universe.
I think some of them with an honest approach thought they were obeying, but there's others that it was pretty clear they weren't obeying the law. So we just need to, I think we would have had, if we had started enforcing this law when Mr. Mahoney passed it, I don't think we would have had the remediation problems that we have now. We've just kicked the problem for 14 years down the road. And I think it's time that we take this seriously, let the four years know they are supposed
to be making their money giving out credit courses, teaching credit courses, and K-12 should learn. They need to teach their students the first time around because we can't afford to teach them again after they get out of high school. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 70
42:21
Thank you, ma'am. Committee, what's your pleasure? She's pointing
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
42:26
it down, so we don't need to vote. Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson. Thank you. The next committee, we will look at
Speaker 124
42:33
House Bill 1995. Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
42:36
you have someone that wants to testify for you down
Speaker 141
42:40
there. Okay. You're identified. Mr. Chairman, House Bill 1995 is a bill that deals with excessive absences. And with the chair and committee permission, I have with me Dr. Randy Willison, superintendent of the Batesville School District, who will further explain the bill with the permission of the chair. Identify
Speaker 145
43:09
yourself with the record, please, then you may proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Randy Willison. I'm superintendent of the Batesville School District, and I'm here to talk about House Bill 1995. The bill language, if passed, would eliminate the distinction between unexcused and excused absences so that in the future, if a student is not present in school, they would just be considered absent. The purpose of the bill is to encourage student attendance. And the reason why the bill is necessary is because one of the unintended consequences of our current attendance process is we're teaching kids and, by extension, their parents that it's okay to miss school.
Not only is it okay to miss school, but under the current law, it's okay to miss school without an excuse. The current language is that each district establishes a maximum number of allowable, unexcused absences. Well, quite frankly, that number should be zero. It should never be okay to be absent from school unexcused. And we also have a situation where student absenteeism and then, in the future, worker absenteeism creates quite a burden on the system. The intended consequence of this bill, we hope the positive outcomes of this bill would be that, first,
we would create a better system of identifying how many times a student should or should not be absent from school. A conversation could take place between parents, the business community, and school district leaders to identify what's a reasonable expectation for student attendance for whatever reason. That standard may be different for different grade levels and so forth, but the bottom line is that we could have a conversation involving all the stakeholders to provide a better system. The second is to encourage students and parents to be accountable for absenteeism and to encourage those students who are able to attend school to do so when they can.
And the third consequence would be to streamline the process currently employed by administrators at the building level, primarily at the secondary schools, to record and account for and then to enforce the consequences of attendance as opposed to how it's done now. Several things will not change as a result of this bill. The first thing is that those students who have chronic medical issues that cause them to be absent from school on a regular basis are still protected under IDEA through their individual education plan or under Section 504 of the federal law. That will not change.
It also provides a provision whereby when parents and students find themselves in unique circumstances that cause them to be chronically absent, the administrators can make special arrangements and come to an agreement to try to manage those absences as best possible because things happen in life. Houses burn down, parents divorce, people get relocated, and things happen. The intent is not to make it difficult for people who have chronic or realistic reasons why they can't come to school. The issue is to engender a better attitude towards coming to school when you're able
and to provide a mechanism whereby that can be managed. I think one of the positive outcomes might be also a conversation and a focus on student attendance and making it an effort will help students develop the habits of attendance, the habits of coming to school on a regular basis every day they possibly can. We'll spill over into their adult lives, and there will be workers who come to work every day. And while that has a benefit for the individual organizations, that also makes a big difference in
Speaker 146
46:13
how those students and those adults function in their lives after school.
Speaker 74
46:19
Mr. Steele, you have questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 3, line
Speaker 147
46:26
19, it's a guardian or person of what is that? Excuse me? On page 3, line 19? Yes. Sometimes there is a person
Speaker 149
46:38
in loco parentis, a person who is appointed by the court system to be a
Speaker 145
46:45
guardian, to act as a guardian temporarily as opposed to a permanent guardian.
Speaker 146
46:50
The idea being that the adult person who is legally responsible for the
Speaker 147
46:55
student in the student's absences. And you mentioned that a child should have a legitimate excuse to miss school and it should not just miss school for no reason. I
Speaker 145
47:06
think the expectation should be that students should be in school. When there's an occasion when a student cannot be in school, and sometimes those are unavoidable, it should be something that we consider. Right now what happens is there's a number of days a student is allowed to miss. In many cases, if they have a doctor's note or some other documentation, it's unlimited.
We have among the shortest school years in the civilized world, and a student who's absent 10, 15, 20 times a semester for different reasons is missing out on a huge chunk of their school experience. The simple fact is that we need to have a reasonable standard. What's reasonable for a student to be absent for different reasons? I'm sick. I can't come to school. I have to attend a funeral out of state, those kind of things. That standard should be set by each school district independently based on their needs. That's what this bill would, I hope, would happen. They'd have to talk
Speaker 146
47:49
about what makes sense. But the intent is to make sure that people understand that this intent is expected.
Speaker 76
47:55
And I understand that, sir. The chairman has his foot on the accelerator, so let me cut you off and ask another question. So what about a child who is a high-performing student and, say, their family wants to go on vacation? Would that be considered? I would think
Speaker 145
48:10
that depending on the number of days a student's already missed, that might be reasonable. If a student has not missed any other days, let's just use an example. Let's say the district decides seven absences a semester is a reasonable number of absences. Well,
Speaker 153
48:23
if I have only missed two days, I want to decide.
If I had to exceed that, then it's an issue. If
Speaker 44
48:31
I had to exceed that, it would be an issue. Mr. Stewart, do you have a question? MR.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
48:36
Yes, thank you. Am I reading this right? This only applies to the Arkansas Code that's dealing with the career education classes? MR.
Speaker 145
48:45
Actually, the language involves any of the statutes that has a distinction for excused or unexcused absences. MR. Okay. So we're
Speaker 36
48:50
keying in on FFA, FFJ, and 4-H programs in here? MR. That particular statute, which was passed a few years ago,
Speaker 145
48:59
was designed to provide inexcused absences for students who attend those activities. We tried to create language that would not harm the intent of those previous bills. And so what we did instead was to talk about additional absences instead of excused absences. In other words, it doesn't mean it diminishes the opportunity for students to attend those activities. We tried. I worked with Mr. Harder pretty closely to try to find a way to make sure the language of each of the statutes that involves excused or unexcused absences would not be affected
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
49:29
negatively. But don't schools give excused absences for other things attending state tournaments by the club conventions
Speaker 146
49:34
Yes, they do and those activities those activities that are school-related should not be
Speaker 145
49:40
counted as absences anyway But that's again part of the conversation would take place among the school districts to identify how many absences is reasonable And it allows for the principal to make arrangements
Speaker 157
49:51
for certain for special circumstances like that Any other questions committee? Hutchison you
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
49:58
have a question Thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure if someone became very ill, one of the students became very
ill and couldn't finish, like, the last month of school or in this bill, the school or the school board can let them make it up during the summer. They'll work with them. Absolutely. In
Speaker 160
50:18
automatic, you fail. Absolutely. Many students in that
Speaker 145
50:21
situation would qualify under 504, Section 504, for medical hardship, but it would also be something, as the code implies, that a principal can make arrangements with any parent who's having unique circumstances. In fact, it places the accountability on the parent to initiate that practice.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
50:38
Any additional questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against
this bill, for this bill? Seeing none, we're back to the committee. I'm sorry. Ron. I won't
Speaker 86
50:57
be long, but I did want to address Representative Stewart's question. There was a lot of work into this bill, and one of the good parts of many is on page 3,
17 through 30 through 29 which is prior to now once a student exceeded their their unexcused absences then they were turned over to the prosecuting well the district had to submit that to the prosecuting attorney he's obligated to prosecute the parents for the truancy of their son, daughter.
