Education Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB62
Act 489
· 4 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…nswer this or Representative Tallett. My question was about Senate Bill 62 that you had referenced that Senator Urban and Representati…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO READ ACT. | Irvin | Notification that SB62 is now Act 489 |
|
HB1029
Act 259
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1029 F. Allen TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS I…”
|
TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY IN … | F. Allen | Notification that HB1029 is now Act 259 |
|
HB1170
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1170 Tollett TO AMEND THE DATE BY WHICH TEACHERS SHALL DEMONSTRA…”
|
TO AMEND THE DATE BY WHICH TEACHERS SHALL DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCY IN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES OF … | Tollett | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1175
Act 349
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1175 Boyd TO AMEND THE CANDIDATE FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR POSITIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE CANDIDATE FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR POSITIONS ON SCHOOL BOARDS AND LOCAL BOARDS OF … | Boyd | Notification that HB1175 is now Act 349 |
|
HB1193
Act 261
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1193 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO A VACANCY ON A … | Warren | Notification that HB1193 is now Act 261 |
|
HB1194
Act 262
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IDUAL TO A VACANCY ON A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HB1194 Warren TO ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDAR…”
|
TO ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION TO ROUND THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE BETWEEN … | Warren | Notification that HB1194 is now Act 262 |
|
SB71
Act 96
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB71 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATORS. | J. Sturch | Notification that SB71 is now Act 96 |
|
SB83
Act 95
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB83 B. Davis TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDU…”
|
TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT … | B. Davis | Notification that SB83 is now Act 95 |
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
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
0:00
Good morning, everyone. We have a pretty good slate of bills today. I hope they're all not too controversial for your sake, but each and every one. Representative Warren wants to go first, but I've told
Speaker 4
0:19
him he couldn't, so. So anyway. Anyway, is there anything the committee has
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
0:27
to bring before us before we get started. Any questions answered? I did find out this morning
if you do have a bill in this committee that you're running, if you have a fiscal impact, once you get that fiscal impact, please let them know back that you are okay with it or it will not get assigned to the committee until they hear back, then they will put it to the committee. So that's been our holdup on fiscal impacts. New COVID rules have happened again to us, and so We're trying to work through all of this, so if you have a bill that's in this committee and you have it already assigned but you haven't heard anything about getting it on the agenda,
please let them know about your fiscal impact and then let us know you're ready to run it. All right. With that said, SB 83, that is Senator, I believe that's Representative Cloud, but that's Senator Davis' bill. So Representative Cloud, you are recognized to present SB 83. And if your guest would go ahead and recognize who they are and who they're with, we'll just, she'll be ready to testify if needed.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
1:45
Hello, I'm Dr. Linda Berkner. I'm the Assistant Vice President for Administration and Finance
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:52
at Arkansas Tech University. All
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
1:55
right. Y'all are recognized to present. Joe Cloud, State Rep, District 71. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. This is just a technical cleanup bill. There are certain exemptions that institutions of higher education are able to get as far as construction, if the construction exceeds $5 million. And, unfortunately, Arkansas Tech is not on there.
Other than that, all other four-year institutions are able to avail themselves of this. So again, a technical correction for this, just to add this institution of higher education to existing code. This code's been present for many years. And with that, we'll be glad to take questions. All right, you ready
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
2:43
for questions? Representative Love, you're first up.
I think Representative Speaks has one also. All right,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
3:01
go ahead. Okay, there it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought you were
doing that intentionally. I have no hand over the program. No. This, I guess, this is to the Vice President and the Vice Chancellor. Have you, because I see the compliance
rules that says if they have adopted policies and procedures in compliance with the state law involving the awards and oversight,
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
3:23
have you all already adopted those rules? We have construction policies available for the institution, but we do not have them that apply to this. We're not allowed to do that until we're listed in the law. And the original legislation had a clause in it that asked that all institutions of higher education work together to have similar policies. So our intention is, if you allow us to be added to this legislation, we will go ahead and start developing those policies and try to follow what other institutions already have in place.
Lots of projects have already been done, and those policies exist, so we want to follow that clause in the original legislation, and we intend to do that. We will then take those to our Board of Trustees to be
Speaker 4
4:20
approved. Okay, that sounds good. Motion at
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
4:23
a proper time. Representative Speaks. there we go it's friday thank you mr. chair i was just curious why asu was not on this you'd added arkansas tech
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
4:33
asu was in the original legislation and they're already covered okay as is the u of a system Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman,
if I could interject, all four-year institutions are already covered by this, except one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was my question. Thanks for the clarification. Okay, we're having
Speaker 36
4:53
mic problems because I'm having that same problem up
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
4:59
here. It goes on and off, on and off, on and off. So just keep clicking it until it gets to the green if you have any problems with it.
So Representative Beck, please. Okay. You got a question? My question. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the committee? All right, seeing no other questions, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak against
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
5:27
the bill? For the bill? Would you like to close for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee, and just, again, simply, we just want to make this technical correction so this last higher education institution
can avail themselves of these privileges. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Love,
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
5:47
you have a motion? Motion do pass. I have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in
favor say aye. Aye. Any no's? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. Representative
Allen. We have an amendment for that bill. If you will be recognized in just a minute, and I believe it's really an easy amendment.
Basically, let me sit down there. Rep. Allen, if you go ahead and have your Rep. Springer to introduce herself since she's not a member of the committee either, so if
Speaker 45
6:30
you will. Rep. Springer, would you introduce yourself?
