Education Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1113
Act 350
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1113 Dotson TO AMEND THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS URBAN HOMES…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS URBAN HOMESTEAD ACT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF … | Dotson | Notification that HB1113 is now Act 350 |
|
SB147
Act 490
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “…et started, call this meeting to order. We have, let's see, Senate Bill 147, Senator English. and members again you can um choose to pr…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS OPPORTUNITY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT; … | J. English | Notification that SB147 is now Act 490 |
|
HB1009
Act 141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BEING UTILIZED AS A HOMESTEAD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1009 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF EXC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS FOOD IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1009 is now Act 141 |
|
SB124
Act 251
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB124 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS AND CURRICULUM … | J. Sturch | Notification that SB124 is now Act 251 |
|
SB31
Act 319
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB31 J. English TO AMEND THE COMPONENTS OF A COLLEGE AND CAREER…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPONENTS OF A COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ASSESSMENT. | J. English | Notification that SB31 is now Act 319 |
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 6, 2026
Okay, if everybody can take their seats, we're going to go ahead and get started, call this meeting to order. We have, let's see, Senate Bill 147, Senator English. and members again you can um choose to present from your seat or you can go to the end of the
table i'm just trying to avoid all of us
mixing up So, Senator English, you're recognized when you're ready to do
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:00
the SB 147. Basically, the Commissioner of the State Lands Urban Homestead Act
allows the commissioner of state lands to donate unsold tax delinquent properties to community organizations to develop low-income housing. The land as donated by the commissioner is restricted to low-income residential use only. So this bill addresses situations where community organizations have donated land that cannot be practically developed as low income housing by adding the option of using the land for a school. The bill
only applies to donated land that the community organization has been able to unable to develop as low income housing for at least three years after being donated by the commissioner okay I think you're doing
HB 11 oh I'm sorry I was not I was
Speaker 13
2:02
doing this first sorry no can we go back to that one do you
okay we'll just okay let's everybody switch gears we'll just go to HB 1113 I think that's
the one you're talking about all right HB
Speaker 15
2:15
1113 okay okay we'll just let you Keep going with that. I'm sorry. Nope, you're fine. We'll go right back through all that again. We're just
Senator Jane English
Unverified
2:25
going to keep going. Basically, what this one does is it makes some technical changes to the.
No, no, no. We're just going to do House Bill 1113, which is the one that you just discussed. Oh, okay. The one you were on. All right. Okay. Good. We're talking about Commissioner of State Lands. Yes.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
2:42
Okay. So, anyway, that's what this bill is applied.
So it would, it only applies to those parts of the state with above average poverty rates. And I think Mr. McKinley, McKinley is in here. McKinley, is he here? Dodson? He's in the holding room? Oh, can he? We'll unhold him, please. So are there some questions? Are there any questions?
Senator, go ahead and let me have him
come on up to the table and then he can. Thank you. If you can introduce your name for
the record, then we can proceed. I think we've had an explanation of the bill. We're at the point of questioning, but introduce yourself for the record, please.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
3:42
My name is Cliff McKinney. I'm an attorney at Waterbottom Grooms and
Speaker 18
3:46
Toll, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may
Chair
Unverified
3:51
have about the bill. Great. Senator Elliott, you're recognized for questions. Thank you. Mr. McKinney, are you here? I'm up
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
4:00
here. Over here, right in front of you. Okay. Right here. Sorry. Hiding. them. Are you here on behalf of anybody or just on behalf of yourself? I'm here on behalf of
Arkansans for Better Education. All right.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
4:20
So what does Arkansans for Better Education do? I'm sorry? It's Arkansans
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
4:26
for Better Schools. It's a non-profit organization. Okay. This is on the face of
Chair
Unverified
4:33
it. This sounds like such a great idea until I just go back to just last night when I was reviewing the
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
4:42
Rothstein book about the color of law. And so much of what happens in that book is the packing of kids or groups of folks, especially people of color, in certain
areas so that they all go to school together, they all live together. And in a situation like this, That's what it seems to me that we are doing. So if we would want more, and I would think we would want more, interpersonal connection between people across economic lines and across ethnic and racial lines, that this land might be used for mixed-income housing, that seems to make the most sense.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
5:28
Why did we not go that route? well this is specifically looking at education opportunities for this land that's currently restricted for a low-income housing
Chair
Unverified
5:38
only and so it's just to provide another option for some land to be used that can't otherwise be used for or has not been used for low-income housing for at least three years since it was donated I'm sorry what was that last this is only applies to land that has not been used for low-income housing for at least three years since it was donated and so it's providing another option the idea being that schools can improve an area and can
improve a community so if you're able to bring schools into an area it can improve the overall education and just really be a whole neighborhood in the entire
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
6:12
area how does that follow though because we've been closing schools in neighborhoods where people are well that should do the very same thing we're talking about right now. For example, in my neighborhood, we closed a school. That should have done exactly what you just said.
But now we're going to choose particular areas and open a school in a predominantly, and I guess totally, sort of poverty-ridden area. And somehow it's gonna be better because we have a school there. Yet that's not happening now. In fact, we are disabling that right now. So could you talk me through how this is going to make sense when we're already supposedly
caring about that, but we're going the opposite direction?