This language allows for the meeting to take place to address the absences before, once it is past the half number of absences, before it gets past that point of turning over to the prosecuting attorney. And I think that's a really good addition to the current law. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Committee, any other? Ms. Clemmer, you have
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
52:03
a question to Mr. Harder or someone at the end of the table? I was going
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
52:13
Committee, we have a motion due passed by Mrs. Clemmer. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Believe the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. McLean. Committee, we
have at this point in time, we have House Bill 2010 by Mr. Hubbard, Representative Hubbard. you'll come in at the table please you may present your bill I think
Mr. Hubbard actually has two bills he wants to run 2010 and 2011
John Hubbard
Unverified
53:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need to apologize. I had someone who was going to come speak in favor of the bill, and for whatever reason, they are not here this morning. So I'll just try to do as best I can and present what I think are the merits of the bill. House Bill 2010, I'm bringing this bill on behalf of the patrons of Wiener School District in particular,
and all the rural school districts in Arkansas in general. For most of y'all who are aware of the situation, Winter School District, it's a school district just south of Jonesboro, Arkansas, a very well-performing district as far as educational performance and also a district that was very financially sound. What this bill does, I'll just read the caption of the title. This is an act
Speaker 169
54:02
to amend the Public Education Reorganization Act to require the Department
of Education to consider factors in addition to average daily membership before forcing the consolidation or annexation of a public school district and for other purposes. Winter School District,
John Hubbard
Unverified
54:18
again, they dropped below the 350 required membership and were consolidated with, there was two or three attempts to consolidate them with other schools, but they ended up being consolidated with Harrisburg School District. One of the things I think we're losing sight of when we allow things like this to happen
is that Wheeler School District and a lot of our rural school districts are in communities where, in my way of thinking, are the backbone of this country. The values of the people living in those districts, long-established communities, People have been there for decades and even centuries in some cases, as was Wiener. Wiener School District was a district that they didn't need to take second place to anybody.
They educated students. They got a very good education. The district was financially sound. But because they dropped below the 350 enrollment number, they were forced to be consolidated. This bill is
Speaker 169
55:26
going to say, basically, it says, except provided in subsection B of this section, by January 1st of each year, the Department of Education shall publish a list, a consolidation list that includes all school districts with fewer than 350 students, according to the school district average daily membership, in each of the two previous school years immediately preceding the current school year.
The department shall not include on the consolidation list under subsection A of this section a school district that for two school years immediately preceding the current school year and through the date, the consolidation
John Hubbard
Unverified
56:07
list has not been identified by the department as, Number one, being in academic distress or school
Speaker 170
56:13
improvement. Number two, having an annual improvement category rating of level one or level two.
Speaker 171
56:22
Number three, having an annual performance category rating of level one or level
Speaker 170
56:27
two. Number four, being in physical distress. And number five, being in facilities distress. the winter school district to the best of my knowledge was a superior school district in each of those categories except it fell just a
John Hubbard
Unverified
56:46
little bit below 350 enrollment and that is the purpose for me filing this bill
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
56:53
thank you sir committee any questions any
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
57:01
questions committee Ms. Hutchison thank
you for bringing up this issue I
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
57:09
appreciate it I believe
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
57:13
that we're having our problem with transportation and funding that is because we did close
good schools that came under 350 and we didn't take into any thought that
other schools then would have to run their buses longer and longer routes. So in one sense, we didn't save money by closing these schools. We just created another problem. There is – if this bill does pass, there is no way to reopen schools that have already been closed. Correct? No, ma'am. All right. Thank you. The basic reason I'm bringing this bill – and again, I've
Speaker 174
57:52
tried to see if there was some way we could go back and save
Speaker 170
57:57
the Winter School District in particular, but from everything
I could find out that that would not be possible at this time. But the reason I'm bringing the bill is to try to prevent this same catastrophe from affecting other well-performing school districts. As we've seen, there are school districts all over the state that are huge with the
John Hubbard
Unverified
58:18
number count. Their facilities might be in real good shape because we're throwing millions of dollars in them through various desegregation lawsuits and other schools that are in very wealthy areas
Speaker 170
58:28
that have very nice facilities. But we're allowing school districts like Wiener and several other school districts around
this state that education is taking place in a
John Hubbard
Unverified
58:39
very high level, and isn't that the reason that we have schools in the first place, the education of our children? And that
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
58:49
was my purpose for bringing this bill. Okay, thank you. Committee, any other questions? Seeing
Speaker 74
58:55
none, we'll go. Mr. Steele. One quick one, Mr. Chairman. So how
Speaker 76
59:00
would it affect districts that are financially distressed then?
You said if there is a school that has a healthy financial situation, why should it close? Then how would this bill then affect a district that's having financial difficulties?
Speaker 170
59:17
Well, if it was in financial difficulties and if it was also
John Hubbard
Unverified
59:24
in if the test scores and the academic achievement of the school was in jeopardy, then that would be reasons to force consolidation.
Speaker 170
59:35
But in Wiener's case, they were not in financial distress. Their facilities were in good shape. The education of the children there was at a very high
John Hubbard
Unverified
59:45
level. and the only category that they fell short on was 350. Now, they're kind of a migrant-type community, a lot of agriculture. People are coming in and out throughout the year. And best I remember, I think the number, the enrollment number, just dropped just barely below the 350th level. And they had a tough time kind of maintaining that level.
But that was the only area they fell short in. I don't know if
Speaker 76
1:00:13
that answers your question or not, but that's... It does answer my question, But just my concern, how would that be fair to a school district that the
Speaker 77
1:00:24
coach would have the same situation but don't have the fortune of having a financial stability as
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:00:31
some other school? I understand that that is a problem. But in this particular case, that wasn't the situation.
And, again, the reason this bill, I guess the kind of underlying reason, is to say that if of the three major categories, the financial, the education level, and the enrollment, if all three of those are used to decide whether or not a school district is going to be forced consolidated, if the financial and the educational level are good, then I'm just saying that I don't think the 350 level on the enrollment should be the only criteria used to force this well-performing school district into consolidation.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:01:17
Any other questions, committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. I think we have a couple of people signed up to speak against this bill, and I think, Mr. Smith, you may come to the table. I'm sorry. Sorry. It's been
Speaker 176
1:01:35
a long 11, 12 weeks. You have my full sympathy on that. You recognize yourself, please, for the record. Scott Richardson with the Attorney General's office. We oppose this bill. As the committee is aware, one of the main rulings from the Lakeview case was that the General Assembly has an obligation to
Speaker 177
1:01:52
provide an adequate level of funding to schools.