Joy Springer
Unverified
6:34
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of this Honorable Committee. My name is Joy Springer. Representative Joy Springer Thank you
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
6:40
I'd just always like to get everybody on the record
Who's here and who's presenting I believe your amendment just adds Co-sponsor, is that correct? That is correct Do I have a motion for his amendment? I have a motion, do pass for the amendment All in favor say aye Aye Any opposed, no
Okay, you may present your bill
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
7:04
HB 1029 as amended Okay Thank you Mr. Chairman and members I'm here today to introduce House Bill 1029. As many of you may know, during the last General Assembly, I had a Black History Bill, this same bill,
and this bill included Representative John Walker's name. So what I'm here today is to add his name back to the list. I bring forth this legislation today to honor the legacy and the history of one of our own, John Winfrey Walker, who was born on June the 3rd, 1937 and transitioned on October the 28th, 2019. A pioneer in civil rights, a statesman, and a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, and a unique historical figure in the state of Arkansas.
John Walker was a beloved American politician and a Democratic member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, representing District 34 beginning January of 2011. As a politician, he represented his district well, and after being elected, he served unopposed until his death. As a statesman, John Walker was very articulate, knowledgeable, and relentless. John exerted a profound influence upon all aspects of state's history and culture.
Born in Hope, Arkansas, John W. Walker always demonstrated history relentless hope that we in Arkansas would one day live up to the ideals of civil rights. He was truly one of our state's greatest civil rights heroes. John was a Maine historical first. He was one of the first three racially integrated law firms in the South. He was responsible for leading and defending landmark cases in Arkansas
that opened their doors to schools and workplaces throughout the state of Arkansas. Historians will agree that his legacy was remarkable. John Walker was also a graduate of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. He was the first African-American from the state of Arkansas to graduate from Yale Law School. And I would ask that you all would give us a favor and vote on this. Rep. Springer, would you like to say so?
Joy Springer
Unverified
9:33
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And members, once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Today, in recognition of the insurmountable amount of work that has been done by the late Representative John Winifred Walker, I urge you to pass this bill, not only to add his name to the history books, but to recognize him for his great work in the area of civil rights, not only for people of color, but for all who are not able to speak up for themselves. He was indeed a voice for the voiceless. In closing,
I would like to share with you some of the comments that have been made regarding Mr. Walker that are additional testaments for him to be remembered in history, but also in any teacher's lesson plan that they may choose to speak about him. Persons around the country, including the past president of the United States, judges, and other persons whom we may not know by name, have said some of the following comments about Mr. Walker. a gentleman, indefatigable, nonviolent, a fighter for human rights, a great orator,
a public servant, best trial lawyer that I have ever seen in the courtroom. In the day of his service, his pastor referred to him as a Christian and a child of God. Thank you. Ripson, Lowry, you have.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
11:09
Keep going. It'll go. They go on and off.
Speaker 4
11:21
Punch it. Let it set a second. There you go. No. No. Just yell it out. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 63
11:55
I just wanted to say, as many of you who have been
Speaker 65
11:59
on the education committee before, you know that Representative Walker and I had some classic battles on issues. But the thing that I most remember about Representative Allen's bill from the last session, when you came with this, was Representative Walker going to the well to speak against it. And I think that that speaks to a term that we didn't hear, but I think it is appropriate, his humility.
And so at the proper time, I would like to make a motion to pass. I'm going to get my bike back on.
Speaker 69
12:51
All right. I can talk loud. Okay. I just want to make sure you're going to get it down.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
13:01
This bill also involves Joe and Walker? Yes, it's just adding his name. Okay. So, but the way the bill is, and I've got no problem with it, but it looks like that can happen to several civil rights leaders. But does each one of them have to, do you have to bring one at a time before, you know, before we add it to your list? You know what I'm saying? Yes. Look, it says leaders, civil rights leaders, so I assume this is not the only one that's going to be added eventually.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
13:33
Didn't you have quite a few
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
13:37
on there last year? Yes, sir, I did. I don't have the answer to
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
13:46
that, Representative Deffenbaugh. I do not. Representative Love, you're
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
13:54
recognized. Representative Love. You're good? Okay. Any other questions? Any other statements? Representative Godfrey?
I had to swap mics. You might try to get it. Turn this one off. I may not get it
Speaker 84
14:14
back. They're not working. There it is. Some of them
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
14:17
are, some of them aren't. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Allen, just to clarify, the bill does say including without limitation. So additional civil rights leaders who meet the qualifications of this bill could be added by schools and curriculum specialists and teachers. Is that correct? I think that is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:35
Chair. All right. Any other questions from anybody?
All right. Well, I think, you know, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this. Representative Walker and I came a long way from the time I first came on education together, and I got to be friends with him, and he was a good friend. We didn't always agree, as a lot of us found that out. We didn't always agree with him, but we know he had a passion. He had a passion for kids, and he was always willing to work his hardest to make sure the kids got what they deserved. And I'm very proud to be a co-sponsor on this, along with some others.
And I believe Representative Lowry's motion, all of us would be glad to make that, but I'll let Representative Lowry, well, hold on. Let me see. I'm sure there's no one in the audience that wants to speak against this bill. But if there is, stand
up. Anyone speak for it? Good with it? Representative Lowry, let's hear you. Are you closed for your motion? I'm
Speaker 65
15:32
closed. Okay. Let's hear your motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I have said in recent days, there are certain things that we would be committing educational malpractice if we did not do.