Chair
Unverified
7:02
Well, I can't speak to a lot of what you're asking. What I can speak to is what this bill does, which is provides an opportunity for this land to be used for schools if it's appropriate. And this is only for public schools or public charter schools. And so in both cases, the Department of Education or the local school district would be involved in making that decision of whether this location would
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
7:29
be an appropriate spot for a school. What do you believe though is good public policy to create, by virtue of our government,
to create pockets of poverty? By saying, we're gonna take this land, we're gonna have only low income housing on it, and then we're gonna build a school here. So what, only the kids will go to school there with low income housing, or are we gonna make some? because I'm just not following why this is good policy. Although it sounds very altruistic on the face of it, the outcome of it I think will be very deleterious
for moving kids ahead, especially have an opportunity for all of our kids, not just the poor kids, but all of our kids to go to school together, to learn together, because so much of our division right now is we keep creating policies like this, why we have neighborhoods and communities the way we do right now because of governmental policy. This seems like more of
Speaker 50
8:32
that. Do you think that's good policy? I can't address some
Chair
Unverified
8:40
of what you're bringing up. I personally do not know all the circumstances
of what you're pointing at. I can tell you what this bill does. This bill opens up the opportunity for land that is currently deed restricted for low-income housing only to be used
Senator Jane English
Unverified
8:56
for education. purposes and we're obviously the land has been sitting there for a good while and and there is no low-income housing so I think one of the thoughts is is that that schools might
help for developing housing in the in the area I totally I totally understand that what what
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
9:16
I am saying is that decades after
of decades after decades, we have been making sure we have segregated housing. How is this not going to
do the same thing? And if it is, how is it a good idea? Is this where anybody, is anybody in this room gonna be willing to jump up and move to that neighborhood? Anybody in this room want this housing in your neighborhood so we will have mixed income housing? And this seemed like would be an opportunity do just that. I'll stop right there. I realize you
can tell me what the law does. I guess somebody
Speaker 59
9:55
else must know what the philosophy is, and I'll wait for that person to come to the mic. Senator Beckham, you're recognized
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
10:11
for questions on the bill. On the first page
Speaker 64
10:14
of the bill, it says that the parcels of land, paraphrasing here, may be better utilized but to provide schools in the areas with higher than average poverty levels so it's it's not doing what senator elliott was alluding to it's actually saying that in
areas that are higher than the average poverty level we can take the land that was deed restricted to low-income housing
Speaker 65
10:37
and use that for schools is that correct that's correct it provides another option in those areas. Senator
Chesterfield, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
10:51
Madam Chair, and thank you, sir, for taking my question. Thank you to Senator English. I'm trying to wrap my head around. Areas in need of affordable housing benefit from expanding
educational opportunities. That's given, everybody does. Parcels of land donated by the commissioner of lands that are not being used as homesteads may be better utilized to provide schools and areas with a higher than
average poverty level. What is a higher than average poverty level? So the state of
Chair
Unverified
11:26
Arkansas has a poverty level as determined by the Census Bureau, which I believe is currently 17.2%.
And then each census tract in the state has a further breakdown on that, and the U.S. Census Bureau will state what the poverty rate is in that particular census tract. In dollars and cents, what would that be? Excuse me, I
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
11:47
didn't hear that question. In dollars and cents, what would the poverty rate be for higher than average poverty rates? I'm not positive what the
Chair
Unverified
11:54
dollar amount is. What I researched was the percentage of poverty. So I do know that they're looking right now at
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
12:04
federal government, how are we going to define what poor is and what is not poor? But the bill says it's in higher than average poverty
rate. What is the average poverty rate as far as dollars and cents is concerned? Well, so
Chair
Unverified
12:18
this is set by the poverty rate, not by what the poverty financial threshold is. The dollar amount is, I'm sure it's equated somewhere in there, but there is a published poverty rate by the U.S. Census Bureau. I'm well aware of that, but it usually breaks out
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
12:35
in the dollars and cents. We consider a certain, if you're making this amount of money,
you're in poverty. Correct. You're making above this amount of money, you're not in poverty. And you're talking about people who make less than the poverty rate. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. And it would, it would vary
Chair
Unverified
12:52
depending on the size of the family. Okay. Well, let's say a family
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
12:56
of four. What's the Average poverty rate for a family of four. Off the
Chair
Unverified
13:00
top of my head, I don't know what the... Well, the state of Arkansas, the average poverty rate is 17.2%.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
13:06
I do know that, but I'm not sure what that number is for a family of four. Senator
Beckham has that information. May I ask him that question, then, if he has that information? $24,000. $24,000 for a
family of one of four. That's considered poor. So if you're making less than that, then it's more than the poverty
rate. Is that right? You're correct. So who gets this?
It's a donated parcel of land held by a community organization. Who do you have in mind? What
Chair
Unverified
13:46
is the genesis of this? So this is an existing law. The Urban Homestead Act is an existing law. And there are many, many tracts of land that have been donated over the years through this. And there is a definition within the existing law today of what a community organization is. As a general matter, it would be a nonprofit organization that is trying to develop low-income housing and improve housing in a community.
So if an organization meets that definition that's, again, currently in the law, then the land commissioner has the option to donate land that was not sold at public auction. Are you representing someone who owns that kind of
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
14:28
land? No, ma'am. So why is somebody from Quattlebaum here talking about land that's donated to a nonprofit being able to go to tortoise school? What is the genesis of your interest?