And we do that on a per, or the General Assembly does that on a per-student basis. So schools are funded based on the number of kids that attend the school. And there is a point at which there are too few schools to provide that adequate level of funding, and the General Assembly decided that that number was 350 students. This bill presents a change in that, but without the adequacy study to determine what effect this bill would have
on the adequacy of funding to those school districts that fall below 350 students. So you would have a situation where you have affected adequacy without any recommendation from the adequacy subcommittee that it be changed and without any sort of study on what would happen to the revenue available to those schools and to those students in those schools and whether or not the districts that might fall into these exceptions would maintain that adequate level of funding. Now, the Wiener School District, by all accounts, was in good shape.
They filed a federal lawsuit, and I defended that lawsuit, and that's still on appeal right now to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was dismissed by the federal court. The federal court found that there were no legal violations with that closure. And we also explained to the court how this system works. And part of the goal, as I understand it, from the General Assembly's perspective of this 350 number, is for districts that are able to maintain academic standards,
my understanding is the General Assembly wants to catch them, before they fall off the edge of the cliff, once they go below 350, they're inadequately funded under the current studies and evidence taken by the General Assembly. So after they get there, then you're definitely going to have these problems start coming up because you don't have an adequate level of funding. that study, without the evidence before the committee of how adequacy could be maintained
in funding for those small school districts, this bill becomes very constitutionally problematic. Good. Ms. Hutchinson, you
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:04:22
have a question? You're recognized. Thank you.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:04:27
Thank you for coming, and I think we've all wrestled with exactly what you've said. And since many of
these small schools that we've closed because they're below 350, yet they were doing a good job educating their students and had their head above water
financially, do you think maybe we should revisit that number?
Speaker 177
1:04:51
Well, I would. Would that be done? I would note one thing. This is administrative consolidation. There's no requirement in the law currently that any schools be closed. And, for example, I understand in Wiener, the schools are still open in Wiener, although they've been administratively consolidated with the Harrisburg School District. It's also my understanding, and maybe the department could provide more information, but there were some problems when Harrisburg went into the Wiener School District with their funding and their revenue.
But the General Assembly could look at that again, But you would need to do an evidence-based study to examine how it would affect the adequacy of funding provided to those small school districts and what would be needed to maintain an adequate level of funding in school districts that fall below 350. And that hasn't been done. Mr. Hummer, Mr. Hubbard, do
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:05:46
you want to comment? Well, yes, sir. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Wiener School District had a $500,000 surplus.
And you can look at this district and say that they were doing everything right. Everything that you want a school district to do was being done by the Wiener School District, yet that school district was seen as not at standard because of the numbers level. Now, that number goes up and down, from my understanding, in Wiener. But, again, for that one criteria that they didn't meet up with, that their school was allowed to be or forced to be consolidated. And we know what happens to these rural communities when the schools,
which many times is the last thing that's really holding that community together, are allowed to be disbanded, consolidated, forced to join up with another school district. The community itself begins to die out because that was the only thing left holding that community together. Now, I don't know
Speaker 170
1:06:45
if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think it's a good thing to have the rural school districts. And
Speaker 172
1:06:53
you look at Wiener's education performance against students in much larger schools and schools that have.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:06:59
Ms. Clemmer, I hate to interrupt you, but will you say that for your clothes, please? We've got a couple more
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:07:08
questions. We'll do. We'll do. Ms. Clemmer. Just a quick question. How many years do school districts
Speaker 176
1:07:15
have once they drop 350? They have to be on the consolidation list for two years, two consecutive years
Speaker 177
1:07:20
below 350 before they then must consolidate. Okay, I thought it was like
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:07:24
that. Now, and then tell me again how long they get to stay on the academic distress list.
Nine years? I think two. They said we
Speaker 176
1:07:37
had schools in the ninth year of academic. That's different. That's NCLB. That's
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:07:42
school improvement. But we, okay, just a real different standard if they're failing. We'll get that answer for you
Speaker 171
1:07:49
just a second. Mr. Chairman, one thing I would like to bring up is that this bill is only saying that
Speaker 169
1:07:57
the one criteria is not the sole criteria to use if all of the criterias are satisfactory.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:08:03
Okay. Mr. Stewart, do you have a question also? Yes, and I don't agree the 350 is a good number. And I think Mitch Richardson said we need to do an accuracy study if we were to address that. But I can make a point. We did a study this week on transportation, and we didn't follow it.
Speaker 75
1:08:26
Just make that point. Thank you, Ms. Steer.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:08:28
Ms. Hobbs, do you have a question? Yes, Mr. Chair,
thank you. You mentioned evidence-based. Was a 350 number evidence-based?
Because they looked at 500 and they dropped it to 350. Was that an evidence-based number, or how was that derived? I
Speaker 193
1:08:44
think there's a rational basis for the 350, and part of what we presented to
Speaker 177
1:08:50
Judge Moody in federal court was that if you add up the maximum number of students per class to now that the funding model is based on a 500 school, 500 student school district, and that's two elementary schools and one high school. If you take one elementary school and one high school,
you end up with max class size of about 350 students. And so that's how the 350 number matches up with funding a school. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:09:23
Any other questions? Mr. Richard, thank you for your comments. And we'll go next to I think we have someone signed up to speak for the bill. Mr. Finley you
may have a seat and recognize yourself at the record please Thank you Mr. Chairman
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:09:43
Thank you committee I'm Clay Finley representing the Deer Mount Judy School District I guess Ms. Hobbs Mr. Finley is your mic
Speaker 103
1:09:54
up there you go get close Okay is that better? Some of these people have a little hard
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:10:01
of hearing up here on this table up here As far as the 350 number and where that came from, it's my understanding that there is no evidence-based study supporting that 350 number. As I recall, I've seen a work from a graduate student that did research into where that
350 number came from, and the conclusion of that was that the 350 number was the number where there were sufficient. It affected a small enough number of school districts that that number could get to the General Assembly. that's where the 350 number come from. I'd also like to address Mr. Richardson's point that somehow this 350 number relates to adequate funding. And Representative Hutchinson, I think you're right on point in your question. What happens after these small schools are consolidated
into larger school districts as the consolidated district then realizes that these small schools are not adequately funded as you have the transportation issue when we talked about transportation the mr. Richardson said well there's other categories where some schools may be getting too much money but when you talk about these small rural schools they're getting not enough money in every category they're not getting enough money for teachers they're not getting enough money facilities
they're not getting enough money for transportation so going back to this bill we think a small school district that is managing to keep its head above water financially doing a good job of educating the kids there's absolutely no reason for that school to be closed it is not better for efficiency purposes but as represented Hutchinson pointed out it then becomes more expensive to to transport that kid to a consolidated school somewhere far away, you have the issue of
excessive transportation time and the impact of that on the student's achievement. All that taken into consideration, we believe this is a good bill and would urge
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:12:01
the committee to pass it. Thank you for your comments. Committee, any questions? Mr. Finley? Not seeing none. We'll go back to the
Speaker 67
1:12:08
audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill? Mr. Kimbrell, you may come to the table, please.
