House Education Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1101
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1101 Evans TO AMEND THE AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO PETITIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO PETITION A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS … | Evans | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB35
Act 76
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB35 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING TUITION BENEFITS FOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING TUITION BENEFITS FOR SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN OF THE ARKANSAS NATIONAL … | J. English | Notification that SB35 is now Act 76 |
|
HB1102
Act 182
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1102 Evans TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TRAINING ON SCHOOL SAFETY AND S…”
|
TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TRAINING ON SCHOOL SAFETY AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE FOR BOARD MEMBERS; TO STANDARDIZE … | Evans | Notification that HB1102 is now Act 182 |
|
HB1186
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1186 S. Meeks TO CREATE A WAIVER REGARDING THE MINIMUM AGE FOR E…”
|
TO CREATE A WAIVER REGARDING THE MINIMUM AGE FOR ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. | S. Meeks | Died in House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB125
Act 79
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB125 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION. | J. Sturch | Notification that SB125 is now Act 79 |
|
SB126
Act 80
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB126 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY AND ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF … | J. Sturch | Notification that SB126 is now Act 80 |
|
SB130
Act 81
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB130 J. Sturch TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLAR…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 1. | J. Sturch | Notification that SB130 is now Act 81 |
|
SB131
Act 82
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB131 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNI…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ARKANSAS CONCURRENT CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP … | J. Sturch | Notification that SB131 is now Act 82 |
|
SB34
Act 75
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB34 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR TEA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM. | J. English | Notification that SB34 is now Act 75 |
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
Chair sees the quorum. So we'll try to get going here. We have quite a few bills. I don't see a whole lot of problems with very many of them. Just a few. I'm just kidding. I
think it's going to be a pretty good easy day. So at this time
I'm going to take the first two out of order. We have Mark Berry's on the end there ready to run his bill. So we'll let him get up first. So I believe You have SB 35, is that correct?
If you want to come to the table. And if you have somebody who wants to come testify with you, they're welcome at one at a time to come up and take a seat. If there's
a seat there, if not, we'll drag one up for them. More, Mr. Chairman? Yes, if you would go ahead and have your guest identify himself and who he's with, then he'll
Jeff Wood, Arkansas National Guard. Good morning. Glad to have you here. You are recognized to present SB 35.
Speaker 6
1:05
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a great day to be an American, and I appreciate the opportunity
Speaker 7
1:11
to be able to present the Senate Bill 35. What this bill is allows a temporary waiver for Arkansas National Guard soldiers and airmen to use their educational benefits while they are waiting to go to formalized trading. We see recruiting and retention in the military department has been a challenge over the years. And one of the reasons that we were very fortunate to get education benefits passed through the legislature
were to help recruiting and retention efforts for the military department. So what happens is we enlist a soldier or airman and they go to basic training. And sometimes it may take, in some of our career fields, it takes a year to get a top secret security clearance. Then it may take another eight to nine months for them to get a class date to start an intelligence-type school. So there's a wait period there of about two years. So we advertise paying for educational benefits, and in the meantime,
they can't use those benefits the way the law is written until after they complete their training. So what this allows them to do is request a temporary waiver for them to be able to use those educational benefits after they complete their basic training and while they're waiting for a top-secret security clearance or their follow-on training. And I'd be happy to take any questions. Are there any questions for the committee?
Seeing none, would you like to close for your bill? Well, I appreciate
Speaker 7
2:48
the vote and I appreciate the service of the soldiers and airmen. that I was fortunate to be able to work with for over 45 years. And Colonel Jeff Wood was my staff judge advocate for a number of years, and I appreciate his service. Second term or three-term legislator, and his father was also a 20-year legislator, Doug Wood. And I appreciate his service and what he brings to the table for the Arkansas National Guard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to have him here today. Representative Meek? Motion to pass. Motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank
you, committee. Representative Fite, you are recognized to take me to the table and present SB 34. I guess while she's coming, we have a new person in the committee room with us today, and I think he's an old face that you look back in the back,
and I believe former Representative David Branscombe is here. And, David, good to have you back, working for the Department of Ed as a liaison for us. If you have a problem, I want you to always call David, please. All right. Charlene, you are
Representative Lanny Fite
Unverified
4:02
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
4:06
you, committee. Can you hear me okay? Sure. It's my pleasure today to bring this bill that addresses annual leave and sick leave for teachers employed in the Arkansas National Guard Youth Challenge Program.
The reason for the change in the statute, as written, does not adequately address leave accrual for Department of the Military teachers at the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, so this bill is an effort to correct that. I would like to introduce my witness and ask him to also speak. Scott Stenger, Chief
Speaker 20
4:40
of Staff, Department of the Military. What this bill does is it makes youth challenged teachers accumulate leave the same
Speaker 21
4:46
way as a normal teacher would at any school district.
Right now, they are state employees. There's five of them. And what happens is even if they were a long-term state employee, the most leave they could ever accrue in a year is 22 days. What the law says, they only work for 190 days out of the year. So there's currently no leave status for them to be in for all that extra time that they're not working. And they don't accrue enough state employee leave to cover the time that they are not working. So I think when the original law in 2015 was written that included them as what a definition of a teacher is
probably didn't take into account that they were state employees. So the systems don't match. What this will allow us to do is for them to accrue leave normally like any other teacher out there, but it would give us the authority to go in and manually adjudicate their leave to match what normal state teachers get. right now we don't have that authority and so their leave system is is bottom line it's just a little wacky there's not a computer fix for it they said
that's cost prohibitive and the actual ability for us to do that we do it once a year in January and it takes about 30 minutes worth of work but we don't believe we have the authority technically to do that since they are state employees but they are also teachers as well. All right. Any questions from committee? Well I
forgot this while ago so I'll go ahead and
ask is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against? Mark do you have a question? Okay let me see if there's anyone
that want to testify against or before. I don't think there is. I haven't had anybody sign up on these bills. Okay Representative
Chair
Unverified
6:37
Lowry you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to I want to quickly say this great bill, the work you do out there is amazing. And I've mentioned several times in committee hearings that this is a model that we probably should be using for alternative learning. I mean, because the success story that you have out there is very consistent, I've met some of the students. As a matter of fact, this program is in my district, and I appreciate everything that you do.
Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. Would you like
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
7:14
to close for you, Bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill will right a wrong, an injustice that's happening right now, and I think
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
7:19
it's an easy fix and one that we need to do, and I would like to make a motion due pass.
We have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say
aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for coming today.
Let's see, who's next? Can we skip over you? No, I
don't want to. Senator Sturge, do you need to be somewhere else? Okay, we're going to keep you in line as long as you're not having to press. I know that Lee's presenting us up. Representative Evans, you're recognized to take the table. You have a couple of bills. HB 1101 will be first. and as you notice you
do have fiscal impacts for your bills on your table today so you can
kind of pick those up if you have
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
8:20
any questions about those thank you mr chair um committee members uh bringing back to you today house bill 1101 you may remember uh we first discussed this bill on our first education committee meeting during this session. At that time, there was not a regular agenda. These items were placed only on the consent agenda. There were some questions that we felt like we needed to answer on that, so we pulled that bill back. I'm happy to say that I had great conversations with those that
had questions during the committee that day, and I believe we have answered those questions. What we're simply doing is we're going to lower that number from 2 percent down to 1 percent of the qualified electors in the school district, and we are going to cap that at 200. It's the same bill that we ran a couple of weeks ago, just with those changes that were requested by committee members. Any questions? Any questions, committee?
Seeing none, does anyone in the audience like to
speak against the bill? For the bill? If not, would I like to
Speaker 39
9:27
close for your bill? Yes, sir. I'm closed for
the bill, and motion do pass. A motion to do
Speaker 41
9:38
pass. Any discussion on the motion? Representative Love. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Evans, thank
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
9:42
you for the considerations. As you know, I had a big issue with this bill in regards to the number of persons,
so I appreciate, you know, while I'm still not pleased, but I do appreciate the efforts that you made to actually try to satisfy some of the
concerns with this bill. So thank you. Thank
you, Representative Love. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, sir. You're
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
10:15
recognized for HB 1102. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1102, very simple bill. So this really does three things.
