House Education Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1620
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “need a copy of it. Mr. Chair, you're recognized for House Bill 1620.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1829
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1829”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1348
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1348”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1435
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “We've had a request to set a special order on House Bill 1435 for Tuesday, March the 22nd. Any objection to that? Seeing…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1875
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1875”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1878
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1878”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1894
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1894”
|
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 4, 2026
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
0:00
We've had a request to set a special order on House Bill 1435 for Tuesday, March the 22nd. Any objection to that? Seeing none, we'll set that special order. We have a special order next week. I think the date is wrong on the
agenda, but it's March the 15th. Mr. Brown, is someone else out there that's not in here, should be in here? Oh, shut the door. Excuse me, I thought you were waving. Okay.
Committee, first, we want to look at, I lost my list, House Bill 1829. We're going to let Representative Slinkard run that. She has some business in other places in 1829. Ms. Slinkard, do you identify yourself
with the record and your guest at the end of the table there also,
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
0:59
and then you may proceed. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
committee. I'm Mary Slinkard, representative from District 100.
I have a little bill today. Oh, I have my guest here, which will introduce themselves. Debbie Asbury I'm the
Speaker 12
1:17
director at the assessment coordination department I'm Bill Goff assistant commissioner
Speaker 15
1:23
for fiscal administrative services department of education Ms. Linkerd you may proceed Thank you Mr. Chair Committee
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
1:30
as many of you know I was a county and probate court clerk in Benton County for many years
And among the many duties, of course, we dealt with distribution of taxes and some other things. This bill is to clarify the collections and distributions related to the uniform rate of tax. And what it does in a nutshell, and I hope my guests can answer any questions that you might have, but what it does in a nutshell is to repeal the laws regarding that template that was created in order to calculate that 98 percent that is used for the
for the schools among other things I think and what it does then is to give the county treasurers who already do this reporting the county treasurer shall report those to their local school district as well as the Department of Education and the what's the other one treasure state treasure sorry about that these these county treasurers already do that we do have the blessings you might
say of the other county folks involved in this and and the and this was brought to me by the Department of Education and I would
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:59
if there's any questions we'll We'll try to answer that.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
3:05
Committee, any questions on this? Representative Summers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Representative Slinkard, I think the word clarify means just to explain it so there's no changes in the actual law itself other than maybe some redirection of what's being done and where.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
3:25
That is correct. The county treasurers already do this reporting to their schools and the other, and we are repealing the requirement
for that template. And I notice
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
3:35
that the Division of Legislative Audit and others are struck on page four. Where would this fall under audit proceedings under the Division of Legislative Audit then after that? I'm sure there'd still be an audit function.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
3:58
I'm just curious. I'll defer to Ms. Asbury, please. That's about
Speaker 12
4:05
the template. Basically, when we put this template together, the spreadsheet together, the requirement was to involve all of these other entities to make sure that we received everything that was required to try and get the most accurate information we could get as far as the 98%. What we all know is if you can get the direct information from the county treasurer,
how many checks did you write to the schools, it's much more accurate than going through what we went through with the template information. So basically that struck part on legislative audit was asking us when we originally set up the template to involve all of those other entities when we were doing that. I might
Speaker 15
4:49
add a little bit to that, Representative Summers. It will not change the requirements for legislative audit to audit the offices in the county. They will continue doing that. That answered my question.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
5:01
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hopper, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure who to direct this question to, so anybody and everybody jump in if you can help me here. And that is, I'm thinking about rollover of new treasurers,
and how do they get brought up to speed on this requirement, this process? I stumped the panel.
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
5:40
me. It's already a reporting procedure in the county treasurer's office, and I would think any new official coming in would also be aware of those procedures right and
there are newly elected official seminars for county elected officials through the Association of Arkansas counties and I would be sure that they they would be doing some training on that reporting requirement. MS. Is there
any way we can verify that? MS. That, indeed, I mean, this, as we all know, around
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
6:25
this table is a very complicated process. So, and I'm just thinking of someone walking into that role, and. MR. Do you have training?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
6:37
Do you have training for new elected
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
6:41
officials? MS. Yes, Mr. Chair, the newly elected officials training seminar is held almost immediately after the general election, after folks have been certified as candidates, and those – that seminar is conducted by the Association of Arkansas Counties, and they also produce a manual for each of those offices that – and set out those requirements about
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
7:11
reporting. And a follow-up, if I could. So are they required, or is that just to attend this, or is that just at their choosing? Since they're
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
7:25
elected officials, I'm assuming it's at their choosing. I don't think anybody puts a gun to their head to make
them go, but many newly elected officials, in my experience, they all do attend.
Speaker 15
7:40
Yes. I'd just like to add one thing, and last thing.
I've never worked in the county. I have no idea how that training works, but one of the benefits of this bill is to make the data much more easily verified by school districts because school districts can match exactly what they've received to that report the county treasurer prepares. So if there is a problem, the school districts will know about it, and the school districts have the biggest stake in this process. That helps. Thank you
Speaker 54
8:08
very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee, any other questions?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
8:15
Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill? Mr. Summers? Motion's proper time,
Mr. Chairman. Committee, we have a motion. Do pass. Do pass. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, like sign. Ms. Lincoln, I believe you passed your bill. Congratulations. Thank
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
8:37
you, and thank you, Committee, for taking me out of order.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
8:46
Thank you. Committee, I'm going to take another bill out of order, 1620, which is a bill that I'm going to run and have some company at the end of the table.
So if you'll find that in your folder, 1620. I
Speaker 68
9:28
need a copy of it. Mr. Chair, you're recognized for House Bill 1620.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
9:31
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. First, I'd like to ask the
Speaker 75
9:40
gentleman at the table, in the table, identify their self for the record. Bill Walker, Director of Arkansas Department of
Speaker 77
9:48
Career Education John Davidson, Director of
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
9:51
the Department of Career Education David Hughes of National Park Community College Committee, House Bill 1620
really is just trying to establish college and career readiness standards We talk a lot about rigor in our classes and talk about standards
But sometimes we forget, besides the normal academic courses in the school, there are some career classes there that are just as important. And what we're trying to do is to bring these classes up, integrate those in with the other academic classes to make sure these programs and classes are just as rigorous and they will be just as important as anything else we do. Prepares not only students for work, but also prepares them for college-level classes also. So we could go into a lot of detail about this, but I think if you look at the bill,
it talks about standards. We're just trying to make things align with other courses in the public schools. And at that, I'd
be willing to take questions, or the gentleman at the end of the table would be willing to take
Speaker 81
10:52
questions. Members, are there questions for the chair? Ms. Clemmer has a
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
11:01
question, ma'am. Representative Clemmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you just outline, I mean, some of the main features
Speaker 88
11:09
here, the changes? This bill is not a quantity bill, but a quality bill.
Speaker 90
11:15
It requires no additional career tech classes. It requires no additional students, but it affects the quality of the bills we have. It requires that the three departments of education, Department of Higher Ed, Department of Education, and Department of Career Education, work jointly to set standards so that things such as professional development will be both vertically aligned with post-secondary education and horizontally aligned with the academics that are required.
The professional development is required as an integral part because in many cases, both administrators, counselors, and teachers don't necessarily understand, for instance, if a student is going into a pre-engineering program, the requirement for math that that student must have. It also sets standards for assessment to assure that the quality is being done there. And it also sets a standard for partnerships, involvement from business and industry to review what is being done.
It's based on the 10 national standards set by the U.S. Department of Education for quality programs. And we've had very good programs in Arkansas. But those have been voluntarily set, and this sets standards. We have no existing standards from the legislature that have been developed, and this would assure that. MS. Thank
Speaker 81
12:45
you. Members, are there other questions? Representative Summers.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
12:49
MS. Then Ms. Hobbs. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question, we talk a lot about increasing our college graduation rate and things like that, and I thought when I first heard you talking about this that this was going to be a pathway for the students that choose to maybe go into other careers that a four-year or two-year degree wouldn't be what they'd seek but something more on the technical side.
What does this do specifically to help our students that would go to technical school? They would learn to be electricians or mechanics or air-conditioned
Speaker 90
13:35
people or just whatever. This allows exit points throughout the way and emphasizes certifications. students, according to recent reports, are critical and, in fact, a recent report, Harvard report, recommended that 28 percent of the students with certifications have higher salaries
than 28 percent of the people with bachelor's degrees. So this allows students to also not only to move on to postsecondary education, but to get those industry certifications while still in high school, and so it will allow
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
14:15
both of those things to happen. Can you describe maybe a path for someone that would go into a technical field, how this would impact them from the standpoint of both
Speaker 90
14:28
K-12 and then higher education? This would allow students to receive those national certifications through our programs
that would require the program to actually have a certification that would be the program first certified so the students can assess, for instance, in the NATEP area to have the ASE certification required by the automotive industry. And it would not only provide that, but it would also allow then the student to go on into postsecondary technical schools to receive further certifications in that area. Okay. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Hobbs.
Speaker 68
15:06
My question's been answered. Thank you. Representative
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:10
Klemmer. Mine has partially been answered. What other kinds of certifications would be examples of what
Speaker 90
15:19
other certifications have to do in the area of medical, in the area of the technology with all of the Microsoft Office suites that we use. So throughout the system, if there is a national certification available, So we do require those certifications to be in place for our programs, or this will require
that. And also in the construction, it would require that those programs have the construction certification that is being required by industry presently. MS. Let me
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
15:56
probably show my ignorance on this. When you
say require certifications, require the faculty to require the programs to be certified? Are we requiring that
kids be eligible to have some of these certifications upon completion?
Speaker 90
16:16
Which part of that? And David Hughes from National Park Community College and runs one of our high school programs, I'm going to let him maybe address very quickly that at his school, but the answer basically is all three. Okay. you must have, in order for a student to receive a certification and take the certification exam, the program must be first certified, the teacher must be trained and certified to teach the course before the student can ever receive the certification. So basically it's all three.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
16:47
That's actually probably good enough. I just didn't know which part of the certifications, whether it was a program. It would be all three. Because you could obviously have certified faculty but not necessarily be offering it to you.