Chair
Unverified
14:41
Well, I represent a non-profit organization that would like to see these schools be able to be, schools be able to be developed in these types of areas. So you are representing someone? Yes, ma'am. I did say that at the beginning. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, I missed, you missed that,
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
14:56
but I'm representing the Arkansans for better schools. Okay, and where is that? What, where did that, is that in Little Rock? Is that, is that Jefferson County? Where
Chair
Unverified
15:04
is that? It's a non-profit organization in the state of Arkansas. It's registered in the state of
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
15:08
Arkansas. Okay, where is its headquarters, is what I'm trying to get to.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
15:12
I'm not exactly certain where the headquarters is of the organization. You represent someone you don't know
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
15:23
where the main headquarters is? Do you have a question on the bill? This is a question on the bill. All right, let's get back to the bill. What is the genesis
of the bill? That's a legitimate question. In honor of the blue of the western sky, we certainly have someone who wants to take money that has been supposed to be used for low-income property. Now we want a nonprofit whom
he represents. We have stakeholders that testify for and against
bills so answer the question please. Yes,
Chair
Unverified
15:47
so I represent one of the stakeholders that's interested or an organization is interested in seeing this type of opportunity. Is there
Chair
Unverified
15:56
you have in mind? This particular organization does have one that they would like to see develop. Yes Where is
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
16:07
that? Where is that? It is in Southwest Little Rock. Okay, so this is not out of, this is, this would benefit your client in his ability or her, their ability to get land converted to a school
in a particular area, mine for instance,
of the, of Tulaski County. So this is not just altruistic, this is that you have a financial interest in this. Is that right? Because you represent them, you're getting paid for it, right? Yes,
Speaker 69
16:34
ma'am. I'm an attorney. Of course, I get paid to represent clients. Senator Eades,
Speaker 90
16:42
do you have a question? Could this type of opportunity be, since it's like it was donated land, so any kind of growing school that wanted to add a new location would save them the cost of acquiring the land before
Chair
Unverified
16:55
before they develop the school, is that correct? Well, the community organization could decide whether to sell the land to the school district or whether to donate the land
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
17:04
to the school district. That would be between the school district and the community organization on how they want to transfer the property. Okay,
all right, thank you. Senator Chesterfield, you're recognized for
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
17:17
a question. Thank you. Since that is in the Pulaski County Special School District, since it's Southwest, Is it Southwest, is
it in the Little Rock School District or Little Rock School District, the parcel of land?
Chair
Unverified
17:28
I'm here to speak specifically about this bill as opposed to, I don't know 100% of the details about exactly. I do have a client that would like to see property developed in this manner, but that's not what I'm here for. All
right, thank you. All right, are there any other questions? Senator Starch, and I'll come back to you, Senator Elliott. Senator Starch, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
17:50
Chair. I was wondering if we had anybody from DF&A or the Land Commissioner's Office
here. Is there anyone here from DF&A or the Land Commissioner's Office on this bill?
We can ask for somebody to be
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
18:03
here. Could I ask Senator English if she's heard this concern? Yes, please. Senator English, I'm looking at the fiscal impact statement that was provided, or legislative impact statement. The last page, page 2, there's a provision in the bill that says that donated parcel of land shall be released from all present and future tax obligations? And they're saying that it's a bit ambiguous because it's not clear whether releasing the parcel of land from all present and future releases the land
from all tax liability owed, or is it just referring to property tax? Or has that come up before now? Or can you tell us? Okay. It looks like
they were not really comfortable with the way that language was just because it's not clear on what obligations are we talking about and whether we could apply it to future and past years as far as whether it's property taxes or other taxes that were forfeited. I didn't know if the Commissioner of State Lands handles that
before this process ever begins or if DF&A is not on the same page or. And I
Speaker 74
19:11
believe I can address part of that if you'd
Chair
Unverified
19:16
like me to. Madam Chair, is it all right? Yes, please. So I think there might be some confusion between section, this is on page two of the bill, but section C and section D. So one begins at line 20, the other begins at line 25. So let me start with actually D because I think that's really where your question is
and I'll go back up to C. Taxes from previous years
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
19:38
shall not apply to the donated parcel. So the way it works right now is if someone doesn't pay their property taxes, the land gets transferred to the land commissioner's office, they try
Chair
Unverified
19:49
to sell it. If they're unable to sell it, reclaim those taxes, and they have the option to donate. And so the reason for this line is to make it clear that if there's a transfer from the nonprofit or from the community organization under this act to a school,
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
20:06
that that would not trigger that old tax liability that was out there on the property that resulted in the property being forfeited to the land commissioner in the future. So I guess my question then
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
20:18
is if the commissioner of state lands donates it, why would there be tax liability to begin
Chair
Unverified
20:24
with? Well, and there isn't. So when they donate to the community organization, that gets rid of the tax liability. So the community organization that's going to develop single-family or low-income housing doesn't have to go back and pay, say, the last 10 years of property tax.
That's in there just to clarify that the act of transferring this to a school would not somehow undo what
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
20:46
the land commissioner had done when they donated it. It would not trigger a need to go back and pay those taxes from the past. And is that necessary because
Speaker 90
20:57
it's happened before, or you're just trying to make it crystal clear? Trying
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
21:00
to make it crystal clear to avoid
Chair
Unverified
21:03
that kind of an outcome. And then the future obligations you were mentioning, that's in C. So D only applies to previous tax years.
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
21:12
C is referring to future restrictions on the property. So currently when property gets donated, there's a restriction on it that says if this land is ever used for
Chair
Unverified
21:22
any purpose other than single family or for low-income housing, then it goes back to the state. The state gets that land back. And so we're saying that this type of use would
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
21:31
not trigger that and would release that restriction. Okay. Senator Beckham? Would that trigger any other restrictions on the deed?
Chair
Unverified
21:46
So there was an amendment to the bill in order to clarify that if, let's say there was a deed restriction on the property for environmental
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
21:53
contamination, that would not be removed. That was the purpose of the first amendment on the bill. So this would only remove the restrictions regarding how the property is used for residential housing. But if it's not developed for
Speaker 113
22:05
the school? Correct. Then the restrictions would stay. I've got a question. All right. I'm sorry.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
22:16
Senator Elliott. I just had one more question. So you are here to represent
a private entity, a not-for-profit, and on this land can be built either private or public schools, or it can be an open enrollment charter, I won't call it a private, open enrollment charter, or a traditional public school could be built on that land as well.
Correct, but not a private school, though. Not a private school, yeah, I'm stipulating that as the case. Have you had any contact from anybody in the Little Rock Public School District who's interested in building a school on that land? Not to my knowledge, though
Chair
Unverified
23:03
I may not be the best person to speak to that.