First of all, you may remember back during the 92nd that I believe Representative Dodson ran a bill through this committee where it would be required for every new board member in their first 12 months of service to receive training on how to read an audit on their school district. What we're trying to do here during this session is, because there was so much emphasis recently placed on school safety, most especially on the topic of bullying in our school districts,
is that there is now a report that superintendents have to present annually to their school boards, and the school board association felt that it was only in line that since we added that audit training that had to be given to new board members, that there should also be training given to new board members on how to read these reports regarding school safety and student discipline incidents. This is not additional training. There is no fiscal impact to this.
To my knowledge, there's no one that's opposed to this. Every school board member in their first year of service must have nine hours of continuing education, and all that the association is doing is saying let's add this training course into those nine hours, not any additional hours. It also, secondly, establishes a consistent format of reporting the training hours that board members currently have across the state. Districts report those in different ways, and so the association has put together a pretty simplified format that's lined out in the bill of exactly how those hours are supposed to be reported.
and then also it puts provision in there of establishing a way for a board member if by some circumstances they're not able to get their nine hours or their six hours each year after that gives them some additional time to procure that they may have possibly been able to miss meetings or sickness or military duty or whatever and so it just adds an additional 30 days on the end that they can cure up that shortage of hours. Again, there's no fiscal impact of this, no one that I'm aware of as opposed to it.
I'd be glad to take any questions. Representative Evans, is there a total amount of hours that a board member does not have to take training after that, or is that still every year is a reoccurring year?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
12:50
Yes, sir. It's every year. It's nine hours in your first 12 months, and then six hours per year after that, as long as you're on the board, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions?
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
13:03
Rep. S. Godfrey, good to see you over there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Edmonds, I'm just wondering if the training is standardized across all districts
or if each district is coming up with their own content. I think it will
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
13:14
be, thank you for the question, I think it will be standardized and it will come through the school board association. So throughout the year, the association puts on training typically through the local co-ops to make it, you know, from a logistic standpoint, easier for board members to go to. They also, through the pandemic, have done a very good job of doing Zoom training so that board members can get their hours without convening together.
There's the annual ASBA conference as well as the annual NSBA conference that allows board members to go. And, you know, every district is different, and so sometimes board members have areas of training that they prefer to get that could be more impactful to their district. But it is standardized. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you
Chair
Unverified
14:03
have one? She's about ready to start throwing things at me over here. Representative McKenzie, you recognize.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
14:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'm putting a show on over here trying to get your attention. I can't see that away. Just for clarification, as I mentioned with you, I had some school board members who had some questions. So there is no additional training. The additional discipline training is just that first year. And with regard to the discipline training, this is on how to fulfill the bullying requirement.
This is not substantive as far as here are some policies we think that you should enact school
Speaker 64
14:49
board members for discipline. Is that correct? Yes,
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
14:52
that is correct. So each superintendent, as I stated, they have to provide a report at the end of the year or at the beginning of the new year regarding all of the discipline issues that they have. I can tell you from our district back home, it's fairly generic. It doesn't dive into a lot of details. There's no identities whatsoever that's associated with that. But it's just a way to make sure that there's consistency across our districts in how that report is given
Speaker 65
15:19
and to make sure that the board members have training on how to interpret that
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
15:23
report. And I'm also curious, with these reports, we've been doing these now for what, two years, one year? How long has it been effective with the bullying reports that we did in the 92nd? Just one year, just this past year. Do we know who's reading these, responding to these? I know with the FCC, for 27 years, I filed a room full of reports that not one person ever read. And yet, I would have been fined crazy if they showed up.
I hadn't done those reports. So I really got angry. So I'm wanting to know, are we reading them? Are we feedback to the schools? Are they serving a purpose for
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
16:04
these schools when we make them do this? I think it provides a couple of levels of benefit. One, as in most of your districts, your school ward members, they're out in the community. They represent different segments of the community, different wards. And so it gives some accountability back to the fact that the stakeholders do have someone that they can contact to discuss this
if there's continued issues, and it allows that board member to have a better idea of what's going on, you know, inside their district to the matters of student discipline in regards to bullying. Secondly, I think it even provides a higher level of accountability just to our administrators. If they're continually having, and I don't know how many years it will take to have a specific effect on it, But if they are continually putting out a report to their board and the board is not seeing any improvement to the instances within their district, then I think that that's going to be very eye-opening.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
17:05
Okay, so thank you. That was helpful. So this report does not go to the state. This report is just from the superintendent
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
17:11
to the school board? No, I do believe that that report does
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
17:14
have to be submitted to the state. So that was my wondering. In the state, since we're asking for it, are
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
17:20
we doing anything with it? I would have to yield that to the department to see exactly what it is that they do with that report. That report does? So the superintendents do not supply that report to the department?
Okay. According to the department, they do not receive that report. Got
it? Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in
the audience that would like to speak against the bill? I have no one signed up on that bill or for the bill. Would you like to close for your bill? Close for the bill with a motion to do pass. I have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations, you passed your other bill. That was a whole lot easier than the other day, right? Yes, sir. All right. At this time,
Chair
Unverified
18:23
Representative Meeks, you're recognized to present HB 1186. Hello, Brady. Good morning, everyone.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
18:42
All right. Good morning. Colleagues, this morning I'm bringing to you a local control and local
flexibility bill. This was brought to me by a constituent. So according to current Arkansas law, a student has to be five years old by August 1st before they're allowed to enroll in school. And this constituent's daughter turned five years old on August 4th. So even though she was perfectly capable of starting school with her peers because of
this hard deadline, she's forced now to wait until she's six years old before she starts school. And because she's not starting school until six, that means she won't graduate from high school until she's almost 20 years old. Me personally, I was starting second grade by the time I was six. And I think we do a disservice to these students by making them wait a year just because they missed this deadline by a couple of days. So simply all this bill does is it creates a 30-day waiver.
So essentially a student born in the month of August makes a written request, or the parents do, makes a written request to the principal. the principal reviews that request and if the student is ready and they have availability then that student will be allowed to start school with her age group we all know that you know there are certain circumstances where there's limits on class size so if they've already got a full load of students the principal can say you know we can't add that student
conversely if they've got three or four students too many so they are forced to add a teacher wouldn't it be beneficial to allow that principal to bring in an additional four or five students who are ready to start school to help fill out that class increases the ADM and of course it brings those resources you know six seven thousand dollars per student brings that to that local school to help cover the cost of adding that that teacher so again it's a local control bill gives
the principal complete authority they could say they don't want to have this and just stay without august 1st deadline if that's what's best for their circumstance but if it's best to allow some of those students who are ready to start within that 30-day window then they can start so again it's it's just to give that flexibility to the local school district to make what choice is best for them regarding these students who kind of hit close to that deadline. So with that, I'll be
Speaker 41
21:21
happy to take any questions. Rep. Love. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Meeks, I know that this, I think
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
21:34
this issue is always, it's a perpetual issue. What is the current policy of practice
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
21:40
now? The current law says they have to turn five by August 1st. So that's the law. There's a
hard deadline there. So if you're a student who's born on August 2nd, you're either stuck until the next
year or else if you're a parent, you know, if
I was a parent in that situation, I'm looking at either homeschooling or private schools because I don't
Speaker 86
22:03
want my student to get behind. Okay. Mr. Chair, are we going to have the department come and
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
22:19
talk about this? Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks, now, let's say I had a child that enters at four years old, right,
and let's say turns five at August 29th, something like that, that would be acceptable. Is that true? If they get the approval
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
22:37
of the principal. Okay. And I was four years old when I started kindergarten, so. Well,
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
22:44
just one thought here. I had a son that was diagnosed with being dyslexic, and this is a certified psychiatrist who evaluated him, said that probably one of the biggest reasons for his dyslexia was entering school too early. I know it's a popular view, And I'm not saying I'm totally against this.