Speaker 92
1:12:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department of Education would like to speak against this bill as to what we believe
it is – well, I won't rehash the things that the Attorney General's Office to save you time. To address the issue of school improvement, academic distress is defined differently than school improvement. School improvement as we know it under No Child Left Behind has categories beginning with alert all the way up to years 9 and 10. In this case, academic distress is defined as 75 percent of the students in that district below proficiency. So in this case,
Speaker 99
1:12:49
you're probably not going to find – well, right now, we don't even
have any schools or school districts close to this academic distress category. So in essence, what you're going to be talking about is any school that drops below 350 will not meet these requirements anyway. So ultimately what you would be doing with this bill is allowing schools to continue to operate after they drop below the $350 for two consecutive years. Thanks, sir. Ms.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:13:16
Hobbs, do you have a question? Mr. Kimbrell?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:13:19
Yes, sir. Thank you. Who defines academic distress? Who said that?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:13:27
State Board. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions? Seeing
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:13:31
none, we'll go back to the audience. Anyone who wants to speak for this bill and then
against this bill? Okay, committee, we're back to you. What is your pleasure? Ms. Hobbs? We have a motion to do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Leave it passed.
Speaker 174
1:13:54
I don't know how to react on a do-pass bill. No. Somebody can't know what we do next.
Speaker 4
1:13:59
You go to the house floor. The only problem,
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:14:13
I've got another one coming. Okay, you recognize to present that bill? Thank you, sir. As everybody well knows, I don't bring anything controversial. Everything I bring is a little cleanup bill, so this is the next to last one I've got to present during this session.
Speaker 171
1:14:26
Are we ready to go to 2011 now, sir? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay, 2011 is a bill intended to help those who see the
Speaker 170
1:14:40
opportunity to receive a better education in a private school or homeschool setting. The wording of the act, it says an act to provide one-half of the per-student funding to a resident school district
for a student who is homeschooled or is enrolled in a private school or secondary school and one-half of the student allotment back to the public school district. Now, after I filed this bill, I have spoken to some public school superintendents. That informed me that they do not receive funding for students who are not enrolled in their district. So the bill itself, since it
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:15:22
was filed, has taken on just a little bit of a different picture, but without any difference in the purpose for filing the bill.
When you think about the per student amount that
Speaker 170
1:15:36
is provided by the state, I believe it's $6,023, something like that. But the parents who, for whatever reason, take their child to homeschool or enroll them in a private school, these people are paying taxes that go to fund education in Arkansas and have been for, I guess, since the beginning of our public school systems, or since the
tax base was used to support these schools. These parents of these students in public schools and private schools, by the fact that they receive no help education-wise to pay for the education of their
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:16:18
students or their children, are basically being disenfranchised as far as getting into financial aid. And another factor in this picture is
Speaker 170
1:16:29
that these people in many cases pay a greater share,
a much greater share of the tax base that is used to fund education than are people in public schools. I'm not trying to make this a public school, private school issue. All I'm trying to say is with this bill that the people who are enrolling their children in home schools or in private schools should also have some form of aid to use their own tax money that they're
Speaker 171
1:16:56
paying toward education to help educate their children.
Speaker 47
1:17:10
I'll be open for questions. Committee questions? Seeing none, we'll
Speaker 205
1:17:19
go to the audience. Oh, Ms. Carnine, you have a.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:17:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the only question I have is that the revenue impact on is $86 million. I'm assuming, and I would hope that the department could answer it,
is this money coming from some other source, or is it additional money? In other words, the $86 million on revenue impact, and that's my concern, is where do we get the money? Is it already somebody else's by budget, and we're taking that away, or is it additional money? And after I
looked at the budget, I'm wondering where's the money coming from? Mr. Carnine, I think Mr. Kimball may
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:18:07
try to answer that question for you.
Speaker 92
1:18:10
According to the bill, Representative Carnine, our fiscal impact analysis, these are students who are coming, are being funded that are currently in private schools, are not currently in a public school, are coming from home school, which are not currently in the
Speaker 99
1:18:25
system. So this is a new set, a new fiscal impact of $86 million to the state immediately. With
Speaker 203
1:18:36
no funding? with no additional funding based upon the Revenue Stabilization Act
and the governor's budget as of right now. Well, my
Speaker 170
1:18:44
contention here is that these people are paying taxes. This tax money that they're paying is going toward education. And if that money, if those students were members of the public schools, yes. Let me stop you again.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:18:56
Save that for your clothes, please. I mean, I want you to say it. You know, give me a chance, but since we're in a little press for time, I'm going to take questions, and then we'll just make a note in your closing. Yes, sir. Come in. Committee, any other questions?
Speaker 142
1:19:11
Any other questions? Mr. McLean? Okay, Representative Hubbard, I just need to, just for my own benefit, so we're going to essentially be, for homeschoolers, we're going to
Speaker 170
1:19:29
be giving them money. Is that the deal? That would be a portion of the bill. But this bill also allows they have to be in a homeschool situation for a year, have met certain educational criteria, and that would make them eligible to be able to receive some funding from the tax base.
Okay. I know this is a different formula than
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:19:53
we've ever seen before, and it's
Speaker 141
1:19:55
kind of hard to envision how it would actually work. So would the Department of Education, based upon applications and evidence and all this stuff, be cutting checks to
Speaker 170
1:20:08
people? That is yet to be worked out as far as the administrative function of how that
Speaker 171
1:20:14
would work. Okay. Well, I mean, do you see any potential for fraud?
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:20:20
I guess there's always that potential. But also, there's a lot of potential to get people who, for
Speaker 170
1:20:27
whatever reason, are not satisfied that their child is getting a good opportunity for an education in a public school district they may be going to. And let me say, too, I think there's a lot of public schools in this state that are excellent school districts. But unfortunately, there are some that people cannot, for whatever reason, get an education that they want for their child in those districts, and they have to go either the private school route or homeschool route.
And the cost of educating a student in the private school and homeschool sector is
Speaker 169
1:21:01
quite a bit less than the per-student cost in
Speaker 141
1:21:05
the public school sector. So this sounds like an entitlement. This country is very aware of entitlements. Entitlement, and I just think homeschoolers do
Speaker 142
1:21:18
a great job. There's a lot of evidence to support that folks that homeschool their children,
those children have a great deal of success.
Speaker 141
1:21:28
What I've got a problem with is the state cutting checks to people without a mechanism to thoroughly police it. Right. And that's kind of my concern. I'm not concerned, too. I appreciate you answering questions, Representative Hubbard. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Clemmer, you have
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:21:49
a question? A quick question. So your bill on page 2 allows for the parent, the parent has to show expenses like school books.