Speaker 116
23:06
I'm sure somebody will answer that question for me. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yes, Senator Chesterfield.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
23:15
Just a quick, is there something in the law that precludes that from happening right now?
Chair
Unverified
23:20
That prevents the property from being used? Yes, ma'am. So under the current law, the only use that can
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
23:27
be made of land that was donated by the land commissioner through the Urban Homestead Act
Chair
Unverified
23:33
is low-income housing. That is the only thing that the land can be used for. It is prohibited from any other purpose. And so the purpose of this bill is to add one more
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
23:43
use under certain limited circumstances which would be schools. Is that federal law as well as
state law? In this case this is the State Urban Homestead Act and so that's what we're dealing with here is the
Chair
Unverified
23:58
State Urban Homestead Act. There is a federal Urban Homestead Act but we're not dealing with that and that's not the the law that we're concerned with at this time. Thank you. All
right any other questions? All right seeing none is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill no one to speak for against the bill what is the pleasure of the committee motion do pass is there a second second all those in favor say no no
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
24:23
no we need to speak on the bill please
for against the you want to speak on the
Speaker 59
24:31
motion uh yes on the motion okay you're recognized to speak on the motion no i want to speak against it i was just pointing out that we need to have the opportunity to speak for or against the motion. That's all. That's
what I recognize you to speak against the motion. Yeah. That's where we're at. Okay. So you're recognized to speak
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
24:50
against the motion. I don't think I have to prove to anybody how much I care about whether or not kids who are underprivileged have opportunity.
I grew up that way. I live in a neighborhood right now where I see enough of it. And for us to pretend, or at least I'll speak for myself, for me to pretend I don't see straight through this bill to a charter school in Southwest Little Rock would just be absurd for me to sit here today and even talk about this bill. But here's the problem with that for everybody who's not aware. We have at least five schools
that are being talked about now and would already have been closed if there had not been interventions like people not voting for extension of
a tax. This bill proposes that we're gonna build a school in an area where we are closing schools. This bill is about the continued hollowing out of the Little Rock School District. We have closed schools around the state.
We have closed schools right in my neighborhood because we said we have too many schools in the Little Rock School District. This proposes to add another school. So what we're doing is closing public schools, traditional public schools, and open and charter schools. But the reason we closed the public schools in the first place, it was not efficient as one of the requirements of the Constitution. So if you want to come in here and say this concern is about kids who are in poverty,
we have plenty of schools already for kids who are living in poverty and in that area, in Southwest Little Rock. So I ask you to think about this. Southwest Little Rock is an area that is underserved. If we put one more school in Southwest Little Rock, I guess we will close another traditional public school, because that's what we're talking about doing here. All in the name of, it's about those poor kids so they can have more opportunity.
They can have more opportunity right now if we stop dividing the money
up and making it less and less and less for the schools that we have.
which is the reason we're closing schools right now and it's always always
in the parts of the city that are predominantly African-American and Hispanic always these are the schools we
close I think we've closed seven now so to speak and we even
have on the docket right now to close
McClellan whether you know where that is or
not we're going to close that we've closed that school and built a big brand new high school so we can pack all the
kids out there in that school. It's a very nice school. But we had said we were going to refurbish McClellan that's there and make that a K-8 school at one point. That didn't happen. So we're going to now open a charter school in southwest Little Rock.
That's what this is all about. nobody nobody is against kids having good choices for a good school but you can't keep on dividing the resources for the most underserved communities in Little Rock and then say that you were doing the best thing for those kids because you're going to rescue some of them from those bad schools but but nothing about the rest of them when we could do better for all of the kids if we would quit closing schools.
And now I'm on top of that, we're going to open another school. That's not right. We're not doing it in your neighborhood. You don't want these houses in your neighborhood. You don't want them close to your neighborhood. And you know you don't. But we don't have to care
Speaker 128
29:13
about those people. Because that's what this amounts to,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
29:18
is the those people. this is exactly what's written about when it
comes to we're not calling it redlining
but we we certainly are i'm going to call it packing because that's what it is and i bet all of you in here are going to hurry up and send your kids to those schools because you weren't sending them to the schools that were already there that's not the plan the plan is to continue this notion of we do whatever we want to to black
and brown schools in poor neighborhoods and call it something that it obviously is not
I hope you don't sit here and do this unless you're willing to have it happen to your community and your school I know what I'm talking about I represent this area I live south of
630 this is not right anybody else else want to speak on the motion all right seeing none you've closed for your bill Senator English all right and there's a motion
do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed? No. No, I'd like
it that the no's have it. Do you want another roll
Speaker 132
30:52
call? Yes, I do. Okay, please call the roll. Senator Chesterfield? No. Senator English? Yes. Senator Eads? Yes.
Senator Letting? No. No. Senator Sturge? Yes. Senator Beckham? No.
No. Senator Elliott? No. So as the chair called it, the bill does not pass. There
are five no votes. All right, moving on to the next bill.
Thank you for coming. All right, Senator English, do you want to go back to SB 147? Yes. Okay, let's go back to, actually, if you don't mind, I'm going to run, just let me, I've got to go run a bill in public health, so I'm going
to have to give the chair to Senator English, I mean, I'm sorry,
Senator Elliott. And we're back up to 147? Yes, we're at 147, and House Bill 1009 is Senator Beckham, and he has an amendment. Okay,
Senator Jane English
Unverified
32:40
all right, sure. Our Senator English, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 147. Okay,
we're back to, this is a technical correction for the Arkansas Opportunity Public School Choice Act.
There's nothing shaking in here, it is just corrections.
Speaker 139
33:01
Could you explain what you're correcting, Senator English?