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
23:00
I'm just saying that's a thought. Thank you. Representative Fyke, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Too muffled. Fighting here with my mask. I have had some principals call me and feel that this puts too
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
23:22
great a burden on them. They said that the line has to be drawn somewhere. And if we draw it the end of August, then what about those parents that say, well, my child's birthday is September the 1st, September the 2nd,
they should get this same consideration, where does it end? So they like having the hard and fast rule that I'm sorry that's the rule and not having all the parents down on their heads because they are having to make this determination. I guess I should put that in the form of a question, do you agree?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
23:55
the main concerns that has come up and this bill allows for a principal who believes that to stick with that and to say that that's the the policy we're going to
go with august 1st and we're going to leave it at that but i think that creating some flexibility for the local school district because not one size fits all this helps to create some flexibility for the school districts who would welcome those students. And as far as, you know, a principal doesn't want to have to be put in a position about making this decision, are we more concerned about making a principal uncomfortable, or are we more concerned about doing what's best for the kids they serve?
And I would say that, or I would submit, that if a principal doesn't have the expertise to determine whether a child born in the month of August is ready to start school yet, or if a principal doesn't have the strength of character or leadership to decide whether they want to let someone in, I don't know that that's someone that we want to be a principal in one of our schools. I say that our principals have the knowledge and have the expertise,
and they're the ones who know what's best for their schools. And if it's best just to say no, then that's what's best. But if it is best to allow two or three of these students or four, whatever the situation is, into their district, that they
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
25:31
should have that flexibility to do so.
Speaker 102
25:33
Representative Ball. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what do you do in cases where you have several different
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
25:39
principals in different locations, but they're all part of the same district?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:45
So according to the bill, the principal gets to decide what's best for their building. But if the local school board or local superintendent wants to set a district-wide policy, then I would have every expectation that the principals in those separate schools would follow whatever that policy is. Follow up, Mr.
Speaker 106
26:03
Chair. So what keeps a child from going from one
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
26:07
school to the next school all in the same district? One principal says no, the next principal says no, the next principal says yes.
Nothing? Okay. I see that as kind of an issue with this bill and the fact that if they don't get the right answer in the right campus, even though it's all a part of the same district, that they can jump from campus to campus to try to get into school. Just so you... Right,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:35
right. And I would say two things to that. First off, it may be beneficial to that one school to accept that student. Whereas it wouldn't, you know, the other two schools in your example may be at their hard cap. Whereas a third school would benefit from adding that student.
So why not let that school benefit from adding that student? I would also say that if a parent is determined enough that they're going to go from school to school, that they're going to have to take their child to that other school, I would submit if they're that determined that they would also be looking at alternatives like private school and charter schools. and we may never see that student attend a public school because of that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you answered, I had a
question. I think you answered part of mine, but that hard cap is going to be the problem if there's two slots open
and the first two kids get it and the other two that's behind them don't, then you're going to have problems. So, but anyway, I understand. But some places there are no private schools and no charter schools, so that's not their issue. I think we have Representative Maddox. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
27:41
you, Representative Meeks. So most of my concerns have been addressed already with our questions or at least touched on, but what was the thought on why the principal, doesn't that give the principal a lot of discretion as opposed to maybe the super?
I just see some problems. And then if we don't set a hard cap, won't we catch another parent who's going to say, well, I want to extend it another 30 days because it's just always going to be a problem. And I know this is a constituent issue, but to me we need a hard cap. Would you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:11
agree with that, or if you could address those concerns? Sure, sure. So on the question of who, the reason
why I chose the principal is because the principal knows his school the best. He's the one, or they're the ones who are involved in the day-to-day planning.
They know the teachers. They know that community the best. If the superintendent wants to set a policy, obviously I think the principal would follow that policy. but the principal is the one who knows their building the best and what their situation is the best, so that's why I chose that. As far as the, you're correct, you know, you're always going to have that parent, well, my kid's born on September 3rd if we allow this to take place,
but I think the benefit here is we create a little bit of flexibility without going too far. That August 1st date is still there, that date is still kind of the standard, but it allows the school to have some flexibility to fill out classes if they need to, but also the flexibility to say, you know, no, we don't want to. So again, it comes down to local control, local choice. If they want to stay with the August 1st hard cap, they can stay with the August 1st hard
cap. If they see that they've got three students that have applied and they've got five slots they could fill why not let the kids start and it's kind of what what representative cozart said well what if four kids apply and they've only got two slots well then they either can accept two and you know you're going to upset some parents obviously or they can just say no and upset all the parents so it's just a local a local some local flexibility whether you know if none of
the schools want to use it they can't but if it's beneficial to the school why
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
30:07
not give them that options. Representative Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern is some of the confusion around
it. I think it might generate around it. And maybe it's a question, maybe it's a suggestion. Maybe if a principal could adopt a policy, it's this way or that way, as opposed
to a parent not knowing, you know, when they get there, well, we may, my child may get in, my child may not. I can see that as a very confusing thing for them, and it's, you know, in your case, in your suggestion, it was if there was a slot available and so on and so forth. I think I would like it better if the bill actually required, I actually like the idea of the superintendent doing it also, where there's a policy, okay, we will allow this or we do not allow this.
This is our hard debt. And I think that would be clear for the parents and other
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
31:04
things. Thank you. Which, since the way the bill is structured, it says it has to have the approval of the principal. So I would assume that any principal or school district that's going to make use of this, that they would develop some sort of policy to control how or if this is even used. Rep. Smith.
Speaker 121
31:29
Yes, I think that my concern would be in an area like I'm from where there's five competing schools that have school choice that it would almost force the hand of each of those schools to accept a student at that age because if they wouldn't, they're just going to school choice to another one of the schools. And I'm afraid it might get into a deal where even the child is not ready because of that $7,000 tag is on them that another school is going to accept them. I mean, I worry about people even wanting to send their kids early to save in daycare.
And then it becomes a big, big deal that I don't know if it's best for the kids. But that's just my opinion.
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
32:12
I just wanted to express that. Representative Speaks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Don't you think that you need a kindergarten readiness test or something to go with this? I mean, all the parents, all of us included, that our parents, we think our children are the smartest, the best, and that.
And so maybe they're not even ready to go, I mean, just by them making a decision. So I wonder why we don't have a kindergarten readiness test. Well, why
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
32:41
wouldn't we apply that test to a child born on September 30th
or September 29th? Or, excuse me, let me back up. July 28th, July 29th. So the student who turns 5 years old on July 29th is allowed to go to kindergarten regardless of whether they would pass such a test, but the student who's born 3 days later on August 2nd can't.
You see what I'm saying? So, I mean, because of the permissive nature of this language, if the superintendent and the school district wanted to install some sort of test like that, then they can.
Speaker 66
33:18
I just think we're opening a can of worms.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
33:27
Ripson and Vaught you recognize again thank you Mr. Chair so I don't see anywhere in
the bill where it allows for a school district to even create such a policy for this to happen and then
my second part of my question is is there a cutoff date in which the submission to principals can be because I don't see that also in the bill. So if it's 20 days after, if it's 30 days after, if it's, does that make sense what I'm saying? You don't really have a cutoff day of when they can be submitted, and then there's nowhere where a policy can actually be written to allow this to happen. The
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
34:07
bill says with the approval of the principal,
so that allows the principal to work all that out. so the principal can develop a policy the principal if they want to they can develop any kind of standards that they want they can set up you know got because it has to be a written notice so they can say that in order for me to approve this all these have got to be in by you know july 15th or or whatever so the principals can develop whatever standard they see fit okay but you do see a problem with that
Speaker 102
34:45
right no i mean should our principals really be making
the policies above their supers or their school boards well i would
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
34:52
hope that they would work in tandem with their superintendents and school board yeah but your bill
Speaker 130
34:56
doesn't direct them to do that no that's true it doesn't
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
35:00
but if if my boss came to me and said do x y and z am i going to do x y and z sure
Speaker 102
35:15
can i have a follow-up mr chair you can so
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
35:17
basically we're saying that the principal can go above the law and what the law says to whatever he determines
that he wants for that school even though the law says something different
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
35:28
no i'm confused by your Okay, so I don't
Speaker 102
35:32
even know how to ask it anymore because I think I'm as
Speaker 130
35:39
confused as any parent would be. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the answer to the question is
if we just let Representative Lowry run his lengthening bill where he starts school way later, this would actually take care of that.