So your idea would be that upon graduation, some of these students
Speaker 90
17:06
would have some qualifications after high school? After high school, those students would make them more job-ready. Our goal in a certification is two individuals are applying for a job. The student who has a certification should be first in line to receive that job,
and our high school should be giving those
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
17:27
students those certifications. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Davidson, I have a question. When the governor talks about doubling degrees by
2025, he also always adds doubling degrees and certificates. And when we talk about the SREB meeting that average in 2015, we also talk about degrees and certificates. So if this bill becomes law, then this will be another vehicle for us to reach those goals.
Is that your understanding, Mr. Davidson? Yes,
Speaker 114
17:54
ma'am, it will. and we have already started requiring high
Speaker 90
17:58
schools annually to report the number of certification students receive. So that is already
Speaker 88
18:03
in our ongoing process that has been done from an agency, but all of our standards are basically voluntarily an agency set. Okay, thank you. Representative Hopper. Thank
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
18:16
you, Madam Chair. I've got two or three things here. Let's see if I can clarify and struggle through this.
First of all, my questions are from the post-secondary level, and I'm thinking to my other life at a two-year institution where I work, and I'm thinking, first of all, as a follow-up to Representative Roebuck's question, on the certificate level, does this apply to certificates, or are we talking only degrees or higher? This would
Speaker 55
18:50
apply to both. It would require any eligible certificates, any eligible certifications that are there, plus post-secondary.
Speaker 90
18:59
So it would have, unless you have a program that students have choices, and truly one size doesn't fit all. Some students are ready to go into industry immediately following high school. Other students, and really all students need some post-secondary, but they can receive those certifications through that.
Speaker 92
19:19
And David has a number of examples of that already going on, I
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
19:28
think. So for existing programs, would we be required to go back and, let's say, enhance or tweak those programs to meet these requirements?
Speaker 90
19:46
primarily a number of these activities are already going on voluntarily. There would be more incentive to do that, and there would be more incentive for schools to, because of the agreement between higher education, Department of Education, and career education in setting these standards, it would set the goal out there for all programs
to aspire to, yes. So it would in some sense that it could have an impact in increasing that amount of certifications in student programming. MS.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
20:32
Okay. One last question, if I might. You spoke to professional development early on in this conversation, and I'm sitting here thinking about adjunct instructors.
Let's say, in my case, I have a welding program that is taught exclusively by adjuncts. So where does the professional development requirement fall
on those individuals? Sir, is
Speaker 124
21:03
your mic on? Punch that. There we go. Sorry. First
Speaker 127
21:12
a long time. Excuse me. Colleges that are offering concurrent credit right now are required by the Department of
Higher Ed to be certified by NASEP, the National. I can't remember all of it. I'm sorry. So part of that requirement for concurrent credit, one of the things that you have to do is offer the same in-service for your adjunct faculty that you do for your on-campus faculty. So that standard is built in through the NACCP accreditation. It's already going on. Does that answer that
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
21:49
question? That's only with regard to concurrent, though.
Concurrent credit. Yeah. I'm thinking, and trust me, I recognize fully the challenge that we're trying to address here because we have, I frequently have interaction with students that are interested, let's say, in being a welder. and then you start talking about the gen ed components that make them that better-rounded student and potential employee, what workforce is looking for,
and trying not to lose that interest when they walk in and say, I just want to be a welder, I'm not interested in math, I'm not interested in English, and trying to keep that spark alive, shall we say, without losing them, but yet make them workforce ready, it is a challenge. I
Speaker 90
22:44
not? Absolutely. And we have, in our assessment, we've realized that the adjunct instructor many times is just a step beyond that loop. And I think it's going to take a real effort for us to assure that we do include that.
And that has been something that's came up in
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
23:01
the past. The other part of that is not only, like I said, keeping that spark alive
with that student, but sometimes I know that we're not alone. We're literally begging for those adjunct instructors for some of these programs. And, again, keeping those folks there that we need, but yet not putting so much on them that they just walk away from it. Because, as we know, too, adjunct instructing is often, as we call it, a labor of love.
So I think we're walking a fine balance, are we not, a fine line here? Thank you.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
23:37
Mr. Davidson, just to clarify, having other states already done this, Kentucky, for an example, Texas?
Speaker 90
23:43
Any other states have already set these standards and brought those in, and we will be following a number of other states in the SRAB region who have brought their quality of programs up.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
23:55
Thank you. Members, any other questions? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against this bill, for this bill?
Motion, Mr. Wren. Madam Vice Chair,
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
24:13
proper time. Okay, do pass. All right, you have the motion do pass. Members, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Chair, you've passed your bill. Thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
24:23
you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you very
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
24:56
Mr. Summers, you have someone coming to visit you down there? Would you both identify yourself with the record, please, and then
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
25:14
you may proceed. Mr. Summers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tim
Speaker 145
25:18
Summers, State Representative, District 99. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lance Taylor, Executive
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
25:26
Director of the Arkansas High School Activities Association. House Bill 1348 is an act to amend Arkansas law concerning organizations that regulate extracurricular interscholastic activities in grades 7 through 12, better known as AAA.
And this is an interesting bill. It's got a lot of thought. I've even heard that they brought a distinguished ex-legislator out of the hills to visit on it. I'm not sure which way he's on it, but I'll turn it over
Speaker 145
25:54
to Mr. Taylor at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for letting me be here today and present in front of y'all. We're the Arkansas High School Activities Association, and we govern all schools 7th through 12th grade in the state. We have about 525 member schools that are part of our organization.
Our organization was formed by these schools. Every rule in our handbook is voted on by our schools each year in August at the governing body, is what we call it, and they make all of our rules. And so they really, this is their organization, and we just regulate their organization for them. We help them oversee it. Our office is located in Pulaski County. Our board meetings are held in this county. Our appeal hearings are held in this county. And also every year the governing body, all the schools in this state,
Speaker 148
26:46
come to Pulaski County to vote on our rules. So everything we do is located here in
Speaker 145
26:54
Pulaski County. So every year, again, the superintendents come and the principals, whoever their voting rep is, and it has to be an administrator from their school, and they come and vote on our rules in this county. They expect every school or all 525-member schools to follow the rules that they vote in. If it's a bylaw, it takes 51 percent of the governed body to vote in a new rule.
If it's a constitutional matter, it takes 66% to vote in and follow a rule. So we do that each year. We have 19 board members that are from across the state. We have nine activity districts. And the way you become a board member on the AAA is that your peers have to vote you on it at the activity district meetings. Also, at those activity district meetings each year in April, they can propose new rules, and 51% of the people in that activity district pass, then it comes in front
Speaker 148
27:48
of the government body automatically each year.
Speaker 145
27:52
And one thing that the schools have asked us to do, which Representative Summers helped House Bill 1348, is to make sure that when we have a lawsuit that it has to be filed here in Pulaski County. And the reason for that is because all the schools vote on our rules. And when somebody files a lawsuit out somewhere, we have to invite all the other superintendents or principals from those schools to come and help testify because they voted those rules in.
It's their rule. And so that's why this is centrally located. Everything we do is in this county, and that way it makes it more impartial and fair for all the schools in the state. It might not be fair for that one school to have to travel to Pulaski County, but it's fair for all the schools in the state and all the superintendents and principals to have to come here to help testify, and it makes it easier for them. Committee, any questions?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:56
Mrs. Hobbs? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said you had a 19-member board? Yes, ma'am. Did they vote? on bringing this legislation before us yes
yes ma'am and they're unanimously behind it yes ma'am okay thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
29:20
you captain steel that's motion at the proper time committee any other questions if not we'll
go to the audience anyone want to speak against this bill
for this bill we have a couple signed up if you would like to speak for this bill Ron, do you still want to? I know you want
to pass, Ron. Mr. Abernathy? Pass, okay. We're back to the committee. We have a... I need a motion. I need a motion at this time. Motion do pass. I'm sorry, Mr. Steele. You did... We have a motion
do pass before the committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?
No. The ayes have it. Mr. Summers you passed your bill Thank
you Thank you Committee at this time we're going
Speaker 163
30:17
to look at House Bill 1875 by Rep. Roebuck 1875
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
30:46
you may proceed. Representative Johnny Roebuck,
District 20. Members, House Bill 1875 is a part of the lottery or the academic challenge scholarship process. We did not put it in the lottery bill because, as you know,
those guidelines are very specific about when the Lottery Oversight Committee has to present that bill to the General Assembly to move forward. So this is something that we thought we were going to be able to work out without putting it in legislation, but evidently we are not. So I bring you House Bill 1875 just for clarification. We continue to get questions from members about data concerning the scholarship, and we only have the data that these institutions of higher education provide to us.
And so what we have done, we've asked for them to make a good faith effort to obtain the student consent form and collect and report that data required under the act. It's already required. And so what we've done in this bill is to actually put some consequences there, which we've not had. So if you will look at that, you will see that we really are asking that the institutions submit the data,
but if they do not, that they may lose their approved status for receiving the scholarship funds on behalf of the recipient. And they also have to comply with this. and if they do not, then they shall not be eligible to accept state aid from the Higher Education Grants public fund account on behalf of the student. And I do want to say publicly to you members that we have great support from our institutions of higher education in obtaining the consent forms, and this just gives added support to them if we need it
in order to collect that important data to make informed decisions for our members. and I'll be glad to take questions Representative
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
32:59
Yes Mr. Chairman Representative Robot just so we don't really have a problem
we're just wanting to give our institutions back
up we just want to make sure going forward
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
33:10
Representative Klemmer that we don't have the problem we have had yes we've had to go back to several institutions and make sure
if you will remember what we've done members is we have given the students an opportunity to opt out of giving the General Assembly that information. And so sometimes when you go into an admissions office or whatever and they're filling out those forms, it's very easy to just opt out. And so what we're asking, higher ed, is to make a good faith effort to ask the students to please give us that data. Because if we have a lot of students opting out, we cannot give you good data on the applicants
and on the recipients of this scholarship. So we get a lot of questions, and some of you sitting at this table have asked us those questions, and we're only able to give you back the information from the data that we receive. And so we want to make sure that institutions, private and public, understand that when they They take those dollars from the state that we need data so that we can then give you that information when you ask for it and we make those decisions every time we bring the lottery amendments back to you,
which we're required to do by law.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
34:27
If I could follow up. So, but the institution can't require the student. No, ma'am.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
34:34
The institution presents the form to the student and the student may opt out not to give the Bureau the information. If you remember, the way we have changed that is that rather than having the information filtered, we actually get the data in Bureau so that we're able to analyze that data for members
because we're making the amendment actually states very clearly that it is the General Assembly that makes those decisions on the lottery scholarship, not the Department of Higher Education.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
35:06
Yes, ma'am, I do remember that. And I guess what I don't remember the
discussion on, and that's not unusual that I don't remember that discussion, but I guess I don't understand why we can't make
it a condition for the scholarship.