Senator Jane English
Unverified
33:04
Oh, there's some to the application process, some dates that need to be changed, the delivery of appeals, how you go about applying for an appeal, applying to enroll a student in a public school within the resident district that does not have a rating of F, so it gives
you those guidelines, things that you can do.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
33:29
All right. Does any member of the committee have a question?
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
33:47
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask, and this may be a department question, but the reasoning behind no earlier
than January 1st on school choice requests, is
that because we have several schools going at the beginning of the school year, or is that, logistically speaking, needed? Okay.
Speaker 147
34:26
Johnny Key, Department of Education. Senator, I think your question was why January 1st. We had, our experience has been districts have varying policies and timelines of when they accept these. Some start immediately when the May 1 deadline ends. Some don't start until well after that. And if you're in the neighboring districts, the parents don't really know which timeline. So we felt the need to establish a uniform timeline for all the schools.
Speaker 139
35:06
Anybody else have a question of Secretary Key while
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
35:11
he's here? All right. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator
Speaker 70
35:16
Chesterfield. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to call you Senator Key. Secretary
Speaker 95
35:21
Key, on page 24. It said. On page, which
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
35:29
page? I mean, two. I'm sorry, I'm lying. Okay. It's been that kind of day. I apologize. Apply to enroll the student in a legally allowable public school district that
is not classified as a public school district in need of level five intensive support. So
if there is an excellent school in that level five school district, this would preclude the child
Speaker 147
36:04
from transferring to that school? The next paragraph addresses that they could go within that public school district as well. So if you have a, if within that district, a school
Speaker 154
36:16
that is in that district, the resident district does not have a rating of F,
then they could choose intra-district to choose a non-F rated school, as long as it's near the residents. They couldn't just go, they couldn't pick one that's, they couldn't leapfrog
Speaker 147
36:35
two or three other schools to go across town. It's not as, help me understand it, because that's not
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
36:44
how I'm reading it. There is no public school within the resident district that does not have. Senator Justiceville, what line are you reading?
What line are you reading on page two? 32 on page two. Okay, go ahead.
Go ahead. But the greater concern I think for me is that you can't apply to enroll in it unless there is no other school or something within the resident district that does not have a rate. Explain to me that language and how that's helpful because if there were, for instance, if Mills University Studies had an A and Pulaski County had an F overall as a school district,
how do I get my kid into
Mills University Studies? I'm not understanding the permissiveness to do that under what you've shown me.
Speaker 154
37:41
Well, in that scenario, if you're in the
Speaker 147
37:45
Placid County School District and Mills University Studies is not an F, but you're currently out of high school that is an F
in Pulaski County, you could apply to
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
37:57
go there. But I couldn't, if I were in the Little Rock School District, I could not apply for Mills University Studies because the district, Pulaski County, would be an F district even though they
Speaker 147
38:10
had an A school. So that's what's troubling me. Well, Pulaski, well, there are no, just to clarify, there are no F districts. The 8F rating is only for schools. The districts receive the levels of support, classifications
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
38:27
then let me let me say that then in level five
because you do have the school district as a level five
right that's what glasgow county no this is just i'm not saying that it is or it isn't okay i'm just using a hypothetical because i'm familiar with the names of those school districts okay all right because i happen to
represent them, but it says apply to enroll the student in a legally allowable public school district that is not classified as
a public school district in need of level five. And level five to
me is anonymous with F whether you say it is or not. That's the way people perceive it to be. So just using a
hypothetical, if I were a student in Little Rock and I wanted to transfer to what would just say Jacksonville. I represent that too. Wanted to transfer
to Jacksonville, which had an A school, but had a level five rating as a district. I could not do that. Is that what this is saying?
Speaker 154
39:32
Because that's the way it seems to read to me. Okay. I don't
Speaker 147
39:41
think that's what that is saying. If you if your resident district is in level five or your resident zoned school is a rating of F then you have options and this new the option really what this does is clarify the options that are available because the old language as you know to your point the old language was confusing even more confusing
and so we had a lot of those questions that were coming up so applying to enroll you can apply to enroll if you're if you currently live in a district that is in need of level five support or your school has a rating of f then you can apply in a and b sets out the terms under which you can apply to your for your child to attend a school that district that is not in level five or a school that is not an F-rated school, and it would be a non-resident school.
So A is you can apply to enroll in a district that is not classified as a public school, or under B, you can apply to enroll to a school that does not have a rating of F, and it is nearest to your legal residence. And then if there is no school within the resident district that does not have
Speaker 154
41:13
an F rating, then you can seek to go outside that public school district.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
41:20
Section 3, and I shall be too short now, Madam Chair. Section 3A and B and 2 are all new language. Why do we need this? Because it replaces
Speaker 147
41:33
the language that you see just above and starts in lines 18 and runs through lines 23. And that language was found to be even more confusing than what we're trying to do.
Senator, we did. We had round and round with trying to help folks understand what their options were. and this, it is, I'm gonna have trouble convincing you, but it is clearer than it was in the last
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
42:11
iteration. All right, Secretary Key, I hate to add to the confusion, but I also, because believe it or not, I'm
not against fighting against the notion
of what you're trying to do, but under 24, starting at line 24, apply to enroll
the student in a legally allowable public school district that is not classified as a public school district in need of level five. So what that's saying to me is, we'll just go back, we'll just use Jacksonville again here. If Jacksonville School District is in, well, a lot of these use Pulaski County
because it's a whole big county. If Pulaski County is in level five, as it has to be somebody not, some school district it says is not classified
as a public school district and in need of level five intensive support. If it's in intensive support and there is a school there, but that is not an intensive support. I don't think I can go there because it says, I can't go to a school district that is in need
is in level five in need of intensive support. That seems like what that
Speaker 154
43:32
says beginning on line 24. Well, then it goes on
Speaker 147
43:37
on line 27 with an or. And then that or gets you to B, which says apply to enroll in a public school within the resident district
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
43:48
that does not have a rating of F. Right, right. But if everybody, if I'm one school, I say I'm Jacksonville High School.