Speaker 170
1:21:59
Right. They don't just get a check. No, it's not just a check for X number of dollars sent out each month. There
Speaker 117
1:22:11
has to be justification for it at this point. All right. Thank you very much. Next I have
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:22:16
Mr. Summers. Do you have a question, Ms. Summers? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And Representative Hubbard, I think certainly we need to be considering something different than what we've done for homeschooling or private school voucher. I'm not sure what.
My question more than anything at this point is how do we pay for it? If I'm reading your bill correct, that would start in a year from this July. And how would we work it out with our budget considerations? Do you understand my question? I think I do. I guess I'm basically saying I like some of what you're doing, but I don't think it's going to fit in with our budget the way we've got it proposed, obviously, this year.
Speaker 171
1:23:02
Right. Well, in kind of following Mr.
Speaker 170
1:23:06
Cheatham's guidelines, I'll try to refrain from going into a lot of detail there, but I do understand your question. And, again, I know there's a lot of things about this that could be worked into a better package because this is new. Has this been brought up before? I'm not aware if it has. But there's some things that could be corrected, I'm sure. But I believe the total idea is something we definitely need to look at.
Speaker 216
1:23:37
a question? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hubbard, have you considered that given the opportunity for help with schooling, homeschooling, and private schooling, have you considered that that would entice a whole lot more people to do that and therefore be pulling children out of public schools and dropping numbers down below, 350, even more?
Speaker 171
1:24:10
I know that is one of the considerations, too, that would
John Hubbard
Unverified
1:24:18
go along with this bill. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. But also, now, a lot of the people that are pulling these
Speaker 170
1:24:24
kids out, I don't think they're going to take kids out of a public school that is a well-performing public school in most cases. And we certainly don't want to get into a situation where they're taking their kids out of school just to get money because their children are in either academic problems or if they're a problem child in the school itself.
We want to avoid that. But does that answer your question a little bit? Yes,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:24:54
Chair. Ms. Coneye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move immediate consideration. That's a proper motion. Committee, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
I believe the ayes have it. So, Mr. Hubbard, we're back to you. This
Speaker 171
1:25:11
is your time. You can close, okay? Yes, sir. Again, I know this bill is not perfect, as very few bills are,
but I think the idea of what I'm trying to do with this bill has a lot of merit. And if it does not pass this time, I think
Speaker 170
1:25:28
it's something we definitely need to look at in some type of study in the future. Because these parents, like I say, are the ones, they're paying tax money into the system, and their tax money is what goes to pay for our public schools. They're sending their children to either a private school or doing the schooling at home with very good results in most cases.
and yet they do not have the opportunity to benefit from the tax money they're paying to educate their own children.
Speaker 171
1:26:00
And that's, again, my purpose for bringing this bill. Ms. Flemers. I had
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:26:08
a point of order. Okay, what is your point of order? My point is that Representative Hubbard seems to be saying that he would be willing to
Speaker 212
1:26:16
study this, but is it correct that if the bill fails, it cannot be studied? or can we still
Speaker 35
1:26:23
can he ask for it after it fails
okay I'm sorry thank you for correcting me on
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:26:29
that okay committee we're back to you and we have a motion do motion do pass all in favor say
aye all opposed Mr. Hubbard your bill has failed and you do have a right to turn that into an interim study if you want to thank you sir
committee just take a second and I'm going to let my
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
1:26:50
co-chair make an announcement here Thank you, members. I have a special guest today. Jane Lucas, who is Executive Director of Group Living Incorporated in Arkadelphia,
and she has three of her staff members, and they are shadowing me today. So they're running around very hurriedly trying to keep up with me. Thank you for coming. Please welcome them. Would you
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:27:15
stand, please? Committee, moving right along, we have Representative Perry, I believe, is next on my list. House Bill 1854. 1854. I think he has an amendment. We're going to pass that amendment out.
We've got about three or four more House bills we'd like to do this morning.
So we're going to continue and try to get all these out of the way and maybe have Senate bills only this afternoon. this is his amendment
Speaker 232
1:27:48
to his bill entertain a motion at the proper time leave him hanging here with the
Speaker 181
1:28:06
I have a motion to do pass on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:28:16
a sign? Leave the ayes having you passed your amendment. Mr. Perry, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Co-Chair. House Bill 1854 came about after a couple years. I had a discussion with the Department of Education one time about the number of schools that have been on academic distress. I know Representative Klemmer made a comment earlier about the number of years some schools have been.
And I was looking at that and looking at the size of some of these school districts where there may be an individual school within a school district that has been on academic distress for five, six, seven years. But the way the law is, they can't actually come in and help an underperforming school without taking over the whole school district. So what this bill does, in all simplicity, is it actually allows you to eat the elephant one bite at a time instead of trying to eat the elephant.
You know, it will allow you to come in and work with an underperforming school, one that's been on academic distress, help it, and then, you know, give it back to the district. I would entertain any questions. Committee, any questions? No questions. We will go
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:29:38
to the audience. Anyone in the audience want to speak against this bill?
For this bill? Seeing none, we'll come back to
the committee. What is your pleasure, committee? Have a motion do pass as amended? Okay. Motion do pass as amended. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like a sign. I believe the ayes have it. Mr. Perry, you pass your
Speaker 61
1:30:10
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next we have Representative Harris and House Bill 1976.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:30:19
There's also an amendment, and we'll pass that out. 1976. This
Speaker 236
1:30:25
is his amendment, his bill, committee. I'll entertain a motion
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:30:27
at the proper time. We have a move of adoption of the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed like sign. Leave the ayes to have it. Ms. Terrence will give them just a second. Let them look at the amendment a minute and then... The amendment is the bill.
The amendment is the bill. Is that correct? No,
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:31:05
sir. You may proceed, Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Education Committee. To put everyone at ease, this is not House Bill 1008, which I would love for it to be
taken off the table, but I don't think that's going to happen, and that's okay. And this bill, House Bill 1976, was an act to provide for safety and special needs of a public school student victimized by another public school student enrolled in the victim's same school and for other purposes. I wasn't for sure when we were going to be up on the agenda, but the mom that I'm going to talk about and Christian, her son, it's a very personal story that she came to me about a month ago, if not before then,
with concerns about her son who's going to have to be in middle school now, go from fourth grade to fifth grade, and be in middle school with the perpetrator that did a sex crime against him. And in fourth grade, when the student was placed into fourth grade, everyone's made aware of this situation. I'll tell you about it in just a second. But she went to school administration and said, Is there any way that my son's going to have to come in contact with the perpetrator?
And the school assured them that it wouldn't happen. And then the next week, they were in the same facility seeing each other at the pep rally. But the important thing about this is Christian was sodomized. He was raped by another boy. The boy had done it to three other children. and the mom came to me crying and she can't afford to come down here otherwise she would. She's a single mom now and she said the schools aren't doing anything for me.