Teaching about the 1957 Central High Crisis would be one. Teaching, letting students know about what happened, the Elaine riots, and I think omitting teaching about the contributions of John Walker would be educational malpractice. So I'm glad you brought this bill to us. and so I make a motion of do pass. Thank you. As amended. Correct? Okay. We have a motion of
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
16:05
do pass as amended. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any
opposed, no. Congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members. Thank you, members. Okay. So around the table, would you look and make sure your mic is not green? that could be a lot of the problem if you have a green mic make sure that it goes to red and turn those off sometimes they're overloaded and it will not pick up gear yours is on now anyway all right that could have been the problem I know
it's been a problem all day represent tallet you're recognized to come to
Speaker 92
17:03
the table present HB 1170. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, I would like to present to you House Bill 1170. It's a very straightforward bill. Basically what it does is it changes the date of the reading initiative, the RISE training, for full implementation from 2021-22 to 2023-24.
So it backs it up two years. There are penalties on schools if this is not fully implemented and due to COVID-19, and kind of a slow start to getting the RISE training in the state of Arkansas. We are asking for it to be pushed back two years so we can implement this great training with fidelity. We want to make sure that it's implemented properly, and we need the time to do that. With that, I'll
Chair
Unverified
17:59
take any questions you may have. Representative Love, you're recognized.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
18:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Tallett, if we were not to pass this bill, what
Speaker 92
18:10
are the ramifications and the implications of it? I believe a school can be put on probationary citation, if that's correct. And the department may be better suited if every single or if we have teachers that are not fully trained. Mr. Chair, can
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
18:27
we have the department comment on that? Sure.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
18:30
We have somebody from Commissioner Key if you want to come up.
Speaker 98
18:34
I'm sorry. Secretary Key. Johnny Key, Department of Education. This bill deals with the teacher licensure component, where teachers have to demonstrate proficiency in the science of reading. Currently, under the Right to Read Act, action that y'all took in the last session by the beginning of the 21-22 school year, this would extend that to the 23-24 school year. The agency has no issues with that extension. We have a bill that is part of our department package that does this very thing.
Our bill actually has some other provisions that we believe need to deal with it. This does not have a penalty, deal with any penalties on the school district itself. It's the employment of teachers. So if a teacher does not meet the proficiency by this time, then they could not teach in this area of licensure. Okay, so do you believe
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
19:32
that due to COVID that it needs to be extended? Yes,
Speaker 98
19:36
as I said, we have a bill in our package that does the same thing, makes the same extension because of the time that we have lost in being able to do the training and professional development since the onset of the COVID pandemic.
And not just for the teachers, but also for the principals who have the responsibility of assessing teachers in the classroom. So the extension is necessary. I just wanted to be clear that this is about the teacher licensure and employment of
Speaker 101
20:09
teachers in these licensure areas. Okay. All
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
20:12
right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Representative Goddrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Key, maybe you can answer this or Representative Tallett. My question was about Senate Bill 62 that you had referenced that Senator Urban and Representative Vought are working on,
just because I had heard about that as well. I think the extension is very welcome and very needed, but I was just wondering if you could talk about the difference in the two bills and I guess two bills doing the same thing. What is best for us
Speaker 98
20:46
to do as a committee? What should we know about the differences if there are any? So Senate Bill 62 goes on to provide an avenue for teachers to be placed in intensive support. If they do not meet this requirement, that's new language that would be added to the bill.
Basically, if a teacher does not complete and can show the licensure requirement, then under current law and even under this extension, they could not teach in these licensure areas. So they would have to be reassigned to some other teaching role or no longer be able to teach. Our Senate bill actually provides an opportunity for the districts to place these teachers in intensive support
so they have a safety net, basically, and allow more time.
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
21:40
Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Follow-up. Thank you. And so I guess my question to Representative Talit is, are you opposed to Senate Bill 62 as written? They do look so similar in the extension. Why is this bill different and why is this bill necessary? Why
Speaker 92
21:57
should we go with this one over Senate Bill 62? Yeah, good question. I have no problems with Senate Bill 62 as well. Either way, it needs to be extended to make sure that everything's being done correctly.
I guess in this provision, it gives no leeway. So, I mean, if you don't show that proficiency, then you'd be, I guess, terminated as a teacher as opposed to putting it on an intensive
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
22:29
support plan. Representative Evans? Oh, I'm sorry. Well, you raised your hand, too, but you were talking about our representative McKenzie.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
22:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just could you explain the reasoning behind the two-year extension as opposed to
Speaker 92
22:49
one? It's my understanding that that's what the department sees. I mean, they see the big picture. I only see it from my school district's standpoint, especially in the lower grades. This training needs to be done face-to-face. It involves, like, manipulatives, a lot of different things. And with COVID, that's just not been the case.
So being able to have that extended time to make sure that this training is done and done correctly across the state, I think, is very well needed. And I'm not sure that that can be accomplished statewide in just one year. Yeah, the department concurs with that. Representative
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
23:28
Lowry, you're good. Representative Love, you're good.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
23:36
Got a question? Go ahead. All right, so Representative Tollett, do you believe that there shouldn't be the additional leeway?