I mean, you know, when you sign up for a new computer program, we can't, you know, when you get that little button, I accept the terms. If you don't, you don't go forward. Right. Is there something preventing us from having that information or from demanding it? I'm going to ask
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
35:42
Jerry Derlikowski from the Bureau of Legislative Research to join me at the table, Mr.
Chair, if that is all right to explain. She is the one that has actually looked at the data that we're collecting and can help us to understand why that's not possible.
So with that, Mr. Chair, with your permission.
Speaker 158
36:01
Yes, please identify yourself with the record,
Speaker 172
36:04
please. I'm Jerry Dorlikowski. It's the Bureau of Legislative Research. I'm not one of our attorneys, as you know. They're overdrafting amendments right now, but the. . . There's not any bills they're working on or anything. The history on that was that that was raised in the formation of the lottery legislation, but due to FERPA concerns, students, we didn't want to hold them hostage,
whether they gave up their right to privacy in return for scholarships. So that's the reason the compromise measure was reached.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
36:40
Can you tell me what specific pieces of information we're asking for from the student?
Speaker 172
36:49
We're requesting de-identified data, but it has student grades. We're not asking for their name, their social, their home address. We are trying to get high school information for information such as I know Representative
Steele is interested in some of that to see where the students are that are getting the information, and we're trying to work those details out now with the department, but there's a lot of information to see if we're giving the scholarships to the students that are going to benefit most from them, and also are there groups excluded that need to be included and it's a wide range of information that's already collected by the department through the IPED system for that reporting but the but de
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
37:35
identified for our purposes well let me be clear I'm all forgetting the information I was just curious
so a good we and I guess my last question is how will
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
37:52
we define good faith well I think that
when we ask the second time and And we still don't get it. To me, that's not good
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
38:01
faith. So I would just... But if the institution can't... We're talking about registrar, you know, admissions people.
If they can't require the student to give it to them, but we're going to hold the institution responsible for giving us something that they can't
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
38:20
require of the students. Representative Clemmer, all we're asking is that when the student checks that
box to opt out that they understand and that the institution explains to that student that we're not giving out any personal information, we're only collecting this data. Most of our institutions have a wording and certainly talk to the student about that and
how important this is going forward to have good data. And as I said earlier, most of our institutions are certainly doing this, but we feel very strongly and Representative Hyde who was the former chair of the Legislative Oversight and now Representative Perry joined me on this bill because we feel going forward in order to give you the answers we need something to say to these institutions how important it is. So this bill will just send another signal to institutions in
saying this is really important for us to get as much data as we can.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
39:14
And maybe they can convey to the students that if they don't get enough of this data, they could lose their ability to go to that college and use the scholarship. Would that not be correct? Well, they could. I mean, if you disqualified the
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
39:28
institution. Well, that's true. If we see, for an example, and I'm looking here at the, and we'll be glad to pass this around so you can see the institutions and how well most of them are complying, but when When we see an institution and we're only receiving, for an example, 60% or maybe even
less than 50% of the students are giving us that data, then we want to be able to talk to them about a good faith effort and say, is there something that we're not making clear to you? Is there something we can explain to you about why we need the data? And so this will just give us another way to say to them, this is very important. And then we can look at it again in two years if
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
40:04
it doesn't work. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your information. It's very helpful. Thank you. Representative Stewart, do you have a question?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
40:14
Yes. Jerry, on the consent form now, since we don't give names or Social Security numbers, are there any other information covered by FERPA on that consent form? The
Speaker 172
40:27
form is to release information that includes grades, which is protected by FERPA. So the grades are under
Speaker 183
40:32
there? Okay. All right. That's the question I had. Thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
40:36
you. Committee, any additional questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the audience. Anyone want to speak against this bill, for this bill?
Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. I would entertain a motion, Mr. Stewart. Motion do
pass by Mr. Stewart. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign? Leave the ayes have it. Ms. Roebuck, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. At this point we'll look at House Bill 1894 and
Speaker 144
41:14
there's an amendment on that bill that we're going to pass out 1894 by Mrs. Hobbs
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
42:05
I'll need a motion to adopt that amendment. We have a motion. All in favor say aye. Okay, the amendment's been adopted. Mrs. Hobbs, you may proceed.
Identify yourself and the gentleman with you, he needs to identify yourself also.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
42:39
Representative Debbie Hobbs from District 96. My name is
John Noderft
Unverified
42:42
John Noderft. I'm the Director of Government Relations for the Heartland Institute. You
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
42:53
may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. First of
all, let me assure you that though the word trigger is used in this bill, it has nothing to do with guns. You know, often bills are kind of complicated and hard to understand.
I think this one is very straightforward. If you will look at the intent, beginning in line 28, the intent of this bill is to provide a process by which low-performing schools may be reformed. And by low-performing, we have defined further in the bill that is a school that's been on the improvement list for at least three years. It also will enable parents of those low-performing schools to initiate reform efforts through a petitioning process, and it will allow parents to have a voice in the method of school reform
among approved options. You know, we, before serving on the education committee, I went to a lot of committees during the interim. I was, quite frankly, very shocked when I heard the number of schools that are on that needs improvement list, and some of them in their sixth, seventh year, and I just noticed there's at least one that's in this eighth year of needing improvement.
This bill will allow parents, if they're motivated enough to get a petition, have 51% of those parents sign up, then the parents can be empowered to do something about their school instead instead of just looking to the state for that help. And with that brief introduction, I would just like for Ms. Norrhoff to explain a little more about the parent trigger, if that's okay. That'll
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
44:39
be fine. Go ahead, sir. Like
Speaker 197
44:42
I said, my name is – thank you for letting me testify here today.
Speaker 199
44:47
My name, like I said, is John Norrhoff. I'm Director of Government Relations for the Heartland Institute. We're a 27-year-old national nonprofit research and education organization based out of Chicago, Illinois. are the publishers of School Reform News. I'm not really going to get into the details of, you know, the education system here in Arkansas. I think we all know that we can do better. And this bill gives us another tool to increase the competitiveness of Arkansas's
education system. This policy idea, the parent trigger, actually originated in California. It was sponsored by a Democrat lawmaker, Senator Romero, and it passed the 2010 legislature with bipartisan support. Connecticut actually quickly followed suit and passed a similar parent trigger. Currently, various versions of the parent trigger are being considered in over a dozen states. In a nutshell, the Arkansas parent trigger would allow a petition to be signed by at least 51% of the parents at a qualifying, underachieving school to trigger one of three reform options.
Close the school and allow students to transfer to a better performing public school, convert the school into a charter school, or change the leadership of the failing school. The main benefit, however, of the parent trigger is that it empowers parents. Policy initiatives that empower parents are more likely to increase parental involvement and satisfaction and have been proven to raise student achievement by inviting parents into the process. A study conducted by Stanford University of 22 parent empowering programs found that all these programs produced significant achievement gains
and it was actually the parent empowerment itself rather than the content of the programs that was responsible for much of these gains. Rather than having to rely on the slow and cumbersome process of centralized reform fraught with red tape, parents actually will have the reins with this policy. The decentralized approach to the parent record taps local knowledge and respects local choices. It takes much of the ideological and political baggage out of school reform effort, removing major distractions and a source of
conflict. Many things have been tried to improve the performance of America's school, and few have worked, unfortunately. Experts, politicians, and bureaucrats have dictated what reforms will be tried, and by nearly all accounts, they have not succeeded. It's time to give parents their turn at the wheel, and the parent trigger would do just
Speaker 200
47:24
that. I'm open to any questions. CHAIRMAN BRYANT. Committee, questions? Mrs. Klemmer.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
47:35
MS. I probably have a few, although I am somewhat familiar with this. But I did just
look down and notice that it says 51%, and don't you mean 50% plus 1? I mean, the majority is 50% plus 1, not
51%. Yeah, it could be 50 plus 1. That's actually
Speaker 202
47:57
how the California version of the trigger is. It's 50% plus 1. I mean, are we
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
48:03
saying more than a majority by requiring 51%? I think that's a good catch on your part.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
48:11
However, I'm comfortable with leaving it at the 51%. I'm comfortable with leaving it at that level. However, if it's the will of the committee that that be amended, I'm also open to that. Well, I'm just – you're not – that's fine. I think that's a very good question. As you know, we can read over things several times and miss points like that.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
48:28
And that's a very common mistake. And I just wonder, did we – 51% might – well, it would be a little bit higher bar. It would,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
48:35
and quite frankly, I'm okay with that. But like I said, if it's the will of the committee to amend it, I'm okay with that also.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
48:42
And maybe it's fine. I just was asking if that was your intent. That's fine. Thank
Speaker 205
48:51
you. Additional questions, Mr. Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Either one of you can ask this
Speaker 207
48:56
question. Now, what specifically, once the petition is signed and you get the majority of the parents to sign, what specific action can they take? what's in the realm of what they can do and what's outside the realm of what they could do if you can the parents themselves yeah after the petition is
Speaker 199
49:15
signed I understand they will submit it to the school board and then the school board will verify that the that the signers are indeed parents and it outlines in the bill that only one parent for a student can so you only get one vote for one student from actually one of the good parts about this bill is that you lay out the petition process a lot better than the California one did that was kind of one of the weaknesses in the California model so this one actually lays it out a lot better so the school board will will go in and verify
that these are in fact parents of child children attending their schools and then what then they will move forward with the process of whichever the parents can pick one of the three options the parents actually choose it so if they say we want to we want to trigger this into a charter school they will trigger into it and then the school board will go through the process of implementing a open enrollment charter school after that
Speaker 199
50:20
state process with the Board of Education no no would not it would just so then
Speaker 207
50:26
the parents could decide if it's going
Speaker 199
50:28
to become a right exactly that's kind of art of school that's what makes this different than just it actually allows allows the parents the control over choosing what kind of school that their children will get to go to,
Speaker 207
50:43
reforms into a charter school. So what role does the
Speaker 199
50:47
Department of Education, would they have at all? If you look at the last part, obviously, the last page, it
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
50:56
outlines some of that. Yes, on page four, beginning with line 14, it tells the Department of Education responsibilities
Would you like for me to read those and
give you a moment to do that? And again, Representative Steele, when parents circulate the petition, they
will put on the petition what option they are seeking, which are stated on page two. They can close the school and reopen it as an open enrollment, as stated. They could choose to change the leadership of the public school, including without limitation
replacing the school principal and other licensed personnel, or they may close the school and transfer the students to a higher-performing school. Again, when they circulate the petition, it will have the specific action that they are seeking.