They're not helping me. They're not protecting my son. And so we set up a meeting with the superintendent and the superintendent reassured me that they're doing everything in their power that they can do and I agree with the superintendent. He did a very good job and dealing with the situation, but because of law, there was no protection of the victim. And one of the things that came out of the superintendents, you know, in the talk was, well, you have school choice in this situation. You can go to the next district because we only have one school in my district.
And, of course, the mom started, she was even more upset, and I kind of agree with her. Here we've got a victim who is dealing with this, having behavioral issues because of it, not understanding why it was done to them, and yet he has to uproot and go to another school, to the next district. And so this bill talks about giving the right of the school to have the perpetrator go to the school in the next district, or if there's another school in that district.
So the bottom line of this bill is that the victim should have just as much right as the perpetrator. And in this case, the way the laws are set up, the perpetrator has the right because he isn't afforded an education. I'm not denying the perpetrator the education. I am denying him the access to the child and the other victims that he did in that local public school. And so I would love for a good vote on this. I'll take any questions. Committee, questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:34:41
I gather your county doesn't have an alternative school where those who have committed
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:34:47
crimes... Representative Hutchison, will you hug up on the mic
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:34:51
a little bit? There you go. Thank you, Representative Harris. I
gather your county doesn't have an alternative school where juveniles that have
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:35:01
committed crimes attend school. We actually do. We have one in Fayetteville. It's about eight miles north from our district. But that opportunity has not been afforded in that situation.
Speaker 160
1:35:13
Was this young man found guilty in a juvenile court? I believe so.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:35:21
There's papers. Because of the laws, the way they're written, And only certain
school administrators can know about the act that took place. So even not all the teachers are made aware. The other issue is if they're in the bathroom in the same school, there's no protection because no one can know all this information.
So if a teacher that didn't know the information, that is having access to the victim.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:35:50
And the judge did not recommend this young juvenile go to a different school? No, because it was in a situation where this child
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:35:59
was adopted. They ended up being in the same district, but at the time they weren't. All right. Thank you. Appreciate
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:36:08
it. Any other questions, committee? Ms. Harris, this child was not expelled. Did he come back the same school year?
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:36:17
Not that it's a different school year. This is now talking about now they're going to be together. No, this didn't happen in the past year. This has happened the last couple years. And so now they're going to actually be together. So, no, this child wasn't expelled because it didn't happen on school grounds. And that's what this bill is going to be talking about, things that also happen outside of school grounds.
Speaker 103
1:36:40
Okay. I've got a couple of questions. Mr. Carnine, you had one.
Speaker 218
1:36:43
And then Mr. McLean, I think. And, again,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:36:46
thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I'm actually going to add clarity to this,
but my question would be would another school district have to accept a student who had been convicted of a violent crime like that? It was my understanding they would not, so we are in a quandary here. Obviously, I guess there must be some other issues, but if we could ask if the department's legal counsel would clarify that.
The question is what rights would a other school district have regarding refusing admission of a transfer student other than through a judge's order? I mean, that's the quandary I think we find. Mr. Richardson, would you
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:37:37
like to come answer to the table and answer that question by Mr. Carnine? I understand. He'll repeat the question
Speaker 177
1:37:48
for you, I'm sure. Scott Richman with
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:37:50
the Attorney General's Office. What's the question again? Well, the question is, would a school district of a non-resident student be required to accept that student as a transfer
who actually had been convicted of a violent crime? Under this bill? Correct. I mean, I think we all understand and certainly empathize with the situation, but what I'm wondering is would it take a judge's order to require a school district to accept a child like that? Well, I don't have the
Speaker 220
1:38:37
I don't think there's a requirement in current law that that
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:38:53
would happen. It's my understanding, and again, that the school district, if the school district, other school district had expelled the child, and particularly if they were convicted of a violent crime, then the other districts would not have to accept this child.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:39:13
that was my understanding. That's why I asked the question because, I mean, this anticipates without a judge's order that the other district could simply send this child to another district, and I'm not sure that any other district without a judge's order would gladly accept an individual that's been described here. I mean, is that your understanding of it, too?
Speaker 177
1:39:41
If the question is, would the receiving district be required to accept the student? I don't know if there's any requirement
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:39:48
in the law right now for that. I didn't think so either without a judge's order, and I would think the Superintendent Principal Board would have great difficulty in that circumstance, especially on a liability issue. With all due
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:40:01
respect, Representative Carnine, that is why I'm running the bill, because there's no rights for the victim, and I understand that the school district has to accept this student or they can expel them, but I think that's what the whole purpose of the bill
was, to protect the victim in all situations from having to rehash the crime in their mind over and
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:40:27
over and over again. And I just want to say that I certainly understand the rationale. What I'm trying to point out is the problem that this creates without a judge's order for the other school district. And I certainly empathize in terms of the situation that's been created here.
I would hope that we could find a way to do exactly what you're saying by sending this child to an alternative environment. But without that being specified, I don't know that there's any legal ability to do what you're requiring. Representative Klemmer, I
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:41:11
believe you had your hand up
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:41:15
first. Is it your primary objective that the child is not returned to the school where his former school and where his victim is currently attending?
If the victim is attending, yes. That is my... I guess I sort of had a question, and I'm not sure that you can answer it, Mr. Harris. But I thought that when you were convicted of a crime of this nature, even if it's juvenile, that there were separate facilities. I mean, I had somebody call me and ask me for help, not a constituent, that they had basically been removed from the school and were actually, their concern was that they weren't getting
an adequate alternative education. She was molested as a child and had turned and molested another child. And she was removed from the public school, which is kind of double victimization, but that's another issue. But the point is, she had to attend a different school. Does the law require that or not? Does anybody, do we not know the answer to that? We may have. We have someone who's going to speak
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:42:20
against this bill in a minute that's nodding her head and has some answers, I think. So we'll get to her in just a
second, though. I believe I saw another hand.
Representative Hutchinson, do you have another question? Okay. All right. Okay.
Speaker 142
1:42:38
Mr. McLean. Representative Harris, I just want to kind of get this straight just for my benefit. Was the individual who perpetrated these acts ever convicted of
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:42:51
a crime? Yes, there's papers. To answer also, to go back to Representative Clemmer, this child was removed from the home and from school
and put into a facility in Fayetteville. But through rehabilitation, through different things documented, I don't know the juvenile court system, the child was placed back in the home and now is placed back in the school after doing rehabilitation. Yet, for whatever reason, this child molested three children and then tried to burn down their house last year. But for some reason, we've overlooked all that, and now we're allowing him to be back in the school system where the victim is.
Speaker 142
1:43:34
Well, I was just trying to establish, is there a record? Because your bill is pretty clear. I mean, the individual has to be found guilty of a crime. And I'm just kind of wanting to know, So would this be applicable to the example that you're giving? Yes, it would be. So this individual has been found guilty of a crime. There is a record. There is a paper trail. And so this would,
Speaker 259
1:44:02
in effect, be applicable in this instance?