I guess because with Representative Godfrey's question, but then you know that there's a provision in the Senate bill that says that there's intensive educational services if they don't pass. So do you believe that there shouldn't be
any leeway? I mean, I'm curious because you're a superintendent. Right. So a
Speaker 92
24:07
building principal can put a teacher on an intensive support track if they're not performing up to snuff right now.
So, I mean, I would feel like that that would be done if that teacher was not performing at level already. So putting that into law, I don't know that that's necessary.
Speaker 98
24:37
if it's not in there, and Representative Todd is correct, under TESS, Teacher Excellence and Support System, intensive support is an option for
principals to help coach up, if you will, teachers that may not be doing the things in a way that, at a quality level, that they need to be doing it. The difference here is this is a hard and fast deadline. So whether it's the current deadline or whether it's the amended deadline in Representative Talitz's bill, without the language that we're proposing in our package bill, at that point that they do not demonstrate proficiency, they have to be reassigned outside of this licensure area.
So if they have another licensure area that's not K-6 or special ed K-12, they could teach there, but if they don't, then they cannot hold a license. And so they would be subject to termination. Make sure I'm saying that right. The district cannot employ them in that position. So what they do with that educator would be up to the district. But this is a hard and fast deadline that's in law currently.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
25:53
But then my question to you, Commissioner Key, is then should the district not be
Speaker 98
25:58
able to do that? That's what we're trying to provide in the – they should, and they still can under our language. But right now it's – under TESS, it is – it's permissive at any point in time. Um, you know, so it's not, so Tess is not tied to this, um, hard limit on, uh, on demonstrating proficiency in the science of reading.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
26:23
Okay, but I guess, I guess my question is, are we, are we not taking it out of the hands of the, of the district if, if we go with, with the Senate bill? Are we taking it out of the hands of
the district and up to the state level?
Speaker 98
26:40
Should that, should that not be decided at the district level? It would be. I would say it's the opposite. Our language would leave it at the discretion of the district for those educators that did not meet proficiency by the end of this or by this deadline.
Speaker 62
26:55
Okay. All right. Thank you. Reps of Lowery, recognize me.
Speaker 65
27:13
There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Toland, I just, you know, I find myself just uncomfortable when we're hearing that there's another bill coming along that maybe is, not that we couldn't take your bill up at some point, but I feel like there's enough that we're hearing where there may be some conflicts.
I know there's another bill that Senator Clark is in draft form right now that really cracks down on schools for not teaching the science of reading. And the other thing that concerns me is just the two-year delay. This is something, I mean, it's taken us a while to get to that point where we have this sense of agreement of what is the best path forward and making sure that students are reading at grade level. I understand we could not have anticipated the pandemic when we finally said,
yes, we are going to teach the science of reading. But I am concerned about the two-year delay and also without hearing the specific provisions of the department's bill. Do you have any thoughts about maybe holding off on your bill until we can hear that one and then see if there's some meeting of the minds on the two pieces of legislation? Well, thank you for that. I guess my concern is this.
Speaker 92
28:35
because when RISE was passed, there was nothing actually developed ready to go for it. So the department, in their credit, has done a phenomenal job trying to roll out the resources, develop the units, and to roll that out statewide. Unfortunately, it just took a while. And as I like to say, they were building an airplane as they were flying it. And so parts of Arkansas didn't get to start RISE training until much later than probably we should have
because the resources simply weren't there to be able to roll it out to everybody as fast as we would like to. That's why the two-year extension to me is needed, not only just because of COVID, but because we got a late start on this. And I think it would be beneficial to every school district. We all agree that it's great training. I would say this. My bill takes more of a hard line stand. If reading instruction is very important in a classroom,
then teachers who do not demonstrate proficiency in reading instruction probably should be reassigned or moved out to make way for a teacher who can provide that instruction instead of being put necessarily on an intensive support plan where, here we go, I mean, hopefully they show improvement, but they've demonstrated that as they're teaching grade class after class after class that they're really not cutting the mustard on that.
And so I would submit in this bill that it takes more of a hard line stance and makes it where either you teach it properly or you get moved out, and that's been my take. And that's a contrasting difference between mine and Senate Bill 62. I would like to see the date moved back so we can have more time to implement the training properly, but then on the other side make sure that if it's not being done properly in the classroom
that the school district will take action to ensure that those kids have somebody in front of them who knows how to implement this. Follow-up, Mr. Chair. You're
Speaker 125
31:03
right, Master. And we are talking about teacher training, making sure that
Speaker 65
31:09
the teacher is trained, correct? Correct. So much of the training that is done is done sometimes at the higher education institutions,
which my understanding is that, you know, I mean, they are open for face-to-face training. So why would we need a two-year delay if a teacher who is a reading specialist could attend a summer school session, for instance, at the local university and learn this instruction and
Speaker 92
31:38
these proper techniques? Well, the issue in Senator, I mean, Secretary and Commissioner Key may have a better explanation of this, certainly, than I do, but this is for existing teachers who never went through that training.
And this training is absolutely necessary for them. For older teachers, a lot of this is repurposed training. They've had it somewhere in their past, and there's components of it that they know already how to implement it. It's kind of the middle group that's struggling with it a little bit because it's new to them because this is not something that was taught to them. And so they need to fully wrap their brain around it and then be able to get into the classroom, figure it out, what works with kids, and how to better their instruction to kids.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
32:32
Speaks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, if we passed this today, and I don't have a problem with that, but when the other one comes along, will it not supersede this bill? Yes. Depends on which
Speaker 98
32:46
one gets signed last by the governor. so I really don't think we can answer that today because we don't know how the bills will track through as they go through both bodies.