I'm the only high school in that district. And I hate to keep using Jacksonville because that makes people feel funny. It's Elliott High School. All right. And Elliott High School is the only high school in the district. And now I've become an intensive support. I would like my child then, because there's no other high school, to go to, say, Pulaski County, but Pulaski County School District is in level five. Doesn't that say I can't do that?
Speaker 147
44:29
Beginning with line 24? Well, again, it goes to, you can't go from a level five district. another level five district. Is that what you're
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
44:47
asking, Senator? No, I'm just saying if, I'm not talking about, I'm saying Jacksonville
High School is the one that's quote-unquote the F school, not the whole district. Okay. But I don't have another high school to go to in my district.
But I'd really like to say, go to Mills University Studies in Pulaski County. But let's just say in this case, though, Pulaski County is the school district in intensive of support. This says I can't go there. Do you mean that? I can't go there at all. If there is a high school in Pulaski County, that's really a great school. It's a B school or an A school. I
Speaker 147
45:25
think then you go into on line 32. Okay. The or, and I'm looking at the online. I'm not sure
Speaker 174
45:35
if my line numbers are matching up with y'all's line numbers.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
45:38
I'm looking online where I am too. okay that's line 32 so i'm
Speaker 147
45:43
looking at line 32 is number two okay so that that kicks you in there if there's no public school within your resident district so in your scenario if elliott high school is the only high school in your resident district and it has a rating of f and you want to attend mills university studies and it does not have a rating of an f then that would be allowable
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
46:07
under Opportunity School Choice. Even if that school district is in intensive
Speaker 147
46:14
support? If, okay, that's what I was asking earlier to clarify. So if Pulaski County is in intensive support, is that what you're asking? Uh-huh, yes. No, no, you don't have that option of going from a level five district to another level five district. but
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
46:33
but period even though there is a there are two or three grade high schools there
i can't i just can't go to that district period i it didn't seem like to me that was giving me given
the maximum option i thought we were trying to get to you know lord knows i'm going to be arguing this but if we're going to have it i want i want it to
Speaker 147
46:55
be clear and people have opportunity Well, so, you know, we have not, we didn't break it down to that degree within, I mean, there are only two districts that we're talking about. And we're working very hard to make sure there are no other districts in the state that ever get to that level five in need of intensive support.
So, but we would not, we would have to look to see if there was a reason why we didn't lay out that scenario. I think it's just that notion, though, that you're going from a Level 5 Intensive Support District, which is that highest level, to another district that is in that same scenario, probably is not unlikely that the opportunities are much different.
Chair
Unverified
47:39
All right. But as it is right now, I just want to be clear.
as it is right now, would this put, does this lessen these
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
47:51
options for the three, four school districts in Pulaski County? Since it is, could be quite a reality, although I know they are not all now level five. I'm not suggesting that. I mean, that could be a
Speaker 147
48:14
What we would like the reality to be, though, is that there's no need for opportunity school choice.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
48:20
Well, I'm going to stop just beating this because I said I'm not an unlikely person to be taking this position. I just wanted to be clear if we're going to have the law, have the law that's clear. Okay, I'll let it go. Thank you. Does any other
Speaker 64
48:36
member have a question? Okay, Senator Beckham. Yeah, Secretary Key, starting on line 18, I think that's where a lot of confusion has come from. in this committee. It says that the student may apply to
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
48:51
a page two. Same thing. When Senator Elliott and Senator Chesterfield were discussing this section here, I was going back and reading it, it seems that there's,
Speaker 64
49:04
I had a misunderstanding originally, thinking that you can't apply to a level five or to a school with an F. And what is that, what is, correct me if I'm wrong here, what you're allowing is for students to apply to a school in a school district if it's not
a level five or to a school that's not an F rated. Is that accurate? Yes. It's not that it
Speaker 65
49:30
can't be a level five or an F either. It can be either. Is that accurate? i'm looking at
Speaker 191
49:39
my attorney now because it's it's an odd it's an odd way that
Speaker 192
49:51
it's written i mean you're courtney you got any help for me up here is this section 24
Speaker 64
49:56
through 36 i'm wondering if that old language wasn't better at this point
I've had a lot of people reach out with
Speaker 197
50:14
concerns. Courtney Solis Ford, attorney for the Department of Education. Sorry, can you repeat your question again?
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
50:20
Easy way of putting it, the question, what are you changing as far as the options
Speaker 198
50:25
for students? Okay, so A and B is not new language. I know it's underlined, but as Secretary Keyes stated, we took what was previously in lines 18 through 23,
and because we often got so many questions about that, we broke it down into an A and a B. So again, clarifying that if you're in a level 5 district, you can go to another level 5 district. If you're in an F school, you can go to another non-F school in your district. What is actually new language is B2. we added that option taking into consideration that there are students who might be in a district where their high school is the only high school and so they wouldn't have another option
if there were no other F schools or no non-F schools or schools that have their same grade level and so that gave them the option to go to another district and go to a non-F school. Does that help? Senator Sturge. thank you madam chair so
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
51:25
courtney i read i must be i know i'm not even going to say that because i to me it makes perfect sense thank you and i i hate seeing that but like in senator
elliott's scenario if elliott high school is an f school and it's the only high school in that district then number two allows them to go to a non-resident school district and
go to mills or wherever else, as long as that school, that school does not have an F, right? If, but also if the
Speaker 198
51:54
district is not a level five district. But also if the district
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
51:57
is not a level five district. That's not
Speaker 147
52:07
the way I read it either. I would point out, though, when we're dealing with the districts of the size that we're dealing with,
It is very likely that under school choice, these sections we're dealing with are on opportunity school choice. Under regular school choice, it is much more flexible, subject to the 3% cap on traditional regular public school choice. So, you know, that's always an option for students within districts that are not affected by any type of restriction due to DSEG cases.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
52:47
All right. Senator Chesterfield? Do we really want to just
do this the way you have it? that if you have a great school in level five, but the school itself is an A school, and that's quite possible. What you are doing in essence is keeping a kid from moving from a school that is both in level five and has an F, and you are precluding that child
from moving from that school to a school that has an A rating by the language that you have here? Is that really what you're trying to do?