Yes, sir. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Representative Harris. Thank you.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:44:10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, any other questions? At this time, we'll go to the
Speaker 260
1:44:21
audience. We have someone signed up to speak against this bill. Ms. Gould from School Board Association. Kristen Gould, Staff Attorney, Arkansas School Boards Association. This is a terrible situation that sadly occurs all too frequently. Our public schools are just not set up to do a good job of keeping children apart who need to be kept apart.
We are very frequently, as public schools, put in a situation where a child is perhaps a sexual predator, as Representative Klimmer pointed out, usually because that child has been victimized himself or herself. There can be a very lengthy delay after a crime is committed, before the juvenile is adjudicated, or if the juvenile is an older juvenile has been convicted through the criminal court system.
It is extraordinarily difficult for public schools to attempt to balance the rights of each child to a free, appropriate public education and also to balance the very real and valid concerns of a child and a family who has been brutally victimized. These are horrible situations. There is no additional categorical funding that assists school districts with this. There are laws that talk about safety plans that shall be created,
but those are created not at the point of a complaint being filed or a crime having been convicted. That's way down the process after the child is an adjudicated juvenile. That means they have gone through the trial phase of the juvenile justice system. And then a safety plan is created. There are only a limited number of people by statute who are allowed to know what's in that safety plan. The concern in the legislation about that safety plan has been about the privacy of the child who committed the bad act.
Okay? So only a limited number of people can be made aware of this to attempt to safeguard not only the child who has been victimized, but all the other children in that public school system who are potential victims. I am the one who gets the calls, and they say, what do we do? We're very, very concerned that this child will reoffend on our watch. How do we handle this? How do we manage this? And so we talk it through, and we attempt to figure out what we can do.
Is it possible that this child can be served in an alternative setting? Sometimes that is possible. Sometimes it is not, frequently because the child has special needs and is on an IEP that cannot be met in the alternative learning environment. Sometimes the only solution we can come up with is to hire an aide to follow the child around and ensure the safety of the other children. There's no additional funding for this. These are tremendously difficult problems.
Let's talk about legal transfer. You've got school choice. If the victim child applies to go to another school district under school choice, the receiving school district, the school district they want to go to, cannot consider by state law is not allowed to consider any discipline issues. They have to take the child if they have a place to put the child. That's school choice. Now, under legal transfer, that's different. Legal transfer is sort of like buying or selling a car.
You have to have a willing buyer and a willing seller. You have to have a school district willing to release and another school district willing to accept. The school district that has the child who has committed the crime, who has done the bad thing is usually more than willing to release that child to another school district. But other school districts, as you can understand, would be extraordinarily reluctant and fearful to accept that child. I'm speaking in opposition to this bill not because I don't think that there's a problem or that I think the problem is adequately taken care of in current
law. That is not the case. It's just that this bill does not solve the terrible problem. My My concern here is that what we will end up with is a law that gives victims false hope, that promises to do things that the school districts can't perform under. If it's a small rural school, there is no other place to put the perpetrator child. Okay. Thank you for the comments. Any questions, anyone from
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:49:01
the committee? Ms. Clemmer. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:49:10
And I know the accelerator is on, but this is pretty important stuff here. Are you saying, I mean, don't we expel students permanently from school districts? It
Speaker 260
1:49:22
is theoretically possible in the state of Arkansas to expel a student permanently if there are no words of limitation in your student handbook. Like such as if there's no words in your student handbook like not to exceed a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:49:39
certain amount of time. I mean, we've disciplined students for a semester for having rolling papers.
There's some pretty harsh discipline out there,
but we have a sexual predator that could be returned to the school
Speaker 260
1:49:54
district where the event happened. In Representative Harris' case, you're talking about a very young child. I believe the child is currently in fifth grade. Is that correct, Representative? Will be in fifth grade. He is a very young child. The school district does not have access to his sealed juvenile record. The school district would not have access to the incident reports
or anything that could form a legal basis for an expulsion proceeding. If the child happened, and I have no knowledge of this situation, but if, in theory, that perpetrator child also was a special needs child, even though he had been expelled, the school district would still be obligated to provide services to him and fulfill his individual education plan under IDEA. Thank you. It just seems we
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:50:44
passed laws on bullying. This would be more or less the ultimate bullying.
Speaker 61
1:50:49
I agree completely. Committee, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mrs. Gould. Anyone always want to speak for this bill,
Speaker 10
1:51:05
against this bill? Mr. Walker, are you coming to speak
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:51:09
against this bill? Well, I want to be heard on it. I haven't read it. Would you recognize yourself the record, please? I
John Walker
Unverified
1:51:16
certainly will. My name is John Walker. I'm a state representative.
I just got the tail end of it, but I know that there is a great tendency to want to punish children for all kinds of behavior. And you have to take into account the children, their ages, their circumstances, their precondition, their mental state. There are some laws that keep you from punishing children who may offend others by their so-called sexual interactions. It's known as ADEA and also Section 504.
And when you talk about trying to get access to records, the federal law in many cases prevents you from having access to the records of these children. But the children with their problems must still be taught. And they must be taught sensitively. Now, there is a great tendency that any time a child does anything that offends adult behavior or perhaps has a tendency to offend children, that those children should be expelled.
But you can't expel all those children because the statistics show that a large percentage of the students who attend school are in either abuse situations or abuse others at one point or another. And abuse is a definitional thing as well. The question sometimes is, when is abuse abuse? When you all approach this, I just ask you to take into account that when you're dealing with children, there are different ages, different circumstances, and you treat a 17-year-old
differently than you do a 13-year-old. I had a case involving a child who was told by a teacher to take another child to the bathroom, and in that situation, the older child took sexual advantage of the younger child. Well, I mean, it's the kind of thing that you as teachers have to sort of address, and what do you do? I mean, you put a person, the older child, nine years old, in jail for the rest of his life? or do you have some other way of dealing with it?
Now, I'm just suggesting to you that you all, as you approach these problems, be less inclined to be punitive and less inclined to think about putting kids out of circumstances where they'll go into society and become bigger problems, increasing not only our fear but their lack of ability to become citizens who can contribute to our
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:53:56
well-being. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Hudson, okay.