But whichever one is signed last is the one that would become law. That is correct.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:08
Thank you. Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize if you've already gone over this ground. I
was wanting to build another committee. You all know how that is this time of year. The question I have is, do you know what the current status of this training is? How many teachers have met the requirements under the bill as it stands? Are we 80%, 90% or are we only 30%? Where are
Speaker 98
33:28
we at? Do you know? Mr. Chairman, if I may ask Stacey Smith to come to the table, she can provide an update on that.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:34
You may. I guess I'm ultimately getting at it. If we're 95% of the way there, then I think it almost becomes superfluous. But
if we're only 20% of the way
Speaker 134
33:49
there, then obviously there's something. Stacey Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Elementary and Secretary of Education. Okay, so there's really, this is a little bit more complicated than just the training. The right to read bill actually requires teacher to demonstrate proficiency.
So the department, when we set up the training, we set it up in two phases. Phase one requires teachers to actually participate in an intensive professional development. Okay, RISE Academy, many of you have heard us talk about RISE Academy. The majority of K-6 teachers in the state have actually participated in one of the Science of Reading Pathways. We have about 7,500 teachers who have participated in the K-2 Academy. We have about 8,000 who have participated in the 3-6 Academy.
okay um the the the catch to this is they go back to their classrooms and it's the part of actually demonstrating the proficiency of understanding the science of reading and that takes a little bit of time okay so when covid hit us in the spring you kind of had a cohort going through that kind of shut down and then it we didn't have pd in the summer and so you had another cohort that kind of got paused all that training has started back up and the training part is not the
issue it's the teachers going back in their classroom and demonstrating proficiency this year with covid also part of the right to read bill i want to remind you in two years ago you guys added the department to review curriculum programs that were aligned to the science of reading. That list just came out this summer. So districts are adopting new curriculum programs that are aligned to the science of reading and aligned to the professional development that
teachers have gone through. So all this is kind of occurring at one time. COVID hits and all of a sudden people are forced to move to digital programs that aren't aligned. And so there's this catch-up piece of vendors, there's teachers learning new digital platforms, there's districts realigning curriculum so this this pause to 2023 absolutely agree it's needed because we don't just want districts marking somebody as proficient we really want teachers to demonstrate proficiency
and know and have a handle on what they're doing the fear of not delaying it is we have lots of people marking okay the the provision of having a teacher being able to be placed on an intensive support plan is if they haven't if a principal is not confident to mark them as proficient they can give them a little bit more time it's specified amount of time though it's not forever okay so percentage of teachers i know the long answer representative makes and i apologize
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
36:42
no good good explanation do you have any idea how many have managed to make proficiency so
Speaker 134
36:48
far so so we've had 900 administrators go through the assessor academy they haven't started marking folks as proficient yet that will start we have the system set up and we have observations going we don't have um we haven't pulled our cycle pool to see how many have been marked yet i would say of the you know 14 000 that have gone through rise academy i'd say very few of
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
37:14
them have been marked proficient at this moment okay so so we're not like 90
Speaker 134
37:21
of the way there it sounds like we're just kind of getting off the ground on phase one training we're 90 there right On
Speaker 98
37:30
demonstrating proficiency, we're not. We're probably 10%. All right. Thank you. That helps. And Representative Meeks, just to say, RISE began in 2017. Right. So we started that process. This component dealing with licensure came about in 2019. So the RISE training has been out there,
but the intensity of this component of demonstrating proficiency is definitely a higher bar. And Representative Lowry, you'd mentioned higher ed. I want to say the higher ed component of this is for those new teachers coming out. It is all of our ed prep programs are moving, have moved in that direction. So our graduates that will be coming out in these new programs will be required to take, it's a test where they have to demonstrate the proficiency of science of reading
through this test for licensure. So that's going to be the new ones, and Representative Talek mentioned, you know, those coming out. So the higher ed piece is not for catching everyone up. It's primarily for the new ones. Representative Fyke.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
38:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, would you consider pulling this down and working with the, I think it was Senate Bill 62 with the sponsors of that bill
and presenting us with one comprehensive bill rather than these two that are very similar, overlap in some places and not in others? I'll be glad to. I mean, if that's what the
Speaker 92
39:02
majority of the committee would want, I mean, I'm willing to pull it down, or we could pass this and send it to the Senate and let them decide which one they would rather go with. It's a call of the representative presenting. i'll be glad to pull mine down you
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
39:23
want to pull it down yes okay all right thank you
representative tallett and i'm sure the department would be glad to work with you on that thank you representative boyd you've been waiting
long and silently thank you mr. chair i'm i'm only missing public health
Speaker 142
39:47
nothing major here i didn't figure anything was happening down there so uh if it's okay with your permission uh miss bailey from the if you go ahead
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
39:56
and introduce yourself and who you're with you're recognized to testify at the
Speaker 145
40:00
time lindsey french association of arkansas counties
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
40:06
okay listen boyd you're recognized Yes. So
Speaker 142
40:09
just on HB 1175. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this bill does two things. One, it clarifies. And when we're talking about the general election, the filing deadline is 90 days prior. And then also there's a kind of a random $3 fee that there's only one college in Benton County that's ever collected it. And then they didn't know what to do with it. And it strikes that language. So this
Speaker 147
40:33
is just kind of a harmonization and cleanup bill on school board.