Chair
Unverified
35:53
It would take care of it all. No, I'm just kidding, Mark. Representative McKenzie, you have a question? You know, I'm usually a lone no.
Speaker 69
36:05
I may be the lone yes in this. I'm an August 12th baby, and so is
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
36:10
that brother of mine over there. We're both August 12th babies, so I'm biased here a little bit. I didn't even know that we had a hard and firm August. You have to be five August 1st, or you don't go to school. That's right.
So school starts, what, 18th? I guess it changes. So I would be five, but according to this law, you've got folks like me waiting another year. My brother would be bald playing basketball if we did that. I would probably be trying to teach the class. I would just, I like this, and I know I'm self-serving here, but you've got kids turning five before school even starts in some of these cases, and yet we're telling them you sit home another year. You give some flexibility here, whether it's the principal or the superintendent of the school board.
I kind of wondered about that. But they don't have to. But, again, I know this is self-serving, but there are plenty of kids in that. My question is, when did we change it to August 1st? Way back when, and I'm just behind the times by a lot. Do we not win?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
37:13
As far as it's been that way for a long time.
Speaker 139
37:16
Well, how sad. I'm glad I was born a long, long time ago.
Well, you know, a long time ago it was a different date. And I'm an August, I'm an October 3rd baby.
and you had to be six. We didn't have kindergarten back then. You know, I'm old, so we didn't have kindergarten, especially where I was at. So you had to be September, a certain date in September to be, but I was October 3rd and they let me in for some reason. Not that I was special because I never was, but I mean things were flexible a little more back in those days than they are now. There's hard numbers and I don't think the hard numbers were there. We have two more. I'm going I'll take two more, and then we're going to go to testimony. Fred, do you still have a question?
No, I'll leave. Okay. Representative Lowry, you still have?
Chair
Unverified
38:05
Okay. Let's last one. Okay. I know the chairman was making a joke about my school start date, Bill, but actually, Representative Meeks, if we pass this wonderful bill that I have that would have a later school start, No, I think the bill says no sooner than the Monday before Labor Day. Does that not even give more backing for allowing that waiver?
Because, you know, while we're currently many times starting mid-August, now we're talking about two weeks. Rep. Lauer, you're speculating now. I am speculating, and I do that. But would that help? Would
Speaker 147
38:46
that help you? Sure. Sure. You know, I
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
38:49
would be even open to changing that hard date to whatever the first day of school is because, like in Representative McKenzie's case, if school doesn't start until April 19th and she's got a birth date of April 12th, or excuse me, of August 12th, that means she's six years old when she starts kindergarten.
and like I said I was starting second grade so that would put her two years behind me in her academic career and puts her at almost 20 years old by the time she graduates high school again potentially up to one to two years behind her peers and
you know all right seeing no more questions we have people that signed up against...
I have one against the bill. And before I get to those, I think I'm going to bring the department in, and I have a couple of questions for them. If you guys, I think some of y'all might, would like to hear something from the department, we'll bring them in first, and then we'll go against, if that's okay.
Chair
Unverified
39:56
Secretary Key, if you were... Johnny Key, Department of Education. All right. Would you just like to make a statement, then we'll ask questions.
We have something. What's your thoughts on this bill? Well, sure, I can.
Representative Speaks, when I was listening to your questioning, it reminded me of Garrison Keillor and all those Lake Wobegon children being above average. We all think our children are above average. Of course we do. There is a kindergarten assessment that is done. It's typically done in the spring of the year prior to the fall start. But the department's position is that the law is fine the way it is. We don't see the need for a change. It's been this way since 2007. I guess Representative McKenzie, you had asked when this was.
So, and I do remember sitting in your seats and getting those requests from parents, just like Representative Meeks received. And there were various reasons why people would want to get some type of waiver either because they'd already done their 3 and 4 pre-K or, you know, whatever it might have been. But the department feels like putting this on the principals individually is not an appropriate role for the principals.
Speaker 156
41:17
We feel comfortable with the law as it is now. Secretary Key,
is there a waiver that a school could ask for to waive that date? Is that what you just said or not say? Did you not say that? Is there a waiver? If they wanted to take someone that was before that date, can they ask
for a waiver for that? No. No, I didn't say anything about a
Chair
Unverified
41:39
waiver. No, that's what I said. I'm asking that. Oh, okay. I didn't know if you'd said that. No, no, sir, I didn't. There's not
a waiver. There's no waiver for asking for a child to be before that date.
Okay. Correct. Just making sure. All right.
Speaker 159
41:50
There is a waiver of kindergarten that the parents have that
they can waive kindergarten if they are eligible and then start the next year. Start first
Chair
Unverified
42:03
grade, okay. Representative Brown, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Karilyn Brown
Unverified
42:08
I fall into the same category with Representative Cozart, and I did not have kindergarten. I started first grade at age five, and my birthday wasn't until September 19th.
Now, I did pretty good in school, but, you know, I had my challenges also, but is there some way, has some testing, has anything been done to say that if a child is any reporting that children who start school too early or that what sort of problems they might face in school? I mean, I don't even remember what kind of, I mean, my mother read stories to me,
but I don't remember having a lot of
Speaker 164
42:58
educational programs at home other than helping my mother do
stuff. Representative Brown, I'm sure there has been studies, but I think it's not just the age. There are a number of background issues. So what a child brings with them up to the age of four or five, it could be individual children. They develop at different rates. You know, the charts that pediatricians have, you know, you have a range on each of those for development,
not just physically, but there are ranges of development and stages, and children hit those stages at different times. So I would say that there's probably a lot of research in your question, but it goes beyond just the age of the child.
Representative Karilyn Brown
Unverified
43:43
Follow-up? Would there be any possibility that if a parent truly believes their child is ready to start school and their birthday doesn't fall within the correct range, is there an appeal that they could make possibly to the state to take some sort of assessment test to determine
so it's not on the principal? No,
ma'am. Not under current law. There's nothing like that available. And that was some of the debate back in that led to the 2007 law of setting a firm date that just said, you know, because it had bounced back and forth and for various during various times, various sessions. And at that point in time, I do recall a lot of the testimony is similar to what we're hearing today. But the determination by the General Assembly was just to set that firm date and so that there would be consistency for throughout all the schools.
Thank you, Chairman. Representative Bragg, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you have an idea of the scope of this as far as statewide, how much demand there is? Has there been ongoing requests for this, or
do you have any idea to quantify that? No, I don't, Representative Bragg. Those requests don't come to the department. When I was in legislature, they did come to me because if they were turned away by a school district, than they typically go to their legislator.
But since it's not a department role to be involved in that, I don't know that we get any inquiries. If we do,
Chair
Unverified
45:28
there are not very many. Okay, thank you. Representative
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
45:33
Love, be recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Key, I want to talk about kind of like the implementation of this. Could
you tell me the impact that this law, if passed, would have on the Little Rock School District?
Because, and it's just my understanding, I think I have it understood right, that the student assignments are not made by, I guess, the principals, but they're either assistant superintendents or whatever. So could you tell me if we enacted this law, how it would impact
the Little Rock School District? Probably. I probably can't answer that very specifically, but I do know that the assignments are made based on the zones that the schools have established attendance zones,
and there is less flexibility for parents in the Little Rock School District to just pick unless they have admittance to one of the magnet schools. But those are typically made by the administration. Principals, to my knowledge, don't have a
Speaker 156
46:41
lot of input, if any, in that process. Representative Vaught.