Speaker 207
51:50
I did see that, and my next question was if they choose the option to remove the leadership back to school then who's responsible for replacing that leadership it would
Speaker 209
52:05
be primarily the school board the local school board would they reverse back to the
Speaker 207
52:12
school board to hire right the replacements yes could they choose more than could they choose all I mean could they do that one and choose becoming a charter schools choose two of
Speaker 197
52:24
the three options I know only because they're not really i mean if you switch to a charter school you are replacing the leadership in the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
52:35
don't however and i'm not versed in the on charter schools and maybe
someone here that can answer that but i would think even if they reorganize as a charter school they would still elect their board members correct yes and and could i guess elect the same board members if they so chose what if someone someone may correct
Speaker 206
52:56
me on that i don't What if one of the reasons that, and I'm just
Speaker 207
53:01
kind of thinking out loud, what if one of the reasons why the school failed is that they had a very low participation from the parents and the PTA and just very low support and not making sure the kids had the homework turned in on time?
What if the parents were part of the
Speaker 197
53:19
problem? Right. Well, then, you know, if you had these disengaged parents, which there are, you know, unfortunately,
Speaker 199
53:24
sometimes the reason they're disengaged is because they actually don't feel like they have any out. They don't feel like they have any ability to change the school other than maybe moving to another school district or moving away. So actually what this would do would say there is hope and the parents themselves can trigger some sort of reform. And that by itself actually gets parents more involved as they see there's actually progress
and that they have some ability to kind of influence their child's education system. So that kind of brings them into the fold. And if I may, Representative Still, also add to that, if you can get 51% of
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
53:57
them to sign a petition, I think the parents will be involved. They'd have to be at least over half of them. Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have Representative Stewart. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
54:19
I'm reading this bill and a little bit confused here. I see where you get the parent gets to vote an equal number to the number of students they have in the school. So if they have six kids, they get six votes. Right. Okay. So at the end, the taxpayer is still going to support their school. They get all the funds a normal school
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
54:41
district would get. Just as they were supporting that school that needed improvement for three years.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
54:45
Right. At least three years. So now these taxpayers that don't have any kids out there that's funding the bill,
taxpayer does not have any equal representation for their vote. Their vote is one vote, and now this parent with five kids gets five votes, so you are still taxing them without representation. I don't believe so any more
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
55:06
than we are now. Well, everybody gets one vote now. Well, for the school board members. No,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
55:12
for any kind of millage increase, the tax base, the M&O funds. Everybody gets equal vote.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
55:20
And everyone would continue to get equal vote on that part of it. What we're talking about is what kind of school we're going to have. Is it
going to be a failing school, or do we want to step up and do something about it and try to change it?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
55:32
Well, that representation problem, I mean, could be a problem. What about kids who don't want to go to this school? After you – if you reorganize one and they don't want to go, what
Speaker 197
55:45
do you do with them? Okay, go ahead. In which – I mean, are
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
55:49
you talking about one of these specific – You take a school and you reorganize it into a charter school with a management,
Speaker 199
55:54
and some parents say, I don't want my kids to go to this school. Now, where do they go? Well, currently in the system, if they don't want to go to
Speaker 192
56:07
the school, they have the same options as they do now. They could move to a
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
56:10
different school district. So they do have option now of – Well, limited options. This actually creates options. That's what we're trying to do. It's the same option you
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
56:17
have now. If a parent says this is a fetting school, they
can put them in another school. Right. Okay. However, Representative Stewart, if I may add, if you have 51% of
the parents recognizing there's something that needs to be done, I don't think you want 51% of those children
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
56:28
trying to transfer to another school. Well, but they do have the opportunity. If I can just keep following up a couple more. I noticed also that it only takes three years to trigger this, but once you change to the other school, then they have a five-year lock. They can't – you can't go back and repetition them during that
Speaker 199
56:53
five-year process. Is that true? Yes, that is true. Basically trying to give it enough time to enact the reform, whether it be a charter school to – it's already a failing school,
so you have to give it some time to actually take effect and let them be able to reform the school in the necessary
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
57:09
ways for it to become. If they're in school improvement, why wouldn't you give them that
five years to start with? I mean, they're in school improvement and typically are making improvements, and you're going to trigger it at the third year. You're saying we're not going to give you that four or five years to improve the school,
but once we get it or once we transfer it over to this other organization, we think they need five years in order to show
Speaker 197
57:33
any the school has already been failing for three years so I mean that's just it's already
Speaker 199
57:41
a failing school it's been historically failing so the trigger itself is triggering something that is already failing into something that hopefully will succeed and so it's kind of a you know we're trying to empower the parents in order to do this
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
57:59
Do you know the different categories of school improvement?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
58:03
Actually, I'm glad you brought that up because I did talk to Dr. Campbell, and I think
he has someone here today to answer that question, I hope. I did make that request.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
58:16
Okay, because there could be. That's a wide, wide definition of school improvement. Mr. Stewart, would you like Dr. Bender to
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
58:22
come to the table? I would. I'd like to ask that question and get
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
58:27
that clarified, if I could, please. If
Clay Finley
Unverified
58:33
you could have a seat and identify yourself with the record, please.
Speaker 254
58:39
There you go. Laura Bednar, Assistant Commissioner for Learning Services, Department of Education.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
58:49
Thank you, Mr. Bednar. I don't know if you heard my question. My question is the definition of school
improvement under 615-2101, could you kind of elaborate on exactly what that means yes sir okay first of all once a school
Speaker 254
59:03
has been identified in school improvement miss Bender would you pull that mic a
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
59:07
little kind of hug up to it a little bit and we'll hear you a little better let me
Speaker 254
59:14
get situated here just a moment can you hear me now thank you okay first of all we're talking about several different things here with school improvement we've got the school improvement initiatives under the esea which
is no child left behind and that is what we currently operate under when we're talking about school improvement of our status, a school can fall into the category of needing targeted improvement, targeted intensive improvement, whole school improvement, whole school intensive improvement, and then state-directed. And I think it's real important that we recognize here that regardless of why a school is falling into school improvement in those levels, we're
talking about adequate yearly progress that they have to meet each year. And a school can go under ESEA
Speaker 266
1:00:24
can be in school improvement for just one subpopulation, but still be recognized as a, quote, failing
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:00:34
as many as five people. I mean, five people that trigger the AYP. Yes. So the whole school is not failing.
It could be just one subpopulation in the school. Exactly. But
Speaker 270
1:00:46
under the current ESEA, it appears that, and the school can really be doing very well,
But unfortunately, due to that current system, that one subpopulation can throw a school into school improvement. All right. Thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:01:01
you. Any additional questions? Ms. Bender,
while she's at the table, Ms. Haas, Ms. Stewart, go back
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:01:09
to you. Just kind of a follow-up. So even a school then that's own school improvement for even a subpopulation category could remain, You know, even though they're improving from year one to year two, then year two to year three,
they still remain there until they hit a certain gate. That is correct. So they could be improving that one sub-pop, making it better as they go, but on paper it looks like the school is in school improvement when, you know, it could be less than 1% of the students involved in that. And they
could be making progress even during second year and third year. Exactly, and most
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:01:49
of them are. Okay, thank you. Dr. Bender, subpopulation, does it have to be a certain percent of that student body
to be considered a subpopulation, or did I just
Speaker 270
1:01:58
– is that – Yes, and the N for that subpopulation currently is 40. 40, so the
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:02:03
percentage I'm not – Forty students? Yes. Okay, not percent, just 40 students. Correct. Okay, thank you. Ms. Hobbs, I believe you
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:02:13
were – were you trying to ask a question, or did I – I was just wanting more information, if that's okay. That's correct. Laura Bender Mrs. Bender and kind of a follow up on what Representative Stewart had brought up
at least the list I've been given it tells it designates for instance whether it's whole school improvement or targeted intensive improvement so I think that is designated correct Yes, ma'am. And that information. So I think if you have a subpopulation – in fact, I have an excellent school in my district that is on the needs improvement. In fact, I kind of argued with Dr. Kimbrell as to whether it should be there or not.
But I think most parents will recognize that if it is a subpopulation, I don't think they're going to go to the effort to get that petition signed and get 51 percent. And if 51% of the parents do feel like it is an issue and
it's not being addressed, then I think they should have the right to do that. But do
you mind telling us how a school gets on that needs improvement? And I don't know, do you have the information about how many schools are on the whole school improvement list
and what year they're in? I do. If I want to
walk back there and get that. If that's all right, Mr. Chair.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:03:41
Okay. Go right ahead and we'll stay right here. I've got you.