Speaker 63
40:38
elections. All right, any questions? Rep. Lowry. This one works. I remember Senator English and I co-sponsored a bill
Speaker 65
40:54
that I believe gave school districts the option of either having their school board election at the primary or the November general election, but your bill refers to 90 days before a general election.
Does that terminology fit the primary if they choose? And I think there were very few that chose to have their election held at the primary date, but does this language still allow that option?
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
41:26
Yes, Representative Lowry, thank you for the question, and it does. If you will notice in Section 1 there, this amends 6-14-111-E-1-B. So E-1-B deals with those who choose to have their election in conjunction with the general.
Section A would deal with the primary date. And what happened this past election is the school board filing date ended up being about two days off from the same municipal candidate filing period because one listed a date of August 1st and one said 90 days before the election. So this would just make them both 90 days before the election for uniformity, only for those who choose to hold their primary or to hold their election in the general. Okay, great.
Speaker 62
42:10
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
42:14
Any other questions? Seeing none. Does anyone in the audience like to speak against the bill, for
Speaker 144
42:26
the bill? Would you like to close for your bill? I'd just like to say there's no known opposition
Speaker 147
42:31
to this bill, and I would appreciate someone to give me
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
42:35
a due pass motion. What's the will of the committee? We have a due pass motion. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
You have passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I can't remember who's going to run SB 71. For Senator Sturge, are you in the room? Representative Warren, would you
take the end of the table? Who's? I'm sorry. I think that's Representative
Speaker 154
43:16
Vaught, but she's not here. So HB 1193, you're recognized.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
43:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. This bill would increase the amount of time a school board has to fill a vacancy on its board from 30 to 60 days only when the reason for the vacancy is a death of a school board member. And I've served on a school board, so I'll give you the example. School boards have their dates set for their meetings, and sometimes we've seen it where a spouse wants to fill out the term for the deceased member. So given the timing of the monthly board
meetings, you may want to approach a surviving spouse, but the board meeting's in five days. So what this is doing is still giving you the time to do that, but it gives you 60 days in in case you've got a meeting pretty quickly and you don't want to approach the spouse that quickly. 60 days, you've got time for them to get past the funeral grieving and then ask them if they'd like to do that. So it's the only one that's changed.
All the other vacancies have to be still be filled within 30 days. So one exception. All
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
44:40
right. Seeing no questions. Anyone? Do you have a question? Oh, okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak against? Four. Are you closed? I am closed for the bill. I have a motion to do pass from Representative Meeks. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations. You passed your
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
45:00
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HB 1194. Okay. This bill relates
to the bid threshold increase for commodities purchases. Schools have to bid certain commodities that they purchase. And what this does, the proposal would amend the annual bid purchase threshold increase process. The current bid purchase threshold is multiplied by the increase, if any, to the urban consumer price
index. It allows the commissioner of elementary and secondary education to round the increase of the bid purchase threshold up to the nearest $100. So I'll give you an example. In 2019, the initial amount that required bids was $20,500. After the increase with the
consumer Price Index, it came to $20,910. Rounded up, that's $21,000. And $20,020 started with $20,910.
The increase, it came to $21,284. It would have been rounded to $21,300. It's just making for an even figure rather than some odd figure. Representative Meeks, you recognize. I get you. Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
46:36
Representative, and I like working with nice round numbers, so I kind of appreciate where you're going here. The question that I have is, looking long-term at this,
when you round up to the nearest hundred, does that then become the new baseline for the following year? Because if so, by doing so, you can see how going into, you know, 10, 20, 30 years down the road, you could be over-inflating what this value becomes, because every year you might be adding $10, $20, $30 to it
by this rounding up. You see what I'm saying? Is there any concern related to that? They
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
47:14
felt like that it would pretty much work its way out.
They didn't think, and they looked at both ways, rounding down, rounding up, and they felt like that rounding up was just the easiest method and hopefully would take care of
it and maybe the next year would not be as much. Right. And like I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
47:40
said, I didn't know if just making it where it
was rounded to the nearest hundred might average that issue out over time versus always rounding up that eventually you're going to inflate it too much.
I see what you're saying. I mean, it's not a deal killer for me, but I just want to make sure that that unintended consequence has been something you've all considered.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
48:07
Perfect timing. And they did. They looked at that. But they came up with
just rounding to up instead of just rounding to the
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
48:21
nearest. Representative Duffymall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Warren, can you quote the first figures you had, 20,000?
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
48:28
The first two? I just wanted to hear that. In 2019, the base amount was $20,500. When multiplied times the urban consumer price index,
the increase was $410, which came to $20,910. Round up to the nearest $100 would make it $21,000. Yeah. So that's what I missed part of that. That's why I was asking.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
48:48
So it's definitely every time you're going to round to the nearest $100. Round up to the nearest $100. Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir.