Speaker 102
46:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to ask kind of a question that I
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
46:58
was trying to ask Representative Meeks. Can principals write policies for their buildings, or is it a directive that's done by school boards and superintendents? Representative, I would say that
they can develop practices that apply to their buildings. I would not go so far as to say policy because policy is within the realm of the board policy setting,
but they can establish practices for their building that adhere to the law. But those practices are subject to change if you change principles. Can I have another question, Mr.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
47:35
Chair? Your recommendation. Do you feel that if we do this waiver, it would be even
more confusing to parents now who might think that they could start their kid at a different date than other children? would it confuse the would it blur the line of when the cutoff date is for which children
Speaker 170
47:57
well it would and for which children is is a concern the department would have just from
an equity standpoint that you know all children be treated with equity within a district and between districts as you know school choice is definitely a factor here as well I think Someone mentioned it earlier in the questioning. So that would be an issue of concern to the department. This could also create situations where the department or the state board then gets requests to intervene,
but we simply don't have that authority as granted by
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
48:39
this body. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McKenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I may be the only person in this room that doesn't know this, but we do allow parents to hold their children back, correct? Yes. And that's totally at their discretion, I'm guessing. Well, they do have to submit a
waiver, so there's an official action they do have to take.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
48:59
Okay, but I assume they're always granted? I'm not aware of any that haven't. Okay. So I'm trying to decide where I'm going to land on this. I understand the need for a firm date, so to speak, But obviously, I see the other side when you have kids that are almost seven coming into kindergarten. They're probably already readers by then, some of them. I can think of some instances where the kids are going to be readers by then and bored out of their minds and be more of a challenge for their teacher. Now, the same could be said for a September 1st, September 2nd kid.
So I understand that. I'm just trying to get where I'd want to fall on this and what's most helpful for parents, too, and districts. So my question is now then, if a parent then decides my kid's already close to reading or reading and they're going to be really bored if they have to wait another year, they're going to be well ahead of their classmates, I'll homeschool them then. What are the requirements then? If I homeschool my child for one year, do they still have to come back in at the year that the school says you should be? or can they come in and join what they would have joined
if they had been able to start at that August 12th,
5th? Replacement? Okay. The principal, at that point, the principal would evaluate the child to determine grade placement. So then that would be an
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
50:20
option for these parents. I don't think it's the prime option, but they could if they think their child's ready to go to school. They homeschool them for one year, and they join what would have been their classmates if they were able to test.
Test, evaluation, there would be some type of assessment that would be done by the school. And, you know, connected with your question, though, is there are still options that schools have, although I think it's rare. I know I'd heard a social media rumor that the department has banned skipping grades. Well, that's not the case. I mean, there are still, if you have students that, if for their development purposes that they can be advanced,
then that's still a school option to be able to do that. So either students that are there with them or students that are coming in from a home school, they would be evaluated, and it would
be determined where their proper placement would be. All right. Seeing no more
questions. Thank you, sir. I have testimony by Hernandez from the Arkansas Administrators Association. I'll let him introduce himself, and he will be recognized to speak against the bill.
Speaker 191
51:46
Thank you. Mike Hernandez, Executive Director for the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators. And, you know, I won't belabor and take up a lot more time. A lot of the points and concerns that were raised through a lot of the questions related to, you know, essentially this just really creates a new cutoff date. It does lead to a lot of confusion for schools. But the point that, you know, we really feel like needs to be hit on is that there is no mechanism or language in this bill by which a principal would deny somebody from taking this.
And so in a traditional public school, you know, we're required at this age of five or eligible for kindergarten, we're required to take all students, no matter disability, learning, anything, whatever they are, they come to the buildings and we have to make sure they're learning. And so when there's this opportunity for students to come at an earlier age and a district, you know, tells them, no, we're going to take this student not there, it really kind of opens the doors to possible discrimination
and then puts that back on the district and ultimately could be the state. And so, you know, for those reasons, we have a lot of concern about, you know, not having a set cutoff date by which we have to provide an appropriate education to all kids. And so I don't know that we're – we don't ever like when the date gets changed because it does cause confusion. But if it were – if there were to be a bill to address this one constituent need, we would prefer seeing a change in date rather than going down this road of having a waiver process. Thank you.
Are there any questions? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. All right. That's all the testimony. Unless there's someone in the audience that would like to speak against the bill for the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
53:41
bill. Representative Meeks, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just make a couple of closing points, and I'm sure everyone's already made up their mind on this. But Secretary Key said that they were fine with how things are, and it's been fine since, I guess, 2007.
But I don't think that's the issue because this keeps coming up year after year after year that this is an issue that is not fine. It's a still controversial issue that we may need to make decisions on. Also, the concerns that have been raised is that we don't want to put the principals in a position to have to come up with practices or to evaluate whether a student is ready. But at the same time, the secretary just said that if you're a homeschooler coming in, they do an evaluation.
We trust the principals to make that evaluation. Is a student ready to skip a grade? Again, he said that the school and the principals are making evaluations there. I don't see this as a huge step for them to be able to make these evaluations. Again, this is a question of do we do what's best for the principals and what's best for the schools, or do we do what's best for the students? And I think that by granting this freedom, granting this flexibility to the local school districts
who want to take advantage of it, again, if it's not beneficial, they don't have to use it. But if this is something that would be beneficial to the students and to the districts, I think it's something that we need to grant the flexibility to allow. So with that, I'll make a motion of due pass and ask that you all vote with me for the kids. All right, we have a motion of due
pass. There any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed say no. No. I'm
sorry, the no's have it. and your bill has failed. All right, let's move on to SB 125. I believe Representative Johnson is going to present that. Senator Starch, would you like to sit
at the table with him, or are you just going to sit over and watch? You
can do either one. That's up to you. So we will be presenting SB 125.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
55:59
Representative Johnson, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Starch. for being here to hold my hand in this process. I appreciate his attendance today. Colleagues, Senate Bill 125 and 130 are companion bills. They were initially in one bill and asked to be split apart by BLR. They're designed to remove language from statute that relates to a scholarship program that's no longer in existence. So back in 2007, when we established the Arkansas Lottery Scholarship, we created a scholarship called the Academic Achievement Scholarship,
Academic Achievement Challenge Scholarship. And fortunately, there was already a scholarship program with that same name in existence. Those two scholarships have been running concurrently to allow the people that were grandfathered in under the previous scholarship program to graduate. So at this point, all the people that were under that original program have completed their schooling, and there's no longer anyone eligible or involved in the original Arkansas Academic Challenge scholarship. So these are designed to try to remove language as it relates to reporting to that process,
and then the other bill that we'll address later would be removing statute, creating it.
So this is a complete strike of language in 130? That's my understanding, yes. Yes, okay. Senator Starch, you have a comment on it? I was just going to
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
57:20
correct a few things. Please do. That's all right. Senate Bill 125 is actually a cleanup bill for higher ed, So if you'll see the first section, we haven't revisited this since 1991, and so a lot of the references there that have been stricken out are things like SmartCore, which we don't use anymore.
That's now been changed to ACT, Aspire, and so forth. So 125, then, is just a strict cleanup bill as far as reporting requirements that we're not getting rid of reporting requirements or anything like that. The data is already being collected by ADHE, and those reports are still going out. But some of these references were old and needed to be stricken. So that's 125, and then we'll talk about 130 later. Yeah, that's the way I
think it is. This strikes at 130, puts it back what you need. I concur with Senator
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
58:00
Sturge. Okay. Well, I'm going to skip over the discussion.
Do I have a motion for 125? Question?
Speaker 203
58:13
Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Which bill are we talking about? 125. 125. Okay. I don't see anything in here about scholarships. That's 125. That was my mistake. Okay. All right. This question, and I see
Chair
Unverified
58:32
the reporting question that comes up or the issue of Section 3. This seems to correlate with what used to be known as the Great Inflation Report that K-12 developed.
So this has been shifted, if I understand correctly, where this data is actually being collected at the higher ed level? My understanding, now that I know
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
58:54
which bill we're on, my mistake again, is
that, yes, my understanding is this is an obsolete collecting process that's being collected at other places
Speaker 203
59:02
now in a different manner. Okay. Is there continued, is there an annual report to the legislature or a required annual report? I have to defer to my
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
59:12
colleagues over behind me here to see.