Speaker 254
1:04:10
okay if i may first of all i'll talk about the schools that we currently have in school improvement there are a total of 231 schools at some form of year three or beyond in school improvement of those 231 schools 174 are actually in school improvement from last year 57 of those 231 schools met standard last year which means that if they do well this year and
meet ayp those 57 schools will come off the list so we're talking about 231 again in some form of school improvement do you do you happen out of how many total mr bender 231 231 that is all the from year three and beyond we have schools again that go beyond
Speaker 270
1:05:03
that so how many total number of schools two hundred and thirty-one talk about how many total number of schools
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:05:13
in the state these are schools not districts
okay these are schools okay how many schools do we have in
Speaker 120
1:05:28
the state dr. jim eleven hundred eleven hundred yes
Speaker 270
1:05:31
eleven hundred so that's two thirty one out of eleven hundred that are in some form of improvement and again of those Those 231.57 did make adequate yearly progress last year. So if those 57 make AYP this year, they will be removed from that list.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:05:46
Okay. All right. Thank you for that information. MS. Yes, sir. I have a couple of other people with questions.
Speaker 40
1:05:51
Representative Hopper, remember what you wanted to ask, Ms. Hopper? MS. I think so. It's been a while,
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:06:01
but thank you. Yes, my question was
Speaker 286
1:06:05
actually for Mr. Noter. Can you tell me how long that the parent trigger has been in effect
Speaker 199
1:06:12
in California and Connecticut? In California, I passed the beginning of last year, but due to, like I was mentioning, some of the petition processes which were not actually written into the bill, they've
had to do a lot of writing of regulations. So it's actually, I believe, only truly in effect since last summer. And one school has triggered, but that is being debated by the courts. It was Compton, California, triggered a charter school option, and that is being wrapped up in the courts
Speaker 200
1:06:39
due to some of the failures of the way that they wrote their bill. MS. That kind
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:06:47
of addresses my second question, which is have we had the opportunity to see this play out anywhere?
Speaker 199
1:06:52
MR. Like I said, Compton, California is the first one to do that, so. MS. Okay.
Speaker 286
1:06:57
Thank you. MR. I have Representative Pierce. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:07:05
Excuse me. Mr. Pierce, just a second. Ms. Bender, if you want to, you can just move away to the table or you can hang around. Whatever you want to do. I'm sorry. MS. I'll
Speaker 166
1:07:16
move over. I'll just hang around. MR. Unless Mr. Pierce's question is to you. Is that, Mr. Pierce, you
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:07:20
directed your question? MR. She can stay there. We've got plenty of chairs.
Speaker 291
1:07:32
your question. Mr. – how do you pronounce your
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:07:35
name? I met you last night. I'm sorry. Noter. Noter? Okay. Mr. Noter. You said the school boards a while ago would be taken out of this picture once they were taken over by this. Is
Speaker 199
1:07:49
that what I heard you say? Well, in terms of the implementation process, their primary role in this is to make sure
that the petition is valid, that the parents are, in fact, parents of the children. It would be oversought by the school board like any other school,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:08:09
though. Is the school board that's there right now in place, if this happens, you're going to do away with that
Speaker 197
1:08:16
school board? No, no, no, no, no. No, we are not eliminating the school board or overhauling the school board. Just
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:08:22
the school. So the school is in failure. It's failing, and you're going to take it over, right?
Is that what you're saying? Who is going to take it over? You said the parents are 51 percent. The parents are triggering a reform of the school. Okay. But you're
Speaker 197
1:08:40
going to leave the same school board in there? Well, that would obviously be up. I mean, those are based on, I believe, elections in the states. So you would have to, you know,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:08:51
vote for new school board members. Okay. What is your background in public education? Could you tell me that?
Speaker 142
1:09:00
Basically, like I said, I'm a contributing writer for School Reform News, and I deal with public policy. I have a Bachelor's of Arts in public policy. Bachelor's of Arts. But
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:09:11
you haven't had education in elementary or K-12, right? No, not myself. Did you have this anywhere? Is this besides California? Sometimes after seeing the mess of Californians, I don't think we want to follow California a lot of times. So, I mean, I've heard that before. Don't follow them. But then they have some good stuff, too. But if this works is the way you say it does, I think right now the charter schools have 24 opening.
They have 24 slots, and we have 200-something schools, as you're saying right now. So how are you going to be able to do this if all this happens? This is exempted from the charter school cap. Also,
Speaker 199
1:09:50
we're going to take the charter school cap out. Only for triggered schools is it exempted. So if you trigger a school into a charter, it
Speaker 300
1:10:00
is not applied to the cap. Okay. I would like to have the school board association, one of them, come up and talk about
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:10:06
this. Mr. Pierce, my man, I think they have signed up to speak against this bill, so we're just okay with you.
Speaker 300
1:10:12
Yes, that's fine. I was just going to ask him some
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:10:16
questions, Mr. Chair. I wasn't trying to jump ahead of you
Speaker 300
1:10:20
there. Thank you. Are you through with your question, Mr. Pierce? Let's see if
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:10:24
my old timers keep seeing that. That's about it
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
1:10:30
right now. Thank you. Next on the list, I have Mr. Dale for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Option number two is changing the leadership of the public school, including, without limitation, replacing the school principal and other licensed personnel.
Now, I was on the school board for about five years, and I'm thinking that most of these personnel would be under contract. What happens to the contracts? I mean, we've got some
Speaker 304
1:11:01
liability there. The school does. What happens to that liability? I
Speaker 199
1:11:09
believe that it would reform the contracts or they would have to be moved to a different school. I'm not actually sure about that.
It depends how the – you have to realize this is a law, but then it will also be the school board will have some regulations in terms of implementing
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
1:11:30
this from a state level. I
think my point is that breaking a contract with a person could put your school into financial stress, which
would be an additional improvement problem, I think. Okay, option
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:11:46
number three. If I may insert, Representative Dale,
I mean, I've been in schools where there are some good teachers and some poorly performing teachers, and quite frankly, even if they had a charter school, I would think some of those teachers would, I don't know if they have to reapply for their jobs, but I think they would keep those jobs. And I think if a school district is paying teachers that are not performing, then I think they do have an issue they need to deal with. I appreciate your opinion.
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
1:12:24
Option number three, with another question, Mr. Chairman. Closing the school and transferring the students to a higher performing school. are we going to ask that higher performing school if they have room for these children and what's that going to do to their performance I don't understand that perhaps Representative Stewart can help
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:12:51
with that since he mentioned a while ago that they already have that option
Speaker 308
1:12:56
I guess I was asking Mr. Noter that. He's the
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
1:13:09
one that's... You know, I wonder what the plan is there. I don't know that Mr. Stewart knows that answer. But if he wants to jump in here, he'd sure be welcome. But I think now transferring in schools does have some limitations now by state law for several reasons.
But I just wonder what your solution is on how that's going to work with this law. Well, there obviously
Speaker 199
1:13:44
are some limitations depending on your district or your school. If you're in a more rural area, that may not be as feasible as a solution, while changing it over to a charter school could be a better option. That's why the parents themselves actually choose the option that they want to petition their school into,
because obviously if you're in a more urban area like Little Rock, it would be a lot easier to transfer schools. Thank you Mr.
Speaker 47
1:14:28
Dale I think I'm going to finish right there Okay, alright You can always
Speaker 314
1:14:32
come back, Mr. Dale I have the next representative
Speaker 313
1:14:37
English, Pierce, Clemmer, and Bradford for questions, Ms. English, you're
Representative Jane English
Unverified
1:14:42
identified Thank you, Mr. Chairman And I guess one of the
things I wanted to make sure that you were looking at is that you wouldn't necessarily be removing the whole, that this would be directed at a specific school and not for a whole school system. So in the case where you had parents who in some particular, I don't even use Pulaski
County, where a school was not doing really well, and it continued not to do well, and the parents then decided that they really needed to have a different kind of school or a different school administration, this would allow them to have that freedom to be able to say, stop what you're doing, we need to make some changes. Is that, would you agree to that? Is that what you're looking at? Yes. Thank you for
Speaker 166
1:15:36
the question. I have next, Representative Pierce.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:15:38
Do you have another question for Representative Pierce? Thank you, Mr. Chair. On your – you said a while ago that you would move the students or transfer them. You said your transportation. How are you going to transport these if you're down in Star City or, say, Point or Sheridan? Are we going to add longer bus trips to these kids? Is that what
Speaker 142
1:16:02
we're going to do? For which option? Is there a specific
Speaker 290
1:16:05
option? Well, if you're in a rural area, you're going to have to bus them
Speaker 199
1:16:09
or you're going to have to get them to a different school district. If you're choosing the transfer option? Yes. Yeah, like I said before, obviously the parents would understand that going into the process of petitioning their school. They would realize that the next closest school maybe only is an hour away. So if they're going, well, I'm just throwing that out there, that the parents going into the process would know that obviously the next closest school to transfer if they petition for that specific reform is a significant distance away.
So going into that, they probably wouldn't choose that reform for the same fact that you're saying because that would be a very long commute. So that option probably would not be used in rural areas. Well, being on the school
Speaker 300
1:16:51
board for just a few years, I would think that
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:16:54
parents, and I've been around parents a lot, they change their mind a whole lot. You get out there and then you get them on the bus or wherever, and then what are we going to do then once we start bussing them? If they decide that's what they're going to
Speaker 300
1:17:06
do, we're going to bus them 30 miles over to another school district
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:17:10
without asking this school district if they really want them. Representative Pierce, if I may, I think the beauty of this bill is that it's not us making that decision, it's the parents.
Yes, ma'am. Again, it's 51 percent of those parents, and because we cannot say this option is the best thing for how many schools, 231 schools, but this gives them that ability to make the choice. I agree with you on that 100 percent, but I know
how parents are when they get about six months into something they
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:17:39
won't change their mind to. And I think that's when we say this was your choice. Well, we have this by now.