All right. Thanks. Wait, wait, I'm sorry. Go ahead. But didn't you quote one figure where you rounded
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
49:06
down? No, sir. The next year, the example, the base was $20,910. The
increase was $374. That came to $21,284, and we rounded up to $21,300. It was just a $16 bump. Okay, I was just trying to follow it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah. Representative Beck.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
49:29
thank you Mr. Chair I agree with Representative Meeks over time you're going up you're always going up you're not really rounding the number you're always taking it up to the next 100 so rounding it would go both ways and I feel better about that but that's not a deal stopper my question is related to why is this a major issue it's not a major issue
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
50:01
they're just trying to get to an even figure for they do multiple purchases in each school district just the multiplication everything just
got simpler rather than 21,284 times whatever it is they're just trying to make it a simpler number just
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
50:29
curious I mean we all do this
with spreadsheets right and a spreadsheet does the math for us and you know I'm with you but
Speaker 168
50:38
they're just trying to simplify it's easier for bookkeepers absolutely okay maybe that's it
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
50:46
all right any other questions seeing none does anybody in the audience like to speak against the bill for the bill would you like to close I am closed for the bill. What's the will of the committee? Motion. Have a motion, do pass. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Representative Vaught, would you like to run SB 71? We'll clean this agenda up today. No, you're
Speaker 173
51:19
welcome. I'm glad I could help you. Thank
Speaker 38
51:22
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I'll just
Speaker 37
51:25
let you know we have not killed a bill today. Awesome. But we did get one taken off the table.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
51:32
Well, hopefully we won't have to kill this one either.
The Professional License Standard Board legislation,
this bill will allow the statute to be in line with the actual duties of the ethics subcommittee as well as the Professional License Standard Board. The request change to the educator response times from 30 days to 14 days enables the PLSB staff to maximize the investigation time needed for each individual case. Under the current law, an educator has three opportunities to provide feedback or response and is given 30 days each time.
Lowering the amount of time to 14 calendar days for each response creates a more seamless flow of casework from initial investigation to the evident hearing, which is required to occur within 180 days of the initial authorization. These suggested changes also allow for an educator and the PLSB staff to agree to waive any timeline requirements under the statute when necessary.
Speaker 179
52:48
That's it. Questions, anyone? Representative Love. Representative
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
52:57
Vaught, what is the necessity of this change? I mean, why would we not accept a facsimile? What's going on here? I think it's just going to make
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
53:09
it a more seamless flow for the caseworker. Okay,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
53:14
so I'm looking at, I'm looking on page one.
And we're just saying that we should not accept
a facsimile or electronic signature on a complaint form. I mean, why would we
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
53:35
not? I'm going to have to ask somebody
Speaker 188
53:46
to come to the table with me. Ivy Pfeffer, Department of Education. and um so a um an original signature has always been required and i think the clarification here
is that it's on the complaint form that's submitted so um it that's not changing practice that was just clarifying the language that the complaint has to be signed by the person and it um it has to be an original signature that does get
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
54:13
sent in okay so i guess here i guess here's my question because in the age of COVID, I mean, and I'm
doing a lot of work with EDA, DRA, whoever.
We're not even requiring, the federal government's not even requiring an ink signature. I mean,
or they give you time to send in these documents. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why are we trying
Speaker 188
54:43
to change this so the the document can be submitted electronically but there is a um a specified form that has to be completed and the signature needs to be the original signature to ensure that um the complaint is actually done by uh it's not an anonymous complaint
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
55:01
okay all right so so you can submit it electronically but you yes sir okay all right Yes,
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
55:14
sir, absolutely. Rosa Goffrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question about the structural change here. We've got the professional licensure board, and then under that is the ethics subcommittee. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. And so on a follow-up, so we're just changing who's doing what here. We're saying it's not the ethics subcommittee who's, you know, making these changes or making these notifications.
It's now the responsibility of the staff of the licensure board. That's
Speaker 188
55:41
correct. So the staff receives the complaint, and then the complaint is provided to the subcommittee then who decides whether or not to authorize the allegation for investigation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
56:03
Chair. Ruffin McKenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we change the time frame here for response from 30 to
14 days, can you shed some light on what kind of subject matter are we dealing with generally with this?
Speaker 188
56:20
So it would depend on the actual allegation and what goes on. The change really is that once the investigation is complete, the entire information is sent to the person that has been investigated, and instead of waiting 30 days, so basically the clock would stop, and currently it's 30 days before anything then can proceed. so the timeline to 14 would just be getting the the response back from the educator a little
sooner if the educator needed more time that could be requested or and at any time the educator can continue to respond to anything that's provided in the investigation and thank you for that and i'm just trying to
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
57:14
wrap my head i'm just trying to envision i understand i mean i can obviously understand some what ethics complaints for attorneys and doctors. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of general ethics complaints do we have in this situation here
with their educators. I understand criminal investigations, but I just
Speaker 188
57:36
want to give me some examples, please, of ethics. Okay. So some of the more serious could be allegations and investigations that take place around an inappropriate relationship with a student. Sometimes that occurs electronically, sometimes it could be a physical type of interaction. So it could be a very serious allegation. It could also be an allegation about an educator around inappropriate conduct when giving student assessments. There are also
So cases where an educator may not maintain confidentiality, other types of situations. So there's just really a, there are eight standards that outline ethical conduct. So you have different types of situations that could come forward. Representative Love, are you sure you want another question?
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
58:38
Dr. Pfeiffer, how many complaints do we receive anonymously through this? I don't know the
Speaker 192
58:54
anonymous part because if a complaint comes in that
Speaker 188
58:59
is anonymous, then the committee does not proceed with investigation. So we can't move forward on anything that's anonymous.
I can tell you that in 2019-20, there were 158 allegations that were received by the PLSB staff, and the PLSB subcommittee authorized 85 of those to be investigated. Okay, but none of them were submitted electronically? Nothing? So, all
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
59:27
of the information can be submitted electronically, but it just has to
Speaker 188
59:34
be, there's a form, I was looking to see if I had a copy of the form with me, and I don't, but there's a form that is completed.