I know Dr. Markham's here with us. Perhaps she can answer that question, but I don't know for sure if there is
Speaker 208
59:34
an annual report as it relates to that. I was just going to clarify, Representative Lowry, are you asking about the Great
Chair
Unverified
59:40
Inflation Report still being collected or the accountability report? Well, the main issue about the Great Inflation Report, I think, for a lot of us was the amount of money that was being spent on remediation at higher ed.
and in many cases it identified students who are in the secondary schools that told us we're prepared for college work and then they still ended up having to be remediated. I understand when we were told that that great inflation report was discontinued that the main purpose of discontinuing it was that higher ed would have a better window or PRISM at looking at remediation, looking at, I'm seeing the provisions here that talk about
giving information, students who, the bottom of page two, students who required remediation and who graduated with a 3.0 or higher grade point average, I assume that that is, and it's talking about from a public high school. So we're tracking how they did when they were in high school and And then had to be remediated, correct? Yes, correct. And this
Speaker 144
1:00:47
bill doesn't change any of that. Okay. It's just
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:00:54
the references, like I said, if you go down a little further, you know, the minimum amount of score courses
and then those old references to smart core curriculum and all that that used to be in our high schools that no longer exist. See that stricken language there on page three, top of
Chair
Unverified
1:01:13
page three? Okay. So it just talks about the collecting of this data. but I guess my question was, is this a report that is presented to the legislature for us to know, or is it
Speaker 213
1:01:26
just something the Higher Ed Coordinating Board has the data?
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:01:30
As far as I know, the Department of Higher Ed still collects that and still has, you know, all that data collected. I don't know if they give a report to the legislature, but I'm sure it's available to us if we requested
it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sorry, Representative Lowry, I thought we were running those the other way, which we should have, to
take it out first and then put it back. And so that's what I was – so there's a strike language bill in here, and I'm sorry, that's what I thought
we were on. And so you guys have more questions, you go right ahead. And my apologies, too.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:02:01
There are three bills here together that, to me, in my mind, I kept going over back and forth that are easy to get confused on. So
I'm sorry to apologize for bringing it out of
the room. We're good. But that was my mistake in thinking the wrong thing. So any other questions from the committee?
All right. Do you have anyone else to testify on this bill? If not, okay. Anyone in the audience would like to speak for the bill or
against the bill? Seeing none, would you like to close for your bill?
Yes, I'm closed from a bill. Make a motion due pass. I have a motion due pass. Any discussion on
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:02:45
the bill? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Congratulations. You passed Senate Bill 125. Thank you,
colleagues. We have 126 up next. 126. I'll give a shot at this one. This is a bill to create some language that allows a person to receive both the Governor's Distinguished Scholarship and the new Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship. It doesn't change any reward amounts in any way.
It just creates the caveat there's different, as I understand it, different criteria for these two scholarships. If one were to lose one, it allows them to have the other still in place. It also removes a grade point average requirement that is no longer something we're tracking regularly, as I understand it. And I'm getting the negative, got it wrong again from Senator Sturge. It does remove the grade point requirement. It doesn't remove the grade point requirement. I'll tell you what, we're going to let Senator Sturge take a shot at this, and I'll stumble through it in the well in a few days.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:03:36
Okay. So two years ago, if you'll recall, what we did was we changed it in the academic challenge where someone could also receive the Governor's Distinguished Scholarship, but we did not change it in the Governor's Distinguished Scholarship section of code that they could also receive academic challenge. So all I'm doing here is trying to make those two sections of code mesh. As Representative Johnson correctly stated, we're not changing any amounts. We're not changing the awards or anything like that. The Governor's Distinguished is still $10,000 if you make a 32 or above, but if you'll recall that if they make below a 32, they get a partial amount.
So some students then would be able to use academic challenge as well if they had a partial amount from the government's distinguished, but they would still have
Speaker 198
1:04:16
that honor. So we're just trying to make those two sections of code
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:04:22
mesh well together. Good explanation. Representative Duffenbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, I'm still confused, but why is SB 130 under this bill? Don't you have to repeal something first? This is 126, right? Correct. Yeah, I see that, but $130 is right after that, and that's the one that says to repeal, so I'm lost as a $2 bird dog.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:04:43
All right, Representative Deffenbaugh, nobody ever accused the Senate of getting things in the right order. That's exactly right. So on $130, what we're trying to do on $130 is this. Before the lottery ever came into being, we already had the academic challenge scholarship that was state-funded. My graduating class of 2009 was the last one to be ever eligible for that old scholarship. And so now that the lottery has come into play, because of lack of a better wording or fund, we just named it the academic challenge again.
And so we have two sections of code, one to deal with pre-lottery scholarships and one to deal with after-lottery scholarships. So part one and part two, I had put these both in the same bill, and BLR asked me, because of the various subjects, to basically break those apart. And so that's why you have a Part 1 and Part 2, but the Senate numbering got off, of course. But anyway, that's what one does is just repealing the old scholarship because everybody has already used it, who is eligible for it. This one, of course, then, is dealing with the stacking language. The one we're talking about right now, 126, is just dealing with the stacking language of a Governor's Distinguished Scholarship
and then the new academic challenge
Speaker 203
1:05:57
under the lottery. Representative Lowry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question refers to page three, where it does talk about an annual report. The Division shall report the Legislative Council. Summary-level data, but then it strikes all of the seeming data points that would be included in that information.
Could you explain to me those strikes? I'll take a shot,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:06:25
but I'll probably get it wrong. As I understand it, that's being stricken because that data is being collected elsewhere. This is something that's already being collected in another area of statute by the Department of Education, and this has taken away that responsibility from the Department of Fire Ed because it's
Speaker 213
1:06:42
redundant collecting data. So Representative Lowry, if you'll look,
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:06:47
that section that's being stricken is 219. Right above that in 216, they're already required to get demographic data,
And so that's why we're striking this one at 219, because it is already being done on the
Chair
Unverified
1:07:03
scholarship. Okay. But you didn't strike the whole section because you still wanted to keep the requirement of the December 31. The annual report, yes, sir. The December 31, but the above information describes what would be in that report. Yes, sir. Correct. Okay. Well, see, you're not the only one that's got things out of order because
Speaker 203
1:07:22
it seems like the date of the annual report would then include.
So anyway, all right, thank you. Any other questions? All right,
seeing no more questions from committee, does anyone like to speak against the bill in the audience for the bill? Would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for my bill. I make a motion to do pass. May
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:07:45
I have a motion to do pass? Any discussion on the bill? Seeing none, all in
favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations. All right, before we go on to the next bill,
the commissioner has found the answer for the grade inflation report. Would you like to hear that that you asked for? You were talking about grade
inflation? Let's just hear it. I mean, that bill's already gone, but he said he
found that information. I think everybody was kind of wanting to know that. So there was a great inflation report requirement as part of the old ACT-AP legislation, which was repealed in 2017. If you'll recall ACT-AP, it preceded No Child Left Behind but was modified after No Child Left Behind
and created a number of sanctions, rewards, and that sort of thing. When we moved from No Child Left Behind to Every Student Succeeds Act, we completely changed our state accountability system. The grade inflation report that was required under ACT-AP was tied to the end-of-course exams. We no longer have end-of-course exams and haven't for a number of years. So that was repealed then because there were no end-of-course exams upon which to base that report.
That report compared the results on the end-of-course exams with the grades that the students received for those particular courses. So it was a report that was submitted or would have been submitted had there been end-of-course exams. I think there may have been only, Ivy, how many years, or Stacey, did
Speaker 225
1:09:21
we actually have end-of-course exams? They've been gone a long time. Yeah, so anyway. Hopefully that helps.
Chair
Unverified
1:09:34
Well, Rip Siddler has a statement on that. Well, I just wanted to ask for further clarification. And the ACT test that juniors take, is that not a, I mean, I know that's not technically an end-of-course exam, but if I remember correctly, the grade inflation report looked at, gave us information on students who scored a 3.0 or above on their GPA.
That was their GPA, and yet they still had to be remediated when they got to college. I don't remember anything within that report that referred to
end-of-course exams. I recall something like that that was associated with the lottery scholarship and then was repealed at some point in an amendment to the lottery laws. But the great inflation report that my division would have been responsible for was part of that ACT-AP.
So we can further research it to see what you're referring to, Representative.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:51
brought this up during adequacy hearings, I think Julie or someone from your division came and showed me the statute where we repealed the Great Inflation Report and pointed out that apparently I had voted for that repeal. I didn't remember that.