It's called public schools, too, so, you know, that's a choice. But anyway, I understand what you're trying to do with our schools, and we do need to fix them, and that's what we're trying to
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:18:05
do, all of us. But thank you very much on that. Representative Klemmer,
I'll thank you. You're next. I've listened to the line of questioning here, and I guess it seems like once again we're, I don't know, I wish I knew the saying, we're dilly-dallying while Rome burns. But what options do parents and families have if they currently live in an area without a –
we know very few students are taking the option of public
school choice, partly because in some areas there isn't a good option nearby. And we also set deadlines for making those decisions. But if you are a parent of multiple children in a failing school district, what options do you have today? As far as
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:19:00
realistic options, I'm not sure those students really do.
And maybe, again, maybe someone in the audience can answer that
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:19:08
question. Private school, possibly, if there's one available. a lot of counties in Arkansas you know we live in Little Rock
we live around Little Rock and those of us that come to Little Rock for business and we hear a lot of Little Rock news we have private school options if you can afford it but a lot of areas of the state don't have any options would that be correct? To my knowledge that is correct These children are virtual prisoners
in a failing school would that be correct also?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:19:38
I believe so So even though not in reference to this, but I heard the terminology used earlier today, held hostage, and I think that's what's being done with some of our students. Thank you, Ms. Hobbs. Representative Bradford, do you have
Representative Toni Bradford
Unverified
1:19:56
a question? Don't think. This is for Dr. Bender, and I wanted to see if I heard you correctly. I believe you said that presently we have 231 schools in some form of school improvement,
And I think you stated that this was schools, not districts. So does that mean that some school districts might have several, like the high school, junior high, elementary, and school improvement? Is that counted? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:20:27
you. All right. Representative Dickerson, you
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:20:32
have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering, of the 51 percent of the parents that is required to trigger this change,
they all have to agree on which of the three options they're working on? Yes, the petition would be for one of
Speaker 199
1:20:51
the three options. So it would say specifically, we want to close down the school and transfer. So the petition would explicitly state which option the parents are signing on the petition. There are three. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Okay. Okay,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:21:08
thank you. Mr. Dale, we're back to you. You have one more question. I mean, well, many as you want, Mr. Dale, but you're next.
Speaker 301
1:21:16
Thank you very much, but that was the answer to my question there. Thank you.
Speaker 75
1:21:21
Committee, any additional questions? If not, Mr. Stewart, I'm sorry. I have one,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:21:27
and I'm not sure. I'm looking at the fiscal impact statement, and it said, you know, There's no revenue impact, and I'm thinking if one of the options is that you hire a charter management organization, then there has to be a revenue impact. You've got to pay those people to do that. So I'm kind of wondering how that would work.
Mr. Stewart, I cannot answer that question, I'm sure. I would assume that you would pay those charter, I think it's called a charter management organization to run the school. Then school funds would be
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:22:07
used to pay them. This was prepared by Richard Wilson and his staff, so I guess
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:22:12
I can tell you. Without answering his question, in your bill, if the school then hires a charter management organization, they would want to be paid? I would think so, yes, sir.
And the payment would come from school funds? I would think so. So in their case, I think there would be an impact.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:22:31
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. I've got several questions, but I think I'll hold my questions. But I think we have some people that are going to answer some
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:22:40
of my questions in just a minute. And, Mr. Chair, before Dr. Bender leaves the table,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:22:45
may I add some information to this? She may want to sit right there through these next presentations. She doesn't, okay? Yes, Ms. Hobbs, you may ask her a question.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:22:53
Okay. I think this is good information that we as a committee need to know.
Dr. Bender, you stated 231 on year three, which this bill is addressed. Do you happen to know how many are on the needs improvement for years one and two? And again, I'm talking about host schools, not just targeted population. Yes, ma'am. Okay, and we have this broken
Speaker 270
1:23:20
down by target. May I answer this by just saying in year, you want one, two, and three?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:23:26
Yes, a while ago you gave us 231 that were in at least year three, but how many are in that first year? And I'm talking, again, host school, not targeted populations. Host school year
Speaker 270
1:23:36
three. And, again, let me remind everyone. Not year three, year one and two.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:23:41
Pardon? You already gave us year three for host school,
But I would like to know how many host schools are on at least year one and year two. Okay. And if you need a little bit of time, I understand.
Speaker 334
1:23:53
And if you need to find that until later.
Speaker 254
1:24:02
I thought you were asking for year three.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:24:07
Just a moment. And, Mr. Chair, if it's okay, in order to save time, I'm happy to
give Dr. Bender some time to look at those numbers and Dr. Bender while you do
that also would you look at how many students we're talking about if you can get that number for me or at least an estimate
and also I know from attending those interim meetings that when a school gets in on that improvement list extra funds are directed toward that school if you can tell us
how much money extra money is costing in addition to
what a school would get that is not on that improvement list, or if there's someone here that can answer that, I would appreciate it. I can get you
Speaker 254
1:24:45
the numbers as far as the number of schools, as far as number of students. I don't have that with me. I'll be more than happy to get the number of students in each school. And as far as fiscal questions, I don't know that we can actually give you that information today. Mr. Goff is here, and we talked about that a little bit this morning, but I'm not sure in reference
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:25:03
to your exact information. And again, an estimate would work. You know, if there's an average number of kids in those schools, I'd appreciate it.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:25:09
Dr. Bender, why don't you just take those three questions with you and provide that information to us at a later date. Okay,
Speaker 254
1:25:17
and I do have the number. She asked about the whole school in year one, total number, 49 schools. But I would like to add that 28 of those 49 have made, I'm so sorry, 77 schools. 49 of those out of 77, 49 in whole school one of those 77, and 28 did meet standard last year, but a total of 77 schools.
Speaker 337
1:25:41
In your opinion, are we making gains in these schools that are in improvement? I'm glad you asked that, and I would like
Speaker 266
1:25:48
to tell you that yes, and we do have data to back that up. If we had time, I would like to, at some point, for those who are interested, talk to you about our statewide system of support and what we're doing
Speaker 254
1:26:00
with that right now. We have specialty teams, and I may be giving more information than you need, so just tell me when to stop. But they're comprised of school improvement advisors, and we work closely with our co-ops. Those co-ops are so very important to this.
We use the specialists there, our professional development specialists, not only from the educational cooperative but additional specialists from ADE, representatives from our STEM centers, representatives from the special education personnel development grants. So we're getting all of those students, those who have special needs as well as your regular students. And we are making gains. You don't turn a school around quickly, as we all know, but we do have data to show. And all of these school improvement initiatives are focused on certainly increasing these numbers.
We don't like to have any school that's not performing, but I think you'd be very pleased if you look school by
Speaker 266
1:26:50
school at the gains that are being made. And I appreciate you asking that question. Ms. Bender, we
Speaker 166
1:26:55
may have you, after session, we may have you come to an intra-meeting and give us that information in detail so we can adjust that. I would love to. Thank you so much. These schools are, and we've got data.
Speaker 266
1:27:04
This is not what Laura Bender thinks, and I appreciate you asking. We have data to back that up. Thank you. Okay, right now.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:27:16
Ms. Clemmer does have a question. I don't know if it's Ms. Hobbs or
Speaker 108
1:27:20
Ms. Bender before you leave. It was for Ms. Bender before
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:27:25
you leave. How many years total? I'm going to get this academic distress straightened in my mind. And do we have schools beyond year three? Yes, ma'am. What I think might be more important than the schools in year three is how many in year four, how many in year five, how many years do we go? Yes, ma'am. We have school, and
Speaker 254
1:27:45
I have all that for you that I can break down as much as we need to.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:27:49
Could I just hear, if it's just a number, could I get the year four, year five,
Speaker 254
1:28:00
and how many ever years we go? Okay, now, and we're talking about host school. Yes, ma'am. Currently in year four, we have 29 schools. Of those 29, 22 are in host school. Four, seven of those 29 have met school in AYP last year. So if they meet that again, they will come off that list. Do you want me to go through all of these? Year five.
Year five. Currently, host school year five, we have 36, again, schools, not districts. Of those 36, 25, 11 met standards. If
Speaker 270
1:28:35
they meet those 11 meet standards again this year, they'll come
Speaker 254
1:28:57
off the list. You're 6, 27 schools.
You're 7, 31 schools. And are
Speaker 170
1:29:06
any those making adequate programs? And I
Speaker 254
1:29:08
apologize. I got this quickly this morning, and I'll have to go back and look at those of the 27. 31, seven schools in year eight, and two in year nine. May I add one more thing relative to these schools? Yes, yes, you can. You've probably been reading about the school improvement grants, 1003G, and the state is fortunate to have been awarded grants for the specific purpose of turning around those chronically low-achieving schools,
and those that are in that category of seven and year seven and eight were eligible, if they were Tier 1 schools to apply for those grants, and we have every reason to believe that over the next three years we'll be able to use those funds, assist those schools, and hopefully see some dramatic improvement. And I'd like to add that the measures you're talking about, many of those things are written into some of these proposals that these school improvement grant schools are thinking about trying in the future.
So we do have measures in place at all levels, and it's a collaborative effort at every level, and we feel like we are making
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:30:13
improvement. Could you just repeat year nine? I'm sorry. You said that rather quickly, and I just didn't
Speaker 254
1:30:17
get it down. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Year nine, two. Well,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:30:25
hallelujah. Only two in year nine. Okay, committee. Thank you, Ms. Bender, for your information, and if you will get the things that Ms. Hobbs wanted to her, get it to
all of us, I guess. We'd appreciate that. Okay.
Yes, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll go to the audience, And I think we have someone signed up to speak against, and it's Kristen Gould, Association of School Boards. Is Mr. Bob's
here? Oh, get my block block for this. Okay. Would
Speaker 350
1:31:02
you identify yourself with the record, please, then you may proceed. Kristen Gould, Staff Attorney, Arkansas School Boards Association. With the indulgence of the committee, I have a handout
Speaker 352
1:31:10
if you have any interest in receiving it.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:31:14
We will send staff down there and we'll pass
Speaker 350
1:31:28
that out to the committee. House Bill 1894 is based on no child left behind categories. And just for some background information on No Child Left Behind and the way that works here in Arkansas that might be of assistance to the committee, it's, of course, all based on our state criterion reference tests.