You can complete it paper, pencil, and it can be faxed in, it can be emailed in, it can be scanned, or there's an actual online copy that you can type into, but then you do have to print it out, sign your name, and submit it. So it can be mailed, it can be emailed, or it can be sent by fax. It's just the signature actually has to be
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:00:10
pinned. Okay, so in this age of COVID, then if you send this information in,
and in the age of COVID, you can't sign it, then your complaint would not go forward?
Speaker 192
1:00:21
If it does not have a signature, no, it would not go forward. But
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:00:26
you can copy this off, sign it, scan it in, and email it back. It's not like you have to go somewhere and sign and somebody see you sign. Does that make sense? Yeah, but I guess I'm just
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:00:39
looking at the language that said that it shall not be accepted. If it does not have a signature.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:00:47
So it cannot be done anonymously. They have to have somebody sign for the allegation.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:00:54
Got you. Okay. All right. I'm just trying to work through
Speaker 188
1:00:59
this. And Representative, this may help a little bit because these allegations can be, the sanctions for these allegations range from just a written warning, letter of caution, all the way to a recommendation to the State Board to revoke a license.
So this is a serious process when it does happen. And so the step to have a signature on there, that is there to protect the process, but also for the educator that is where there is an allegation made because it does affect them in terms of their licensing and ability to continue working
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:01:42
as an educator. Well, and this is why I guess I'm
stuck on this issue because I had a constituent that actually had filed an ethics complaint in the while I know the
allegation was serious in the licensure, but it's also serious on the other side. And so that's why I'm kind of, it may seem like I'm really asphyxiated on this process. It's because I am, because I had a constituent go through this. And so I just want to make sure that it's a protected process and the integrity of it is there. So that's kind of why I sat up straight in my seat. I would say it's very protected. Okay, thank you.
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
1:02:29
Ripson Godfrey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the expedited timeline. I think that makes a lot of sense, especially with such serious allegations in some instances. I do just have a question about that final provision about being able to waive the timeline in this section. I see that it does say it has to be the licensure standards board and the educator agreeing to be able to waive any kind of timeline. I'm just curious what that
agreement looks like, if that's just a spoken agreement, if that, you know, if there's a kind of a formalized process of agreement and what a waiver would look like, making sure there is that understanding between
Speaker 212
1:03:10
both parties. It is a written waiver. Thank you. Ruffin
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
1:03:18
McKenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this, and I apologize if I'm belaboring something, but the scenario that you mentioned, me, of an inappropriate relationship with a teacher and a student,
well, that would be a crime anyway. Slice it. Unless I guess we're just talking about maybe flirting allegations and we're worried we're trying to stop it. before it gets there. So I'm wondering how this coordinates or jives with a criminal prosecution and mandated reporters if you get a complaint of we believe there's an inappropriate relationship with a teacher. Do we have these two? Surely they're not tracking together. We've got criminal prosecution involved and defense attorneys. So I'm trying to understand how this process works.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:04:02
They do track together more than likely. More than not, they do track together. But also, they have to do their due diligence and make sure that it's not just a student who's mad at a teacher for giving them a F also, and that they're not just destroying a teacher for no reason. So, I mean, that's why you've got processes in place. But the criminal and them will work together.
Speaker 4
1:04:34
You good? Okay, so I guess then there's
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
1:04:36
no opposition to this, your defense attorneys, no one has a problem with changing your response times? I have not heard of any opposition to this. All
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:04:45
right, any other questions? Seeing none, do we
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:04:50
have anyone in the audience want to speak against the bill?
For the bill? We have no one signed up.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:05:04
Just like close. I'm closed, and I would appreciate a motion
Speaker 108
1:05:14
do pass. You have that motion. Motion do pass. Yeah, you do. I
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:05:17
appreciate a good vote. How about that? There you go. All right. All those in favor say aye. There's no debate on the motion outright. Anybody debate? No debate. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the last bill for the day. Like I reminded you, if you have a fiscal impact you have received,
please make sure they know you're okay with it and then we'll get it on the committee and if you're ready to run your bill please continue to let me know because we have a lot of them sitting out there and we're trying to move them off thank you and we'll see you tuesday tuesday i'll put it on there i need a resolution from uh
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB83 B. Davis TO ADD A STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE STATE-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN STATE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.
HB1029 F. Allen TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
HB1170 Tollett TO AMEND THE DATE BY WHICH TEACHERS SHALL DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCY IN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES OF SCIENTIFIC READING INSTRUCTION.
HB1175 Boyd TO AMEND THE CANDIDATE FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR POSITIONS ON SCHOOL BOARDS AND LOCAL BOARDS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
SB71 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS APPLICABLE TO EDUCATORS.
HB1193 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO A VACANCY ON A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
HB1194 Warren TO ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION TO ROUND THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF A COMMODITY AND THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS TO THE NEAREST ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Feb 4, 2021 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 45
Joy Springer
Unverified
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 65
Speaker 69
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 84
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
Speaker 92
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 101
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 62
Speaker 125
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 134
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 142
Speaker 145
Speaker 147
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 144
Speaker 154
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 168
Speaker 173
Speaker 38
Speaker 37
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 179
Speaker 188
Speaker 192
Speaker 212
Speaker 108