That's okay, Mr. Walgrave. She's waved it off. You're excused. All right. Okay. Committee, let's see. Now we're still in the audience. Anyone want to speak against it? Okay. Anyone want to speak for the bill? Against the bill. Mr. Abernathy, you want to speak
Speaker 68
1:54:26
against the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Richard Aberneth, the Executive Director of the Administrators Association. Several of our questions were answered today,
and I believe Mr. Carnine asked the one that really concerned us about the transfer between districts. We do have a concern that if you are a neighboring district, particularly if a situation happened off campus, was out in the community, that there's going to be many of your community members know what is happening. We do not think a school board or a superintendent would want a transfer into their district because it could create some liability issues in our opinion the bill down at the bottom says on line 35 said shall transfer well
there may not be an option to transfer if you don't have the one school in your particular school district you're not gonna have an option to transfer that student to another school and if your neighboring school districts won't accept this particular child where does that leave you in compliance with this law. So considering those factors, we certainly understand the situation. We think the courts could probably handle this if they so desire, but we oppose the bill.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:55:33
Thank you, Mr. Abernathy. Questions, anyone? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Back to the audience, anyone who wants to speak for, against? Seeing none, we're back to the committee. Mr. Harris, would you like to close
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:55:49
for your bill? Yes, sir. Just a quick note. The courts haven't dealt with this situation. That's why I bring the bill. I just think in this case, you know, we're the rights of the perpetrator to get an education. I'm not denying. But let's think about the rights of the victim and their education. This boy in particular is on a behavioral plan, has to go see a counselor every week. His grades have dropped drastically.
drastically, so let's not deny him an education because he has to see his perpetrator every day. And I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Committee,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:56:22
what is your pleasure? I have a motion. I have a motion. I have a motion. Do pass as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign? Leave the ayes. Have it, Mr. Harris. Thank you, committee. Mr. Sanders, we have a
few minutes. If you can be, we're going to try to do two more bills, then we're going to break for lunch.
There is a lunch over at Capitol Hill, if you didn't know that. You can also get a lunch, and you can get worked on by the Chiropractic Association while you're over there. Mr. Sanders, you're recognized for your bill.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:57:00
I know where I'm going after this. Thank you. 2205, is that correct? 2205, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman, Chair, for your deference shown to me. I have sitting next to me here Ms. Elizabeth Daly. She is a parent of public school students here in Little Rock. In fact, this is one of those cases where a constituent brings you a good idea,
and that's what we're here to do to talk about today. And what this bill does, it gives a student who completes two semesters of a junior reserve officer training core program, junior ROTC program, they will receive credit for both the following requirements. for graduation from high school under the rules of the State Board of Education. You can see those one-half credit for physical education, which I understand is actually – which is currently – I believe currently the law now. And then also one-half unit for
health and safety education. That's what we're extending.
And I brought Ms. Daley here to speak to this rather
Speaker 277
1:57:59
Yes. Yes. Hi. Elizabeth Daly, and I have a Parkview NJROTC student, and this is my third junior ROTC student to go through Parkview, and one of the things we find it's hard to get all your credits in with all the graduation credits nowadays. So having junior ROTC count as a health 2 helps them enable them to complete all the
requirements and also enjoy four years of junior ROTC. The bill, I presented it to David Sanders, State Rep. Sanders, because my daughter had taken a health credit her senior year, and when she was taking the credit, she was saying to me, we had this in NJROTC, I had this, we talked about this. And so it came to my attention that a lot of what the curriculum is there is in also the health and safety curriculum. To give you an example, I brought their textbook from their first year of NJROTC where they
They go over a lot of the health and safety issues that are part of the health credit. They go over motivation, relationships. They go over attitudes. They go over fitness, having fitness programs, the right type of exercises, safety workouts, evaluating their physical fitness, physical fitness testing, proper dieting, what they eat, calories, how do you eat, Nourishing the body. They go over carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, minerals, water, hunger, malnutrition.
They go over dietary plans. They go over controlling fat, vitamins, minerals, water, balancing your diet, managing your weight. Go over the anorexia, bulimic epidemics and what that could mean to students. They're taking care of themselves, personal hygiene, fitness, sleep, stress, sanitation things. They go over stress strategies, diseases, depression, anxiety. They go over drug use, misuse, abuse, the different types of drugs
and what each of these drugs can do to the body, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and all the other hallucinogenics and drugs. And they go over first aid, emergency, and how to survive in different situations that they might be presented in. And because of, like, there's 24 chapters in this book, and 14 of them relate to health and safety issues. So they're teaching a whole semester's worth of health as a part of their NJROTC curriculum. Thank you for your comments. Committee, any questions?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:00:27
Seeing none, let's go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? We have a motion. Do pass as amended. No, it wasn't amended. We'll just do pass. I have a motion, do pass. All those in favor
say aye. Aye. Opposed? Be the eyes of
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
2:00:47
it, Mr. Sanders. You finally passed the bill. Thank you. For the record, that's number three.
Speaker 4
2:00:52
We'll forget that first one. Committee, we're going
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:00:54
to look at one more bill before we –
unless somebody else has got another bill to run. We've got one more House bill we're going to
look at today. This afternoon when we come back in, we actually have two House bills left we need to get out, and then we have strictly Senate
bills that we will take up at that time. How many Senate bills? There's about 15. No, there are about 15. And we're looking at House Bill 1708 by Representative Roebuck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:01:27
Members, I bring you House Bill 1708. When I first started out, my bill did not look like this. I've worked very hard with the Arkansas School Boards Association, and I bring you a better bill. When you look at this bill, you'll see that it does not change the number of hours, but it does change the training or instruction for our school boards to receive their professional development within the first 15 months of service. And it does clarify on page two that that training does have to include financial laws or regulations dealing with audit matters.
In other words, training or instruction on how to read and interpret an audit report. I know those of you that, like me, have sat in audit and listened to school board members that sit at the end of actually this very table, and they tell us time and time again that they did not understand that that was a requirement by audit. And so we now know that part of that is because their training did not include that. So the School Boards Association has worked with me. We've also talked to Audit Division. They have actually presented workshops at the School Boards Association conference,
and we've worked out that they may even be willing to do this electronically, put it on DVD, send it out to the School Boards Association that will make it available to our co-ops and also to our school districts. So on the last line, it says may be conducted by electronic means, and I'll be glad to answer questions, Mr. Chair. Committee, Ms. Summers?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:03:01
I would love to make a motion. We have a motion request up here, Ms. Summers. I'm sorry. Questions, anyone? Oh, and I
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:03:10
do want to add that I bring this in respectful memory of our colleague, Representative Johnny Hoyt.
Speaker 283
2:03:22
the hall. Still out in the hall, okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to scare y'all. Anyone of
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:03:32
y'all just want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Seeing none, we'll come back to Ms. Bradford. Motion do pass. All in favor say aye Opposed like a sign Thank you Meeting adjourned committee
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1485
HB1770
HB1844
HB1877
HB1910
HB1786
HB1995
HB2010
HB2011
HB1854
HB1976
HB2205
HB1708
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 10
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 66
Speaker 49
Speaker 61
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Speaker 70
Speaker 71
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Speaker 79
Speaker 83
Speaker 86
Speaker 89
Speaker 92
Speaker 96
Speaker 99
Speaker 47
Speaker 109
Speaker 112
Speaker 113
Speaker 117
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 141
Speaker 145
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 149
Speaker 153
Speaker 44
Speaker 36
Speaker 157
Speaker 160
Speaker 164
John Hubbard
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Speaker 174
Speaker 176
Speaker 177
Speaker 172
Speaker 75
Speaker 193
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 103
Speaker 203
Speaker 205
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 142
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 217
Speaker 212
Speaker 35
Speaker 232
Speaker 181
Speaker 236
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 218
Speaker 220
Speaker 259
Speaker 260
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
John Walker
Unverified
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Speaker 276
Speaker 277
Speaker 94
Speaker 283