One of the things that is commendable about the state of Arkansas is that in Arkansas we have chosen a rigorous level to set proficient, which is the desired standard at. We have not taken the low road by setting a low cut score. We've taken the high road by setting a high cut score at grade level. No Child Left Behind is designed so that every school in America will have 100 percent of
its students scoring proficient by 2014. And to get there, it is a stair-step system where a school district has to improve the number of students by roughly seven to seven and a half percent, and that's roughly because it varies from test to test. And the other thing you need to remember about No Child Left Behind is it is not tracking the progress or intellectual or academic growth of any individual child.
It is comparing this year's fourth grade class performance to next year's fourth grade class performance. So if you made annual yearly progress with this year's class of fourth graders, you have to increase the current crop of third graders by 7 to 7.5 percent over the last year's crop of fourth graders to make AYP. And if any group of children, which of course, like the rest of us, vary in their abilities,
or stumbles a couple of times in a row, that can trigger some of these designations and categories. One of the terms that has been tossed around has been subpopulations. It is not that the children on average are proficient or that more of the children tested are proficient than not. It is that each subcategory, each little demographic slice of a school's population,
these subcategories include children who are limited English proficient. In other words, they came here perhaps speaking no English. No Child Left Behind is designed and expects children to go from zero English to fluent academic English and proficient on the state-mandated tests in two years. It also includes the subpopulation of children who qualify for special education services. Now, there are children who are receiving special education services
and are designated as special education because they have a speech impediment or receiving speech therapy services at school. It's wholly appropriate that these children should be measured by the same standards as all the other children in their grade. But it also includes children who are profoundly cognitively disabled. And there are a very limited number of exemptions for children with very serious disabilities to be alternatively assessed. Many of the schools who are in school improvement are in school improvement because they're special education students
who would not be special education if they, for the most part, if they could perform at grade level. not at grade level. There is also a very strong correlation in the literature between family income, being free and reduced price lunch, and underperforming on standardized tests because of all of the challenges that lead to and are created by low economic status. Many, many of the school districts who are in
school improvement are in school improvement because a gender group in a income low-income group for instance you might be in school improvement because your eighth grade disadvantaged males are not performing well in literacy okay that can plunge an entire school into school improvement so so I did simply simply want to give that little bit of background.
What has been distributed to you is an article that was published in yesterday's New York Times about a speech given by Secretary of Education Ernie Duncan illuminating the catch-22-ness of No Child Left Behind, where with the ever-ratcheting upward standards of to remain in, to be considered making annual yearly progress and statisticians know that when you have children
who have reached a certain level it becomes increasingly more difficult to take them up a little bit. If you have a child who is at the 98th percentile on a standardized test, it's very difficult to get them from 98 to 99 and continue to improve. Not so hard to get them from 48 to 52. So these are some of the things. Now, to get specifically to the bill, which is why I'm here, I believe that this bill has been written, perhaps, from a California bias,
where we're going to have much larger school districts than we typically do in Arkansas. We have many school districts in Arkansas where there is an elementary school and a secondary school, and that's it. that you could have a staff meeting of all of the administrators, the superintendent, and all the principals at a table for four with a seat left over. This bill would equally apply to multi-school districts as well as one elementary school district, one high school district.
And indeed, if this occurred, a school district that was in school improvement because of some continuing underperformance by a single subpopulation, say special education students or limited English proficient students, could have a parent initiative and petition process, get converted to a charter school, and the parents in that district might have no other option
than to be forced to attend that charter elementary school. that could very easily occur another very large concern I have is that if you will look at the options on page 2 lines 20 through 28, those are the three options that are available through the petitioning process each of these petitions would potentially or absolutely with a certainty
involved discharging, dismissing, or at the very least, massively reassigning staff members. A large district might have the potential to reassign staff members and be able to absorb those positions and then the charter management organization could hire new people, at least in theory. But a smaller school district is going to have no place to put 20 elementary teachers who may no longer teach elementary school because there was a petition initiative to have the whole school reconstituted.
There is no bypass or easy button that gets around the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, which is the statutory system of due process that a school district must go through in order to recommend a teacher for termination or non-renewal of the contract. There is no bypass. So let's just say, let's play this out. A petition is successful. The petition seeks closing the school.
What do you do with the teachers? Well, you have to fire them. So the superintendent would then have to initiate the process of sending every teacher a letter. Every teacher would have a right to a hearing before the school board, and so on. Then every teacher who had worked for a public school district in Arkansas for more than three years years, would have a right to sue the school district under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. This is particularly problematic because the school board is involved on the front end
of the petition process, which creates a built-in due process problem. They were in on the front end with the petition, but on the other hand, the way the statute is set up, they serve as judge and jury at the hearing process. If this became law, not only could parents find themselves with no other options or options that were difficult for them, the school district could find itself completely bogged down with
legal liability, multiple requests for hearings, judgments against the school district. Let's look at the option of closing the school and transferring the students to a higher performing school. You send your low-performing subpopulation to a new school with their challenges, and what happens to that school? Well, I think that you're starting the whole process all over again. One of the problems with No Child Left Behind is a child who has a problem needs
intensive support. The current system hopefully does provide those targeted children with the intensive support that they need to succeed. We are very sympathetic to the problems that public schools face. But a problem that admires an entire school district and potentially causes the school district to go into physical distress is perhaps not the best option for all the children.
One of my concerns is a very practical concern, and it deals with this whole petitioning process. I'm not sure that many parents would have the background to distinguish between competing charter management organizations. There is no safeguard in this bill for financial interests to exist. A parent could be in the employ of a charter management organization, could be receiving
a salary from a charter management organization, there is no requirement that such a financial conflict of interest be disclosed to the other parents, there is no prohibition against paying a parent for a signature on a petition. A parent gets one vote per child, it's not 51% of the parents, it's 51% of the children. So a few families with many children could skew the results is another option.
This is an exception to and a complete override and end run around the current cap in the law which sets the number of charter schools in Arkansas at 24. There are currently 18 charter schools in Arkansas. We are not at capacity with charter schools. The charter schools that might come into existence under this law would be very special charter schools. They would not be under ADE supervision like the current charter schools are. Under current
law, a charter school that runs into trouble, I believe we've read about some charter schools who have run into trouble in the paper, a charter school that has serious financial difficulties, the state currently has the ability to go in and yank the charter. The state has done this. Okay? But these charter schools that would exist under this legislation would be guaranteed five years. There is no provision for ADE to come in and pull the plug on them. We appreciate
very much the good questions that have been asked by this committee up to now, and I would be very happy to answer any questions you might have questions
Speaker 229
1:45:25
committee mr i don't have a question i have a motion motion uh
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
1:45:27
due to our time i would uh move that we limit debate to five minutes on the side proper motion all in favor
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:45:32
say aye opposed no ayes have it any questions to miss google if If not, thank you for your testimony.
Do we have anyone who wants to speak for this bill? I think we have someone signed up to speak against
Speaker 10
1:45:57
this bill. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, Mr. Merton. Would you
Speaker 359
1:46:06
identify yourself, and you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike Merton with the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators. And rather than go through a long list that has already been covered by some of our committee members and ASBA,
we would just go on record to say that we are opposed to this bill. Probably most of our concerns would revolve around the trigger once it's pulled. And not only is it pulled, but it's aimed in a certain direction. and it required the school board to implement whatever reorganization effort is in the petition. And some of those concerns, like if you close a school, where do they go?
Are other schools that these students would be transferred to? Do they have the capacity to accept those students? If you fire the principal, then the staff. Even if you can get through teacher fair dismissal, there's no guarantee that they will be adequate replacements for those staff members. There is no stipulation for a convergent charter school, only an open enrollment charter school. And as we read this bill, the district would still be responsible for the building, even
if these students have been transferred or it's been turned over to an open enrollment charter school which means maintenance and upkeep and making the house payment even though all the funds that generated by those students goes to the open enrollment charter school for the operation of
Speaker 224
1:47:49
that school the district would still be required to maintain the facility and with that I'll end
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:47:56
my testimony. Committee questions? Seeing none thank you for your testimony sir anybody for
this bill not will go to the next against this bill and I think that's Mr. Hutchinson point of
Speaker 54
1:48:13
information how many minutes do we have
Speaker 163
1:48:16
three minutes and nine seconds thank you Mr. Chair Richard
Speaker 360
1:48:22
Hutchinson Director of Government Relations and Instructional Issues for the Arkansas Education Association we do oppose this bill I won't repeat any of the reasons, excellent points made by Ms. Gould and Mr. Merton.
I would simply like to make these two points. We believe in the association, and we believe all school people believe this. Even one school in school improvement for one year is one school too many. One subpopulation of students who are in school improvement is one subpopulation too many. We all have an obligation to work diligently to find the solutions to the problem of schools that are not succeeding for all students.
It's important for those students and the parents and the community and the nation that we're a part of in the world. So we agree with that. But we do think it's important to understand that the evidence for what works in turning around schools and what doesn't work is still in the process of being developed. There's still a lot of work that needs to be done on this to find what works, and what works in one situation may not work in another. And there is simply no evidence at this point that pricing a piece of legislation that says X percent of parents
by voting to either, one, close the school, turn it into a charter, whatever that might mean, or eliminating all or most of the staff is necessarily going to make any difference. So we need to focus our attention, as Dr. Bednar indicated in her comments to the committee, on finding the solutions to these problems and implementing them. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:50:08
Any questions, committee? Seeing none, we'll go back to the audience.
Anyone want to speak for this bill? Okay, Mr. Kimball, to speak against this
Speaker 363
1:50:21
bill, you have a minute and 22 seconds. I'll try very quickly, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department of Education has a couple of real concerns. One, in the actual school improvement statute that is referenced on page 2, line 4, that doesn't have anything to do with no child left behind school improvement status. That has to do with the rating scale of 1 through 5. So we're not talking about, in calculations from last year,
we're talking about seven schools that would even qualify. Most of those are alternative schools. So that code doesn't reference no child left behind ranking. The other piece that we have tremendous concern about is the funding piece on page 4, beginning with lines 27. It talks about all funding, including state and local funding. We are not sure how you would take all of the local funding that comes from all the millage that would be voted and to distribute that to a school when you have a lot of those mills that are dedicated to paying bonds and debt.