Speaker 144
1:11:14
I voted for things I don't remember. You know, and frankly, it made sense to me
Chair
Unverified
1:11:21
that that data, if we're going to get that report, that it would be prepared by higher ed rather than K-12 because they're the ones that are knowing who the students are that are going through remediation. They also have their data on what
their high school GPA was. I understand your point, and I would say over the last several years that notion of remediation has shifted in a number of institutions
that rather than having those remedial courses, we have bridge courses. We have a number of things that help students get to that point. so that they don't have to take those non-credited remedial courses. So there's been some progress made in that. Right, and that was
Chair
Unverified
1:12:04
the most critical thing for me was students being required to maybe take two or three remedial courses, sometimes spending all of their lottery scholarship money before they ever earned a single credit,
but now higher ed has moved to co-requisite courses where they do get credit. Yes. All right, thank you. All right, thank you, Commissioner. All
right, Representative Johnson, you are recognized to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:12:34
present a cleanup bill. Yes, this is Senate Bill 130, right? This is the one that actually does what I thought the first one did, which is strikes all the language related to the original OG Arkansas Academy Challenge Scholarship.
So this is just doing away with all language related to the scholarship program that as Senator Sturge relayed has now ran its course and all the recipients have graduated. Seeing no questions. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, are there any one to speak for or against
the bill? Would you like to close for you, Bill? I'm closed from the bill. Make a motion to do pass. Have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the bill?
Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations. You
passed the bill. Thank you very much.
All right. Representative Smith and Senator Sturge, you're having one more. SB 131. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 121
1:13:44
Chairman and members of the Education Committee, Senator Sturge for sitting here with me. This is an amendment that will change the continuing eligibility for the concurrent challenge from a letter grade of C to a grade point average of 2.5 for concurrent courses.
And a 2.5 grade point average is consistent with the academic challenge requirements. C grades can result in a GPA falling below the 2.5 requirement. So this amendment will also clarify the language for enrollment provisions so the student's GPA fall below the 2.5 requirements, and that will be that enrollment is limited to one course in the first semester following the semester in which the student failed to successfully complete a course covered under the program. Currently, a student can take two courses, concurrent credit courses, per semester.
Chair
Unverified
1:14:42
Any questions? You're ready for questions. Representative Love, you're recognized. You're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:14:53
Mr. Chair. Have we looked at the impact of how many, I guess, if this was enacted, how many students would be
impacted by this? Sure. I'm going to let Senator Sturge answer that.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:15:12
Representative Love, this program's only been in effect two years. This was my bill from two years ago. So the reasoning behind it is we're using academic challenge money. And when you get academic challenge money while you're in college, you're a sophomore, junior, senior year, you have to maintain a 2.5 to continue to be eligible. So the department is asking us then to have the same requirement then for concurrent challenge because we are using those same dollars to have a 2.5 GPA. When I originally wrote the bill, it was just a C in each course.
and they're wanting to look at the overall GPA then. So I don't have a number of how many students it would affect. I think it would be very small because it's only been in effect for these last two
Speaker 241
1:15:55
years. Okay. All right. Thank you. Representative
Speaker 243
1:16:04
Murdoch. Thank you. So effectively what you're doing, you're changing it from a – you're changing the standard. You're changing it from a, it's not a parallel C to a 2.5.
A C is a 2.0, if I remember 25 years ago. So why are we changing it? What's the purpose of that? And somebody may have asked this question, who does it affect? What do we, what's the, not fiscal impact, but what's the impact that this will have? Well,
Speaker 121
1:16:38
the reason it's being changed is so it can be consistent with the academic
Speaker 243
1:16:43
challenge requirements. I understand the parallel statement, but what I'm more concerned about is who it affects.
So doing this can make it the same on paper easy for somebody to draw a parallel. What I'm trying to see is the people that affect because you have 2-0 to 2-5. So in that gap, you're going to lose people. So somebody has to be concerned about the number of people, not just the way it makes it easier for whomever.
Speaker 121
1:17:27
What does it do to people? Somebody tell me that. Well, it's going to affect anyone that does not have a 2.5 grade point average. That's evident. And as you said, two Cs is not going to be a 2.5. It's going to be a two point because you're going to receive two quality points for a C. So you'd need to have a B and a C, which would give you five quality points, and divided by two, that would be a 2.5 grade point average. So to answer the question, there's
Speaker 246
1:17:52
not enough statistics because we've just had this in effect, you know, for a year.
Speaker 243
1:17:58
Well, if I could continue, if it's okay. So I think the intent, Representative Smith and Senator Sturge, nowhere have I heard that the intent is to do anything besides make it a more easier deal to deal with, analytically maybe and otherwise, from a data standpoint. But I don't think the intent is to reduce the number of people that get this award, which this will do. So what I want to address to you guys or to the department, whomever had you to bring this,
I think you said somebody asked you to bring this, because there are people in that .5 gap. Those
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:18:44
are people. Representative Murdoch, what I'm saying is we already have this 2.5 in law with academic challenge, 2.5 GPA while you're in college. If I'm using then the same money to allow high school students to access concurrent courses, college courses at the high school level, then I'm asking for that same requirement to be the same, 2.5.
The thing I think you may be forgetting is I didn't make a scholarship to where you fail a class and then you're out automatically. So the other part of then the bill says, you know, if you fail a course, if you do not get the 2.5, you are not just dropped out of it completely. What you can do, then, is you can take one course the next semester. If you've successfully passed that course with a 2.5 or better GPA, then you're allowed to go back full-time two classes a semester as if nothing ever happened. So I didn't want to set any student up for failure,
but I also didn't want there to be two different various eligibility requirements using the same academic challenge money. I guess
Speaker 243
1:19:47
I kind of understand where you are, but because you put the measure in to raise them to the 2.5. So let me ask the question this way. Could the program survive as it is with the current standards? Could we continue the program and not change anything and still help people as we're doing now without changing this?
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:20:10
I think, Representative Murdoch, what I'll say is I'll take responsibility for it. I don't like writing laws that are not specific or detailed. So when I brought this two years ago, it was my idea to have a C or a better because in my civics courses at school, C to me is passing. I don't want to give scholarship money to someone who has a D average. So in my head, a C was best to put it in the bill as written. Now, beyond that, nobody brought it up to me that they don't grade like that at the college level
as far as looking at eligibility by a grade. They look at a GPA, an overall GPA. So Representative Smith is right. If you get a C in one course, but you get an A in the other course that you're taking, you're going to have that 2.5 without any problem because your GPA is calculated on all these concurrent courses that you'd be taking. So like I said, I don't think that I'm setting up any kid for failure. What I'm actually probably doing is helping their other courses then help maybe alleviate a harder course that they might have. So, for example, if they take A and P and they don't do so well and they get a C,
but they take American government and they make an A, then it's actually easier for them in the long run because that would average out to a 2.5, whereas my old law said, or in the original of all, it was a C
Speaker 243
1:21:28
for every class. Does that make sense? Yes, but my last add, Chair, I'm sorry, is so, but I think you're ignoring something that maybe not intentionally, but if I'm understanding correctly, that you are doing. Let's say you make all Cs. all C's is passing, and all C's is competency in a curriculum,
and they can graduate from college with that. So if they make all C's, you're saying that's not good enough. You can't get this benefit. And what I'm pushing back, trying to understand, because I don't think that's your intent. I thought you were doing it for a different reason, but you can lose a whole group of people, and you had it at what you originally brought two years ago was a C. Somebody told you, let's go to 2.5 for some reason.
I didn't understand the reasoning was the eventual effect that may happen. If that's the intent, then just say that and we go forward and we vote our conscience. But what I'm trying to acknowledge is something that has not been said is what you're going to do to those that make all Cs. Representative Murdoch, under
Speaker 247
1:22:41
current law, if you make all Cs, you wouldn't be eligible for the
Speaker 243
1:22:46
academic challenge anyway. So that goes back to my question. So now you've straightened me out then. The question I asked you was, could that C student still receive the benefit?
So a 2.0 don't get the benefit
Speaker 223
1:22:59
anyway. No, it does not. Not under current
Speaker 147
1:23:05
law. Thank you. Representative Lowry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know my question
Chair
Unverified
1:23:13
is actually, well, this concurrent scholarship is limited to two courses, right? Okay. And I'm only asking this question just because I know Dr. Markham is in the room, and it's a question that's come up.
You know, we are encouraging more and more students to take concurrent courses. And sometimes students who are very adept at that and very engaged in it, by the time they graduate from high school, they are close to sophomore, junior status. My understanding, and this is probably a different bill that needs to be brought, they're still considered a freshman only getting that $1,000.
Is that correct? I mean, I know that we give a higher amount if you make it to a junior status. So is this an attempt to try and bridge that difference, this concurrent scholarship award? I think I understand your question, Representative Lyle. It wasn't necessarily my
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:24:22
intent to bridge it, but it was my intent that, you know, we had the money sitting over there, And we were encouraging a lot of concurrent courses, but it was so uneven across the state where some schools and some colleges would pay for all of their concurrent courses, and then some would pay for none.
And so before we had concurrent challenge two years ago, you had some kids having to pay it all out of pocket, and you had some kids not having to pay any. And so this set a standard then that the scholarship is only $125 per course, two courses a semester, your junior and senior year. The reason we came to the 125 is because we also looked at how much does it cost a course to be taken at a community college or whatever. So that was the intent.
Chair
Unverified
1:25:08
All right, okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, you've brought me up to speed now. I didn't remember the presentation of this two
Speaker 203
1:25:14
years ago, but it's to help pay for that concurrent course.
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:25:18
Those concurrent courses, correct. Okay. And essentially maybe as an added benefit, it would help in what you're talking about as far as bridging that gap to where they do. You know, they may enter college at a sophomore status. We've had kids at Southside who went and graduated on a Sunday afternoon from high school and on a Monday with their associate's degree because they had so many concurrent courses already done. And so they can then go on to Lyon College or U
Speaker 203
1:25:46
of A or wherever as a junior status. And that's my real concern because those students have shown the ability to succeed with college work.
Their junior status, they should be getting $4,000 a year, but they're not. They're being seen as freshmen only getting $1,000. No, I think
Speaker 213
1:26:01
they are. So, you know, when they go and get their, you know, associates
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
1:26:06
or whatever, and they have all this in the background, then they are at a junior level where they can then qualify for the $4,000 junior level. Okay,
Speaker 203
1:26:14
well, I'll follow up with the department on that because I've been told otherwise. But thank you very much for this good
Chair
Unverified
1:26:21
bill. Representative Deffenbaugh, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:26:25
This is just kind of for my clarification. How many concurrent credit courses can you take in
Speaker 121
1:26:34
high school? It's unlimited. You can take it, but the scholarship is for two courses per semester or $500 a year, $125 a course, junior and senior year. Oh, okay, okay. And those courses have to be freshman or sophomore level courses under college
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
1:26:52
standards. Okay, okay. So, now, obviously, if they don't reach 2.5, I'll make sure of this, but they get in college with C's, they're not going to get any scholarship money, right?
Speaker 254
1:27:06
Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I won't bug you anymore.
Thanks. All right. Representative Fyke. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
1:27:17
Chair. Could we hear from Dr. Markham? what do you want to hear? I would like to hear her take on this bill. All
right, that's fine. I'm just messing with you. Dr. Markham, if you'd just introduce yourself, you're recognized.
Speaker 257
1:27:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maria Markham, Director of the Division of Higher Education. And
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
1:27:46
what was your question? I'm sorry. I would like to hear your opinion of this bill, whether it would be beneficial or whether
Speaker 259
1:27:52
it would be harmful to a group of students. No, absolutely. So we
Speaker 260
1:27:56
actually worked with the sponsor to create this bill to solve a problem. So the problem was if we allow students to make all C's in high school, then their GPA will be below the required level to qualify for academic challenge when they graduate.
So what students do is they establish a college GPA by taking these concurrent courses. We require a 2.5 GPA to qualify for academic challenge. So we're
Speaker 259
1:28:19
ensuring that these students have eligibility when they graduate from high school. Riffson Love,
Speaker 196
1:28:26
you have a question. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:28:32
let me try to clarify something. All right, so for the Academic Challenge Scholarship, you can have the 2.5, but for the scholarship lottery, it's just a 19 on the ACT.
Speaker 257
1:28:44
You have to have a 19. That's the same scholarship, the
Speaker 260
1:28:47
lottery and the Academic Challenge. You have to have a 19 initially, and then you have to have a 2.5 every year to maintain your
Speaker 263
1:28:56
eligibility. Okay, so then it's in fact correct that you can have all
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:29:02
C's and still get a 19 and qualify for the scholarship. No, sir. The 19 earns
Speaker 257
1:29:07
you in if you've already graduated from high school. If
Speaker 260
1:29:10
you're a high school student and you're taking concurrent classes, those are college classes, so you have to keep that 2.5 to continue to receive lottery funds.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:29:21
Okay, but let's take a step back. If you have all Cs as a graduating senior and you score a 19,
then you do qualify for the scholarship. So that's incorrect. That's
Speaker 257
1:29:35
incorrect, because the 19 was what earned you into the scholarship, but you've
Speaker 260
1:29:41
fallen below a 2.5 college GPA, which eliminates your eligibility. So the 19 doesn't guarantee that you always receive the scholarship.
That's just for your initial semester. If your college GPA falls below the 2.5, you lose your eligibility. And these students in high school are taking college classes. So if you get all Cs, your GPA is below the 2.5. If you don't take any concurrent courses, we don't look at GPA. If you're a graduating high school student with a 19 ACT and no college GPA,
then we just look at the 19 on your first
Speaker 265
1:30:26
semester. And so therefore you will qualify for the
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:30:33
scholarship? Yes. But then any time after that. Yes. But you can initially qualify for the scholarship
Speaker 83
1:30:38
funds if you have a 19. That's correct. Okay.
Speaker 196
1:30:53
Thank you. I'm ready to move on. All right. Is that all? All
right, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
All right, is there, I guess, are you all through on your presentation? Any other questions for Representative Smith? Seeing none, is there anyone in
the audience who would like to speak against the bill?
For the bill? Would you like to close? I'd like to close on the bill and make a motion do pass. Have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor
say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Congratulations, you passed your bill. All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you have legislation sitting on the, it's been referred to this committee, please see me if it has an impact statement already so I can get you on the agenda to run. We're getting piled up a little bit behind. If you don't, then I don't need to see you.
Unknown speaker
1:31:56
We are adjourned. I'm just feeling the love here. President Smith.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB34 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM.
SB35 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING TUITION BENEFITS FOR SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN OF THE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD; AND TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY WAIVER OF THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING REQUIREMENT.
HB1101 Evans TO AMEND THE AMOUNT OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO PETITION A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO MEET.
HB1102 Evans TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TRAINING ON SCHOOL SAFETY AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE FOR BOARD MEMBERS; TO STANDARDIZE THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS REPORT; AND TO INCREASE THE TIME BY WHICH A BOARD MEMBER MAY CURE A TRAINING HOUR DEFICIENCY.
HB1186 S. Meeks TO CREATE A WAIVER REGARDING THE MINIMUM AGE FOR ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.
SB125 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION.
SB126 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY AND ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 2.
SB130 J. Sturch TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS ACADEMIC CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM - PART 1.
SB131 J. Sturch TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ARKANSAS CONCURRENT CHALLENGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Representative Lanny Fite
Unverified
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 21
Chair
Unverified
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 41
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 65
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 86
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 106
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 121
Representative Nelda Speaks
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 130
Speaker 69
Speaker 139
Speaker 147
Representative Ken Bragg Chair
Unverified
Speaker 156
Speaker 159
Representative Karilyn Brown
Unverified
Speaker 164
Speaker 170
Speaker 191
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Senator James Sturch
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 208
Speaker 144
Speaker 213
Speaker 198
Speaker 225
Speaker 205
Speaker 241
Speaker 243
Speaker 246
Speaker 247
Speaker 223
Speaker 254
Speaker 257
Speaker 259
Speaker 260
Speaker 196
Speaker 263
Speaker 265
Speaker 83