Speaker 211
53:33
Well, I would say that that's the policy that's already in place currently. In
Speaker 147
53:38
this language, we're not trying to change that. So we could change that. You're going to be stuck with that reality. If we don't change this, then that's still what we have.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
53:50
Okay. All right. All right, any further questions from committee members?
Anybody in the audience want to speak for or against the bill?
Chair
Unverified
54:00
If not, Madam Chair, you recognize, Madam Chair from last time, I've got it all mixed up. Senator English, you recognize the close for your bill? You can ask it. Is there a second? Second.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
54:12
All those in favor, aye. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask anybody I want to speak for or against the bill. All right, all those in favor, aye. Aye.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
54:22
All those opposed, no? No. All right, bill passes.
Speaker 212
54:38
simple little bill. It never is with that bill. No. We have an amendment to that
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
55:06
The amendment is just to add sponsors. Is that correct, Senator Beckham? The amendment is just to add sponsors. I have a motion to amend the bill. It's moved and second to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye, please. Those opposed, no. Okay, the
Chair
Unverified
55:24
bill is amended. Senator Beckham here recognized to present the bill. Thank you, Madam
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
55:30
Chair. This is not a controversial bill. Senator English has been throwing at us all day.
Speaker 186
55:36
I'm glad you told us that before we started discussing.
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
55:40
So the bill was brought to me by several people in my school district and Representative Wardlaw as well, and he put the bill together. in short what it does allows schools to follow the department of health guidelines health department guidelines and have the option of giving the excess food from lunch or breakfast service to schools to consume on campus or to take home with them versus throwing it in the trash or disposing of it other ways all
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
56:09
right anybody have any questions about oh senator
Chesterfield? Motion at the proper time. All right. No questions? Well, you want to close for your bill or you
close, Senator? I'll close. Okay. I will accept that motion, Senator Chesterfield, as amended. All right. It's been moved and second that the bill, as amended, those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no?
Speaker 189
56:43
Yes. The motion of the bill passes. Senator
Chair
Unverified
57:09
English, are you ready to run Senate Bill 31? Yes. Okay.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
57:13
Okay, so let's ask Dr. Pfeffer to come to the table, please. All right. So for
all these years, as a chair of the Senate Education Committee, we have worked with the House Committee on adequacy every single six years. And one of the things that is part of adequacy is that we're preparing students for career and college and career readiness. but we really don't know what that is and we
have not had any kind of an
assessment that basically could give our students an opportunity to understand whether they have the capabilities of transitioning
to their next part in their life, whether that's going to college or whether that's going into the workforce. It depends on what it is, going into the military, whatever the case may be so this basically this really is a simple little bill and it adds a career readiness assessment for high school students that's nationally recognized
when students leave school then they have not only a diploma but they have a certification that they can take with them
that basically gives them an idea idea and any employee or whatever some level of surety of their skills I
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
58:38
was going to ask if anybody has any questions I think that would be proper to let that happen anybody have any questions Senator Sturge recognize your
motion later I'm sorry ma'am I I just wanted to ask and maybe dr. Pfeffer can help
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
58:55
me with this if if we are adding a different test or is this incorporated in an existing test it's just that you know right now I'm missing multiple ones and and I just feel that my juniors and seniors if they keep adding and adding it because when y'all do these things y'all don't have a list of what they're already doing and so if we're gonna add one let's take one away or something that you know in my opinion would be somewhat balanced could
Could you kind of say whether this is new or
Speaker 221
59:28
whether this is incorporated or? Well, probably the answer would be yes, and the reason why I'm saying that, and I understand your concern, Ivy Pfeffer, Department of Education. So when Senator English first started talking about this, I think our initial reaction was, you know, oh, wait, you know, let's hold on here before we just add. After having a conversation with her, and we got to thinking about our goal, and you'll be talking about legislation soon to expand the career coaches program for students.
We got to realizing that the current assessments are designed to assess certain skills around academics. This would be a perfect complement into the expansion of our career coach and career readiness certificates because of the different types of skills that would be measured, the type of opportunity students would have to work towards that career readiness certificate. And so this bill does not require every student to take the assessment.
So it could be incorporated in over the next few years around seniors taking it. It may be that it is looked at depending on how a school district wants to implement it, whether it's for every student or whether it's for students who are participating in a career coach program. We know schools of innovation that are providing this opportunity for this assessment to every one of their seniors, and they are really looking forward to coming out not only with the results from an ACT assessment,
but also for a bronze or platinum certificate level that they take directly to their employer. So my question then
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:01:18
would be, you envision it to be kind of like the ASVAB. We offer it, we make sure it's known, schools then could encourage students to take it, but it may not be required right up front as a blanket everybody will take
Speaker 221
1:01:33
the test. I would say that's accurate, not just requiring it for everybody in the same manner. I think we want to make it part of our overall comprehensive assessment system.
And over the next three years, as we really do take that look at how do we provide an opportunity for every student to demonstrate success, not just in certain areas, but also in those other types of skills, the soft skills, the communication, and the workplace readiness. So we feel like this is a very strong complement and a benefit to all of our students. Thank you, Madam Chair. Does this mean, Dr. Pfeffer,
Chair
Unverified
1:02:15
that we would continue to require everybody to take the ACT and then they could choose whether or not they want to take
Speaker 221
1:02:25
the test that we're adding? So yes, the ACT would still be offered to all 11th grade students. And then this assessment, then, yes, would be an option probably during the student's senior year. Well, I don't mean to just,
Chair
Unverified
1:02:40
you know, pick at words, but you said offered to the 11th grade students.
Is the ACT. Right now, aren't they required to take
Speaker 221
1:02:51
it? So we offer it for every student. There is a requirement for every 11th grader. Yes, it's our college career readiness assessment at grade 11, yes.
Speaker 226
1:03:05
So we're required to take that? Yes. And then if
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:03:09
they wanted to take this one, they may have that? Yes. Okay, all right.
Are there any further questions from, oh, I'm sorry, is that gonna be clarified in the rules? Is
Speaker 50
1:03:21
that what's gonna happen? So that we know that
Speaker 221
1:03:29
that's the case? As far as the implementation of the college? and so we will yes we will be clarifying that for districts as part of the overall assessment system
Speaker 98
1:03:39
okay all right all right any further questions anybody senator searcher elijah
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:03:43
still on do you have a question oh i'm sorry okay um all right then um if there are no further questions um
madam chair i'm not god i'm so sorry jane uh senator english you are recognized to close
Chair
Unverified
1:03:58
closed for my bill okay what's the pleasure of the committee motion do
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:04:05
pass is there a second all those anybody want to speak for against the bill uh all those opposed say aye those opposed no the
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:04:13
motion passes what what happened all those in favor say aye you what what did i say He said all those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 44
1:04:26
Well, let's do it again. I noticed y'all didn't say anything.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:04:31
Senator Chesterfield's got me rushing here. Sorry about that. I apologize. I apologize,
Senator English. All those opposed, no. Okay, the motion passes. Thank you. Oh, you're cracking me up.
Okay. Senator Irvin, we're on 124. All right. did you do my
um so you did uh representative ward law senator buckham did you do that bill okay just um on that bill i just wanted to say did it pass did it pass okay so just one thing i
wanted to say for just my own personal perspective is that you do not know this yet but we actually have an um hunger caucus legislative hunger caucus and um so that bill would be it's a great example of the things that I think that our Hunger Caucus would be supportive of, and so anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciated the bill and was glad to be a co-sponsor of that bill. Senate Bill 124, Senator Sturge, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues,
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:05:40
I guess I'll start off with there is no known opposition to this bill. This is a, yeah, we'll find you some. This is some cleanup language with the assessment academic standards that we have currently in law. As you can see there's some cleanup on the first section there, 2003-2004 school years already passed of course and then where the curriculum frameworks are developed we've changed that to approved by the State Board. If you recall the frameworks are actually developed by DESI and a group of teachers meet ever so often on a rotation basis by subject
so we thought approved was the better language for that because that's what the State Board actually does. Removing the October 1st date there on page one line 35 because that's already in code under the accreditation standards. Then if you go to page two the new language that you see is we're trying to provide that DESE may take action authorized under the standards for accreditation when a district fails to align content of each class as they have been, but the The main point is here on page 2 and line 30, when we're changing the date from July 1st to August 1st, when these scored reports will be.
Now, what essentially that does, as far as the school calendar does, is there's still a five-week testing window, but it allows schools then to test later in the semester. I have kids right now who start testing in February. They have one in March, and then they have one in April because there's so many things that they have to get done before that spring semester is finished. And if you've ever been in the classroom, then you'll know as soon as those testing dates are finished, you might as well close school because students have already turned off.
So this bill then would allow that five-week window then to be later on in the spring semester when things are tighter and things make more sense. and then schools then still have those reports being given to them by August the 1st to allow them preparation time then as school the new school semester is coming to you know fruition that they can prepare for anything that may need to be adjusted and to review those scores and the results and everything and make adjustments so I'm just adding that that's the main part of this bill that I wanted to highlight was that date change and I think it will help overall so I'll
happy to take any questions or ask
for help. Are there any questions on the bill? No questions? Is there anybody here to speak for or against this bill? No one here to speak for against the
bill? What is the pleasure of the committee? Motion do pass and second. All those
Speaker 233
1:08:24
in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed? Ayes have it, bill All right.
Members, we are going to have a photograph Wednesday, February the 10th at 2 o'clock. We're upon adjournment on the steps of the Senate. So put on your fanciest, you know, digs or whatever they're called. and look pretty, and we will take our picture on Wednesday. Is there any other business to come before this committee? All right. Thank you, Senator Elliott, for chairing while I was absent.
I got my bill passed. We are adjourned. Thank you, members.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB147 J. English TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS OPPORTUNITY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT OF 2015.
HB1113 Dotson TO AMEND THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS URBAN HOMESTEAD ACT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOLS ON LAND DONATED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS WHEN THE LAND IS NOT BEING UTILIZED AS A HOMESTEAD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1009 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS FOOD IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
SB31 J. English TO AMEND THE COMPONENTS OF A COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ASSESSMENT.
SB124 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS AND CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS; AND TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE STATEWIDE STUDENT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE MEETING JOINTLY WITH ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, Feb 8, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Cliff Mckinney
Unverified
Speaker 18
Chair
Unverified
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 59
Senator Charles Beckham
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 65
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 69
Speaker 90
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 113
Speaker 116
Speaker 128
Speaker 131
Speaker 132
Speaker 139
Speaker 147
Speaker 70
Speaker 95
Speaker 154
Speaker 174
Speaker 44
Speaker 191
Speaker 192
Speaker 197
Speaker 198
Speaker 211
Speaker 212
Speaker 62
Speaker 186
Speaker 189
Speaker 221
Speaker 226
Speaker 98
Speaker 233