That's some real concern that we have of how do you do that. So we've got some questions from the department's perspective as to how the bill is written right now, how it would be implemented, and how it would be funded. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:51:31
Dr. Campbell. Any questions? Seeing none. Committee, we're back. Ms. Hobbs, you have five
minutes to close if you'd like to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:51:49
I don't know if it's out of order or not, but I'm wondering if we made those two corrections if Dr. Kimbrell would be – and the Department of Education would be in support of
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:51:58
this bill. You would have to ask him that. I can't answer that. It's okay for me to ask him that. I think I know an answer,
Speaker 365
1:52:06
but I'm not going to answer it. Is he still in the room? Was
Speaker 363
1:52:10
that a yes? I thought you were asking if I'm still in the room. Yes, ma'am, I'm still in the room. That's just the two I had the minute to talk about. There are some other issues that are in the bill that we have concerns about how it would actually work.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:52:20
Thank you. Ms. Hobbs, you may continue. Thank you, sir. I think some of you today were rather shocked, as I was the first time I heard some of these numbers. And Mrs. Gould's testimony, I heard her. Reference several subpopulations, and I asked Dr. Bender if she could tell me how many additional schools would be added to this list if we only looked at those targeted populations, and I think she's still trying to figure those up.
But remember, these are schools in whole school improvement.
They are, I mean, if my totals are correct, 356 schools. We don't
know how many students. students. If you say even 100 students per school, that's
35,600 students. I'm just dismayed that we as leaders in this state would allow
this to happen. And whether or not the parent
trigger is used, again, it's 51% of the parents. And if they're that motivated to turn their school around. I think we should give them the opportunity to do so. I heard concerns about teachers. I have a great deal of respect for teachers. I've been in the classroom. I understand a little bit about what teachers go through. I know there are some excellent teachers. I also know there are some teachers that that probably need to be on that improvement list themselves. But but again
the focus of this bill is not about the teachers. It's about the students and And right now, they have, I mean, if you're in a poor performing school, do you wait nine years for something to happen? I mean, nine years out of 13, what's going to happen if someone does finally step in after that ninth year? I think we need to have our focus on students. And again, I think even if, often if schools know something else is out there, they tend to improve.
Maybe this will help to motivate them to do that. I heard some concerns about the parents having the ability to make this choice. Those are the parents that elected us to be here. I hope that we will also have enough confidence in those decisions to choose what is best for their students, especially if you're talking about 51 percent. Also these failing schools, they're not out there somewhere, they're in our districts. And I would hope that if we see a group of parents going in the wrong direction, that
we as representatives could step in and help guide them through that process. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Speaker 303
1:55:05
Ms. Hobbs. Committee, what's your pleasure? Ms. Hobbs, do you want
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:55:18
to make a motion? We have a motion. Do pass as amended. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.
All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Be the nose habit. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hobbs.
We're going to want one more bill today. Representative Pierce has House Bill 1878. We're going to look at it. We have a more time limit also. Ms. Pierce,
you have someone there to assist you, I hope. Yes, sir. Yes,
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:55:50
Mr. Chair, I sure do. I have the Attorney General's office right here, all of one. Would you identify
Speaker 369
1:55:57
yourself, sir? Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's office.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
1:56:00
You may proceed, Mr. Pierce. This is a bill that should have been ran about 20 years ago, but it's just now getting ran because of some different technology. It's a forensic bill, and it's got accounting with it. It's to make the districts clean up their accounting, and they have been doing this for the last year, if I'm not right, on this. And it's for the Pulaski County DSAG money that we have been spending, How much money have we got on it now? It's up to about $70 million a year.
We're up to $70 million a year, and for the last few years we've been doing this, the whole total is over $1 billion. So this is to get accountability on this money that we haven't had in a while. So all this does is just make sure that we have accountants over there checking their accountability on this, and we'll take questions. Committee, questions? Ms.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:56:57
Flemmer. Move to pass. Excellent. move, Ms. Glimmer. We have a motion to do pass. Well, Mr. Hudson just reminded me, I'm getting
out of sync here. Anyone of y'all just wants to speak for or against this bill? Okay. We have someone who wants to speak against it. I almost ignored you, sir.
Clay Finley
Unverified
1:57:21
I'm sorry. Have Proceed and identify yourself
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:57:25
for the record, please. My name is Clay Finley. I'm an attorney representing, among other clients, the Little Rock School District. Thank you. You may proceed. We are speaking against this bill because we believe it imposes requirements on the Little Rock School District
and the three Pulaski County School Districts that are not imposed on other school districts in the state and is, in fact, a form of retaliation that would be a violation of our 1989 settlement agreement with the state. Let me just clear up a little confusion about what the desegregation money that the Little Rock School District receives goes to. A large chunk of the money we receive through the 1989 settlement agreement is for our magnet schools.
That is an amount of money that is set in part through the Magnet Review Committee that has representatives of the state. That money goes directly to the operation of our Magnet schools. We have Magnet and MDEM transportation. The school districts provide that transportation, and then they are reimbursed from the state for that transportation. The school districts also receive teacher retirement and health insurance money. by virtue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement.
The only money that the districts receive that is not designated for a specific purpose or reimbursement for a specific cost of which the state is aware is the M-to-M incentive money. That is money that the districts receive to encourage them to recruit their own students to leave the district and go to a school in another district for the purposes of enhancing desegregation. That money is a small part of what the districts receive in total.
I think the Little Rock School District receiving and sending MDEM incentive money is about $7 million a year. That is the only money that the districts get that is not already either reimbursement for a specific cost or designated for a specific purpose, such as teacher retirement and health insurance. Thank you
Speaker 166
1:59:47
for your comments. Committee question. Representative Steele, you have a
Speaker 205
1:59:51
question? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I promise to be
Speaker 207
1:59:54
brief. Mr. Finley, how does this bill change where those categories, how those categories are being funded?
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
2:00:01
How does this bill change that? Well, it won't change anything about how those... Well, what's your problem with accountability? Well, the problem is you're singling out the three Pulaski County School Districts for treatment different from other school districts. Isn't that because they're under deseg? Well, we, the Little Rock School District has been released from federal court supervision. But under monitoring? The Little Rock School District is the plaintiff in the inter-district desegregation case. It is the state of Arkansas who is the defendant in the case. So if the state, we receive funding pursuant to the 1989 settlement agreement.
And that agreement, in our opinion... But as
Speaker 207
2:00:40
an attorney, you know you're not answering my question. What's wrong with
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
2:00:44
accountability? There is nothing wrong with accountability. Thank you
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:00:48
very much. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Summers, I believe I saw
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
2:00:53
your hand wave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Finley. Thank you for being here. I know this is a very complex issue and requires, must be an awesome amount of work by lawyers and many other people, firms.
things of that nature, would your firm have an interest in this? And I'm not asking you from the ethics standpoint, this is strictly a business question. Would you all stand to do less business if this bill that we're looking at is approved? And the yes or no answer would be appreciated.
Speaker 37
2:01:25
Thank you. Ms. Clemerell, do you have a question? I did. I did
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:01:32
have a motion, but since we bring in testimony, can I be clear? Maybe it's rhetorical.
Whose money is the desegregation money coming from?
Taxpayers, thank you. State of Arkansas? It is the state of Arkansas. Okay, so it sort of is our business how we spend state money. We were told in audit last year, I want to see if this is correct, that the schools under DSEG struggled to spend all the money they were given, that a good bit of it was spent on food. Is that correct? Or was that incorrect testimony? I haven't heard
Speaker 375
2:02:05
that. I don't believe that to be true.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:02:08
I do believe that was the testimony that was brought to us in an audit late last fall. That did not concern the Leroy School District. Okay, but
the money is part of the fund that we're talking about increasing accountability for. A small part of the money. Thank you very much. Any
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:02:30
other questions, committee? Anybody else in the audience want to speak for or against this bill?
Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. We have a motion due passed by Mrs. Clemmer. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Leave the ayes. Have it. Committee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Hold on just a second. Ms.
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:02:59
Roebuck has one thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, with permission, I'd like to withdraw House Bill 14-12 and refer it back to the committee for possible subcommittee referral.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:03:10
Aye. Opposed? Do you have a question?
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
2:03:16
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are several groups that I found out over the last few days that fall into the same category as
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
2:03:24
that gentleman. Thank you for clarifying. And that would include any issues about this bill that concern any entities. Okay. I think there are about ten
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
2:03:32
other groups that I would like to see included in that study. Okay. Okay. So moved. Proper.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
2:03:42
Committee, thank you for your attention today. Meeting adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1829
HB1620
HB1348
HB1875
HB1894
HB1878
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 15
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 54
Speaker 68
Speaker 75
Speaker 77
Speaker 81
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 90
Speaker 87
Representative Johnnie J. Roebuck
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 55
Speaker 92
Speaker 120
Speaker 124
Speaker 125
Speaker 127
Speaker 134
Speaker 140
Speaker 142
Speaker 145
Speaker 148
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 163
Speaker 17
Speaker 166
Speaker 158
Speaker 172
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 183
Speaker 144
John Noderft
Unverified
Speaker 197
Speaker 199
Speaker 200
Speaker 202
Speaker 205
Speaker 207
Speaker 209
Speaker 206
Speaker 192
Clay Finley
Unverified
Speaker 254
Speaker 266
Speaker 268
Speaker 270
Speaker 286
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 291
Speaker 300
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
Speaker 304
Speaker 308
Speaker 47
Speaker 314
Speaker 313
Representative Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 290
Representative Toni Bradford
Unverified
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Speaker 301
Speaker 334
Speaker 337
Speaker 108
Speaker 170
Speaker 350
Speaker 352
Speaker 229
Speaker 10
Speaker 359
Speaker 224
Speaker 360
Speaker 363
Speaker 365
Speaker 303
Speaker 369
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 375
Speaker 20
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified