Education Committee - Senate

SB 142 You identify yourself, you'll be recognized District 35. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the members today 142 attack. Uh, I go through those three simple um amendments um. house, uh, really. I, um, advice is not an individual. Personal bias so that schools can provide electronic devices and higher education, um, they need, uh, two-factor opation processes. Make sure they can identify their um. The last one is for school districts to provide that they may provide um, though questions from the committee. No questions. Is there anybody in the audience to speak for or against the bill? See none. We have motion on the floor here a second. all in favor all pose. Thank you very much. Thank you, members. Have a good day. OK, um. Uh Let me see, uh, Scott Richardson with House Bill. 060. To identify yourself, you'll be recognized. Making out chair. Good morning, committee. I'm Scott Richardson, House District 13, which is uh Northwest Arkansas. So I'm thank you, ma'am. uh, so I am. So I am presenting for your consideration this morning, House Bill 1060 to revise the instruction of the failure of communist and autocratic government systems and to reinforce the resiliency of constitutional republic. House Bill 1060 provides the Department of Education reviews social studies standards for grades 7 through 12 and incorporate the teaching of resiliency of the United States Constitutional republic compared to the repeated failures of autocratic government systems, communism, and even democracies as they as they as they've proven over the last 25 to 50 years to again and again deteriorate into autocratic. government systems. So to give you a little bit of background, this is very similar to a bill that I brought last session. Unfortunately we made it out of the house, but unfortunately it didn't have enough time to get it run through the Senate, specifically dealing with the challenges of these types of these government systems, but in the interim we took some opportunity to really back up and review what we were trying to accomplish, and it became clear that we needed to address in addition to the failures, also the positive aspects of the constitutional. public system that we have as a government system. This by no means is suggesting that our government system is perfect, yet it does suggest in a number of different ways that we can reinforce the idea to our students that if they are active and participating on a regular basis in their government systems. They can make that government system much, much better. Unlike democracies and autocratic government. systems where they are simply the constituents are people are are at the whim of the government and the decisions that they that they make. Um, I did a little research and preparation for this, just took some time to go out to the Department of Education site and look at what they are teaching from a social studies standards. I was unable during all that research through grades 7 through 12 to find a single reference. To our government system as a constitutional republic. It was referenced in democracy and democracy ideas and there's no question that we have certain democracy principles, but we are a constitutional republic. We are constrained, or I should say our government is constrained by the Constitution. Our people's rights are not infringed because of the constitutional constraints that exist. The Constitution is the law of the land and provides those protections. For RN inalienable rights through that mechanism. Um In addition, this bill approaches the ideas or concepts that other types of government systems have continued to fail, and we want to reinforce why they failed. The purpose of that is to ensure that our, our citizens, our students as they graduate, as they go out and become citizens, understand that they failed because those government systems oppressed their people, killing tens if not hundreds of millions of their own citizens in the process, and that an active participation by our citizens in our government prevents that from happening moving forward. So overall House Bill 1060 moves to restore the knowledge and empower our students to become educated, informed, active citizens in our Constitutional republic, and then we do this by leveraging the existing curriculum, but just molding the conversation to reinforce this important reality at grades 7 through 12 again. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Tender flowers. Thank you, Representative Richardson. I mean, it sounds good. I'm just wondering where where is the curriculum gonna be developed? Who's going to develop it and based on whose facts. Well, the curriculum of course is is developed. The standards are created by the Department of Education and then the curriculum is developed by the school districts in conjunction injunction with the Associated Standards, so they're going to have a book to Glean information from where are the facts gonna come from? Who's putting these together. You say it's, it's not in the curriculum or in the standards now, so Who does that? Well, we, we are requesting that the Department of Education create and establish the standards, the curriculum comes after that in conjunction working with the department, working with the curriculum development, so that question really would be best answered by the department. We're not, it is my opinion that our our position here as Legislators is to oversee and place priority on what we feel like is important to be taught in schools. How they teach that through the curriculum is up to them. Which is why we give a lot of latitude. We trust them to do their jobs. We're just saying that this needs to be a priority and we need to place this in the standards there so that it is taught on a regular basis in that environment. I'm wondering what prompted you to to bring this bill, and do you even consider the United States at the current time. Uh been within any of this. As subject matter. I'm sorry, I don't really understand the question, Senator, you know, there's debate right now whether we are moving to autocratic. Type government, uh, we're a republic. So I'm just What prompted this? Well, our, our Constitution. stipulates How the government can interact with us. Our Constitution protects our inalienable rights. So the idea of that is important to reinforce. Why did I bring it now at this point because I hear too many people referring to us as a democracy, and I think it's incredibly important that we understand that we're not a democracy. that we are constitutional republic and that because of that our people have to take an active role in the government for us to be successful and if we don't empower them as youth to understand that. And to be active. In their involvement in the government, then they miss an incredible opportunity to shape how our government moves going forward. Senator Davis, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious if you spoke with the Department of Ed, I mean, it's my understanding that we do have standards like this, and so I'm wondering if we're recreating standards that already exist and maybe if they could speak to the standards they have in place that are like this or you can let us know your conversations with them. Sure, I can obviously I would never want to speak for the department. They're here and they can speak for themselves. We did have these conversations over on the House side. The department did not. bring any objections to it. I like that this was a good move and that we should be reinforcing this idea, so the I looked through the standards as I said, I spent quite a bit of time in research and not one single time did I see as referenced as a constitutional republic. Saw several references to democracy, but nothing from a constitutional republic. Yes, but everything else that's in here are those already in the standards? There's a lot besides Constitutional republic in this bill, so I'm just curious. The failures associated with autocratic governments and and democracies and communism that is that already in the, no, ma'am, it's not. And the department confirmed that, just so we know we're not doubling up or making standards confusing. I just want to make sure if we have new standards that it's not conflicting or confusing in some way. It takes a second. Good morning, Jacob Oliva, Department of Education, um, we, we work representative as we've kind of gone through different drafts of this bill to make sure that we weren't creating duplicated work. Um, originally I was looking at our agency to develop some of the curriculum and topics, and we said no our work really needs to be with the standards, and I wanna make sure when we talk about standards, we all have a common definition of what we mean and when, when we reference standards, we're saying this is what we expect students to know and learn in each subject at every grade level. Typically state agencies will review those standards because times change, strategies change, events change, and we want to update them, um, so when it stated. adopt standards they usually stay in place somewhere between 7 to 10 years, maybe a little bit longer in the last few years we've recently updated our English language arts and math standards. We have not done a review, a full review of social studies standards, so we feel like at this point in time, in the time that's allotted with the adoption for implementation, it would be a good time to review our standards to make sure we're highlighting everything that we want to be explicitly taught. That answers my question. Go ahead. That answers my question. Thank you. Senator Flowers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Yeah, I'm new to the committee and all these. technical terms in the education field. Uh, but when you Have a phrase about uh compare and contrast the resiliency of the United States Constitutional republic with the failures of communism and autocratic government systems and other democratic government systems. How do we do that without somebody offering their own personal opinion. And is this not akin to indoctrination of students? So I, I would not say that this is about indoctrination. This is about teaching history and historical facts which we encourage our students to learn, and we want our teachers to engage in. We should be having spirited debate in our classrooms. We should be talking about history, the good, the bad, and the ugly. We should be able to look at both points of view and determine how we can learn and become a better society based on some of the failures and atrocities of our history in the past. The goal when you talk about indoctrination is allowing students to learn how to think. And not tell them what to think, and this is making sure that students understand that there's different events that have happened historically and as they grow and develop and understand how society works and is relevant around them. They have some background knowledge to gain their own further perspectives on. Well, that sounds good, but the language in the bill, it, it's Kind of troubling to me, um. Comparing the US With these other uh systems. I mean, as if we occupy some superior. kind of status. I don't see any. I mean I understand that we ought to be wanting kids to be able to debate. And but I'm concerned we're just taken for granted. That we're superior. And these other systems are not and it doesn't seem to point out maybe some of the The failures are the Disappointments or issues with our government over Since its inception, slavery. Um, I'm not I, I don't know how to. to really process what's here and what we are expecting. To teach our children. I, I would love to answer that if you can. It is my firm belief without question that the constitutional republic has proven over and over again that it is superior to other types of government systems. We've seen that, but it's only superior because it empowers the people. You and me and everybody else to shape our government, yes, I agree we have had some terrible things that have happened in our past, and we've allowed some things that are terrible, but we've changed those through the people. The people rose up and made decisions to change those things and correct the government direction and we as a people are empowered to do that through our Constitution. It protects our inalienable rights, gives us the ability to have free speech, so We can throw a a a Throw a fit if you will, to, to change the government's direction to change the representation that we have to go out and vote or to go out and and complain about a particular individual's direction that they're voting, so they changed that. We have the ability as a people to change our representatives and to fight for what we believe is the right direction of our people. Because we are empowered by the Constitution and it protects us. That's what makes us superior, and that's what makes us a better type of government system, then everyone else that's been out there. In my opinion. Now if you look at the facts, that's what we're asking to teach is the reality that we have changed our government style. We have to modified. We've taken on additional aspects and concepts of other government styles and implemented them into our constitutional republic because we as a people wanted that to be a part of our our our government, and that's what makes us great. We can look at any kind of other government style take the The the good that comes out of that and implement social systems, social security, these are all aspects of different types of government styles that we've pulled and implemented them because they were what's best for our people as a whole, and we were able to do that because of the protection and the direction that the Constitutional republic gives us, which is why it's so important that we teach that to our students to say you as an active participant in our government. Can change the direction it's going. You can move it in a direction that you feel is better by getting out and being an active persistent participant in the political process and being engaged in the political process. So that's, that's what this bill does, not to set that I'm better, you're better, we're better, we are, but the reason we're better is because you as an individual are actively engaged in the process, and that's what's so great about the constitutional republic. You you single out. On page 2. Uh, these countries. Uh, naturally deteriorating. Afghanistan. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. And you mentioned the People's Republic of China and Soviet Union. And its successor state Russia, Korea, In Argentina. And, and so we're talking about uh Points in time. All these countries haven't Just been As you indicate something negative or feeling. So, I mean, do students study the Evolution of these other countries. What, what are we expecting here? Are we just labeling? As bad and as a failure, these countries that You know, are subject to change. I I think that we're labeling them as democracies. That deteriorated into autocratic governments. And in the process we know the bloody, bloody outcomes of all of those deteriorations. I mean, that's historical reference, and it's the reality that most democracies do deteriorate into, especially over the last 25 to 50 years, but we empower the the through this through this bill. If you agree and it becomes law, we empower the department to look at other opportunities by saying these are not exclusionary. We give more options. Look at the other. Uh, other government styles, other governments that have deteriorated and teach those as well. These are just examples and ideas to start from, um, that have proven that democracies do deteriorate into autocratic governments and then studying the the aspects of why they did and and all of those other pieces can be a part of it, but the idea is simple. These are democracies. that have failed and ended up costing their Citizens In a lot of cases, their lives. Yeah. Well, are there any republics that you're aware of that have failed? Constitutional republics. No, ma'am. We're the only constitutional republic? No, we are not. So all the others, I guess you know who they are. I know how many there are. There are a few. So. OK, it just seems to be opinionated to answer your question, none of those have deteriorated into autocratic governments. None of them have. Yet Yeah, thank you. Other questions from the committee. I there there is some, we have somebody here to speak for the bill of Tony Rose. Thank you. You'd identify yourself, you'll be recognized. My name is Tony Rose. I'm with the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. And uh thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I love this spell, but more importantly, Congress recently loved something similar to that, as well as the state of Florida. The in in the house on December 6th of 2024 they passed the crucial communism Teaching Act HR 5349 with a vote of 327 to 62. The bill was introduced by Maria Salazar of Florida and co-sponsored by 33 members of the House. And it seeks to address the gap that you refer to in the education system related to the history of communism. Uh, they, they're, their quote was the communism is one of the most destructive political ideologies the world has ever seen. The crucial communism Teaching Act is important because our youth Must remember the crimes of the communists, including those inflicted. Upon her constituents and their families in Florida's 27th district. Specifically, this bill seeks to educate American students that communism has led to the deaths of over 100 million victims worldwide. And that over 1.5 billion people still suffer under communism. Ahead of the vote, Representative Burgess. Warned that many youth have been taught to see communism as something desirable. You can see this in our television reports and on social media that so many youth are. Uh Stating that communism and socialism is preferable to living under a representative republic and the reason for that is they don't understand the history of communism and its victims, so I believe and so does Florida and so does 327 members of the House of Congress believe that it's high time that we incorporate the education of the impact of communism on the people that uh Labor and and suffer under it. He also said that more than 25% of Generation Z students view communism favorably and that 20% think that is a better system than capitalism. The curriculum will be developed by the victims of communism Memorial Foundation, an entity created by unanimous vote of Congress in 1993 under our own President Bill Clinton. So Florida governor signed a bill in 2024, mandating instruction, victims of communism. To be taught in kindergarten through the 12th grade. I'm sorry, April of 24, and that was SB 1264. So I believe that there are other bills similar to this under development. I think there will be a pretty large pool, including ones that have already passed for collaboration from Secretary Olivia, if he chooses to, um, with his former friends in Florida or other members of the Congress, and that's what I have, and I hope for a good vote on this. I think it's a good bill. Thank you for your time. The questions from the committee. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nobody else to speak for or against the bill, any other comments from the committee. What is the will of the committee? Beg your pardon. Oh, I'm sorry, you close for your bill? I, I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I don't, I think we've covered pretty much everything across the board, um, obviously this is something that I'm passionate about and I, I, I'm hoping that through this process we can push that through. I think everyone should be passionate about government, and they should be actively involved in government, and I think this bill does a good job of empowering our students to be actively involved in that government. So with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Ocean Du pass. Do I hear a second? Second All in favor, all posed. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you committee and thank you Madam Chair. OK, let me see next, uh, representative. House Bill 1189. If you identify yourself, you will be recognized. That's not on yet. Those are so different than ours. OK. Representative Dan Bot District 87. Thank you for allowing me to be here today and talk to y'all about something that I had been thinking about for several years, the novice teacher program that we have right now is not what I think. It's time for it to evolve into something different than what it has been in the past. We have two different roads which teachers can get to become a teacher. One's a non-traditional way and wants a traditional way, um, the non-traditional way, I think the novice teaching program has been a great asset for them, but someone who's been through rigorous studies at a college and through a yearlong entrepreneur their internship shouldn't necessarily have to go through novice teaching doesn't mean they still can't just means that they don't have to. Of what was happening is we have a lot of teachers who are going to these the novice program at their co ops, educational co-ops, and they're getting taught the same exact things that they were taught in college and they felt like it's a waste of time, um, and, uh, would rather have had someone come into their classroom and do it there and help them out in that manner, mentor ship them into a in their classrooms, um, there's 3 stages in this is what I understand will be now stage 12, and 3, and you can come in at any one of those. ages are so if if you, the principal comes and does the evaluation and you don't do well on your evaluation in your classroom, then the principal can also ask that you start the novice program to help you become a better teacher in your classroom, so I hope that kind of explains it. It's a short, sweet bill, but I think it is something that we need to do in the state to help our teachers grow for those that need that and then help those who do not need that intenseness to be able to carry on. in their classrooms. Questions? Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I appreciate what you're trying to do. It looks like it's just reduced redundancy and just to be clear, the most important factor uh for learning is teachers in front of kids. So did I hear you clearly if a administrator goes into a classroom determines that the teacher is not as effective as they need to be. The teacher can, the principal or administrator can require them to attend this. If they've been through, if they did non-traditional, yes, but if they did a rigorous study, they can't require it, but they can ask if they would be willing to do it. We're trying to make it where That redundancy is not happening to me whenever I was talking to the department about it, that person that's in the classroom that's had that rigorous, uh. in their courses and in the internship, it would be better for someone from the co op to come to them and explain to them what they're doing wrong in their classrooms in that setting, not necessarily for them to go to the co op, sit and listen to something for several hours and really gain nothing from it. Yeah, so can the can the administrator mandate that somebody from the co op come and participate. They can't mandate from the co op, right? You want to come up here, please? I don't want to answer wrong. I don't want you to either. Yeah, so the question would be if we have a teacher who's underperforming, and they clearly need uh remediation and I guess one would be remediation is best done in the classroom. Would, would you agree with that? I agree. And then secondly, can the administrator Can it be mandated. That the co op or someone come into the classroom for that remediation. Yeah, so I think it would be unique to each individual teacher that needs support depending on the type of support they need. I would Hope that the school administrator would have that person on maybe a teacher improvement plan, and part of that improvement plan could mandate mentoring whether it's received from the co op in the classroom or another master lead teacher within the school district. There may be some other other personnel that could help meet that requirement. Let me ask a question in a different way. So if you have an underperforming teacher, can they decline assistance? So that if that was part of their teacher improvement plan, then I would say they're not meeting the conditions of their plan and at the conclusion of the timeline that they're supposed to meet those expectations their contract might be terminated based on local policy. OK, all right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Or the questions from the committee. So many in the audience to speak for or against, oh, I'm sorry, Stephanie, I'm sorry, Senator Flowers. Give it a second. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I might be out of order on this, but I just have to say since Mr. Oliver is at the table and you helped on that last bill was and I'm supportive of this bill of representative on this topic. OK, well, I just wanted you. Well, I would like to have a comment after. We dispose of this bill one way or the other, but motion at the proper time. any other Speak for or against the bill. No questions from the committee. Do you like clothes for your bill? Thank you. What is the will of the committee? Motion to pass. I have 2. Second, so, OK, all in paper all post. Thank you very much. OK, next we have Senator Johnson. Mark Johnson. But. Before. Wait, wait just one minute. Go ahead. Senator Johnson starts with his bill, point of clarification from Mr. Oliva. About the This House built If he, if he would, I don't think that he can nod his head or not, uh, on House Bill 1060 when we talk about these constitutional republics Germany won? No, what we're not, we're not going back over that right now. That's, that's what my point of clarification was, and I wish you would think about that. Thank you. OK. You could talk to him later about that. OK, Senator Johnson, if you identify yourself, you'll be recognized. Mark All these are different. I'm trying to get um. Senate Bill 223 is creates the religious rights at public schools. And, and let me just say it doesn't add any new rights or take away any rights. It's a, it's a recognition and codification of the rights that we already enjoy, uh, uh, there's, there's several reasons why I brought this bill. One is simply, as I said, to codify this so everyone understands what the rights are. I don't want it to sound like it's it's a Miranda rights statement on religious freedom, but some people might draw that analogy. It's important to have something that's concise and notifies us of that. The second thing is that and I was told by a a A legislator that he felt that there was a misunderstanding. He had a school librarian in Arkansas that when the subject was in casual conversation brought up about uh having a Bible in the school library, and the librarian insisted that we couldn't do that because of separation of church and state, and many people still believe that that is a is some kind of it's in the Constitution and certainly it's not. The Constitution, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law recognizing a establishment of religion, and we always interpret that as a state religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and this is to protect the free exercise, and I remind, I always try to remind my colleagues that the Bill of Rights was not about protecting the government from the people. It was protecting the people from the government, so This is just a recognition and recodification of rights and making sure that students and parents are informed of what rights they have. I'll be happy to go through any sections of it if there's any questions about the bill, but in the interest of time, I would be happy to wait until some specific question arises, and I'll ask if it's all right, Madam Chair. I'd ask for Ms. Nichols to be able to follow up on my testimony at this point. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm Stephanie Nichols and I'm a staff attorney for family council. I'm also an allied attorney with the National Constitutional Legal Group Alliance Defending freedom, and I was on staff with Alliance Defending Freedom for 4 years and studied and practiced constitutional law throughout the country, so I just wanted to explain that background as we discussed some of these constitutional principles. We are Blessed to live in a great country in a great state where we do protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we are all the better for it because we, we have a society where there is room for us all, and we can discuss matters of ultimate importance, even eternal importance and the US Supreme Court has recognized that even our students and teachers in public school systems do not shed their constitution. al rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Those riots continue. US Supreme Court precedents has limited those rights in some circumstances and schools can always have reasonable time, place, and manner. Restrictions and this bill recognizes that. So this bill is important because it places in one section of the code. A summary of the rights that already exist for students and teachers, and you'll notice the list for students is much longer. the list for employees because employees are state agents are more limited. Then students and what they can constitutionally, um, participate in as far as religious rights in school. But the important thing about this bill that I love is it makes sure that students and employees of a school receive a copy of this bill each year so that they are informed about the applicable constitutional rights. And this cuts down on schools inadvertently, um, having a misconception of the law that schools are religion free zones which can result in violation of students' constitutional rights, and I'll give you an example. I have a daughter who is 14. And two of her friends in two different public school systems. We're told by their teachers that they could not have a Bible or read it at school, and I'm sure all of you know that that's constitutionally false, they can have that Bible in the same way that they can have another book at school. Now, can they read it while their teacher is trying to teach them science class? No, but if it's a break or it's free reading time, then there's no constitutional problem with That Bible being there with the student or being read at school, so we do have a need. For this law. One question some might have about the bill is, are we creating any problems for our public schools. And, um, this bill will not create problems for two reasons. It is only affirming and educating regarding rights that already exist, and you will notice throughout the bill that it frequently uses the phrase in the same manner and that's a recognition that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Do apply for a school. Schools are always able to have the restrictions they need in place to maintain good order in an educational environment. I have reviewed this bill and the applicable Supreme Court precedents and sections of the Arkansas code, and I find this bill to be a legally sound articulation of existing rights. Once again, no new rights, but a wonderful educational tool for the rights that students have to a very full extent and that employees have on a more limited basis. Um, no child should be shamed for bringing their Bible to school and this bill will help prevent that from happening and it will also help protect schools by ensuring that there is not inadvertent violation of student constitutional rights that can cause legal problems for schools. Thank you for your consideration of SB 223. So when the bill says Senator Johnson. Uh, to read a Bible or other religious texts. At the individual public school district or enrollment public charter school. So your flowers could you sit up. or to your microphone. It's hard for people to hear. I'm sorry. So when the bill says Read a Bible or other religious texts that the individual's public school district are open enrollment public charter school. What, what is other religious texts. That be the Quran. I think it could be if that person subscribed to the Quran. Yes, I think it it would be a perfectly acceptable to That individual student to read the Quran if they were Muslim or that was their religious text or whatever the Buddhist. I'm not familiar with which their texts are. I know it's I'm not either, but I know yes ma'am, this is, this is what religious freedom really means is that on the last page. And academic study of the Bible course. Why is the Bible singled out and what Bible are we talking about? Well, I, I can't speak to that, Senator, because that's existing law. That's Arkansas code 616145, which authorized that and it was passed, I believe 2 sessions ago. Y'all might be to know more about and remember when that was, but I don't remember, but it's certainly underlined in your bill as something new in this references that code side though. What it references 616. I understand that, but why only an academic study of the Bible if other religious texts. are allowed under this bill. What I, I, I only This is a reiteration in my opinion, Senator, of existing law. Well, if you're districts to offer such a such a course, but if you're trying to establish new law and you say the Bible or other religious texts. Why not offer an academic study on the other religious. Tex. I'm not advocating or opposing doing that. This is just, as I said, a recodification of what's already in the law. It doesn't add or detract from anything that's been determined by the courts to be part of our freedom of religion and our heritage. I do believe, and this is speaking from memory that when the legislation was brought up about having a course in the Bible, it was, it was specifically referring to it in many cases as a historical reference. because much of our Western civilization is based on the history as told to us by the Bible. OK, I haven't looked at that section of the code and I I certainly don't remember voting for something like that, but uh thank you, Madam Chair. Any questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. So all of this is currently in law. We're just re-putting it in law somewhere else. Yes, ma'am, we're making sure that our students and parents are informed that it is in law, so there's no misunderstanding as the the anecdote that I cited about the librarian that thought it was unconstitutional in a Bible in the school library, our other states passing bills similar to this, and if so, is there an organization that it's coming from specifically? This didn't, this was something that I discussed in a very casual manner with Jerry Cox, the family counsel, and said, yes, I'd be interested in making sure that the students and teachers and parents understood what their existing rights were. There may be some in other states, and Ms. Nichols might be able to answer that since she's knows about what's been going on in other states. If you want to ask, would you like her to comment on that, Senator Das Senator Davis, I'm not aware of national efforts for similar bills on this particular legislative effort. Or other states you know of any other states. I do not know of other states that um have passed a similar law and it's important to note we're not changing really law we're we're this is almost, as I said, a codification and I hate to say Miranda rights notification that, hey, by the way folks, you have these rights, and that's to clarify and make sure there's no misunderstanding about them, but again, the bill doesn't add any rights or to. any rights that aren't currently recognized either in case law or in our statutes. Um OK, so we're we're gonna provide each public school district. Let's see, we're just going to send a form home. That's the 6 pages at the start of each school year to every student. I don't think it would have to be the law per se, but it could be, but it would also be, could be a summary. be distributed to the parties by email. OK, it does say on page 2 a copy of this act. So I was just curious if it I mean, typically we get a lot of forms sent home with us at the start of each school year. So it looks like we'll get another 6-page form sent home with parents at the start of every school year. Letting them know about something that's already in law one more notification, yes, ma'am, but it would be a notification of important things that there seemed to have been identified some misunderstanding about. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Senator Johnson, I guess my concern would be akin to it, uh, Senator, um. Um, Brian just mentioned. The Additional forms going home and then the complexity of this piece of legislation, you know, there is. Cause if I'm reading it correctly, the students get this. Every year and in our lower grades, I would be very concerned about their understanding of this, um. A lot of this uses generated and developed in the home as it relates to religion and Some of these things here, and I know certain things are in already law. I'm just, I guess you can't help but comment on what's already lost when you comment on this. piece of legislation because it includes what's already long, so you kind of get both responses in to you and but I think the complexity of it and then there are some. Parts of this, no matter where you sit on, on this that kind of indicates or specifies uh where you kind of should be as it relates to the Bible or Christian and You know, you and I may be there, everybody and their freedom may not be where we are or family counsel, whomever it may be. So there, there are some things that I think. Um could cause some issues in understanding. And and trying to do what I think you're trying to do with this. So there are some concerns about it as it is written the complexity of it. Senator, I, I I guess we have to kind of balance the issues of being concise and not being too complex with enumerating the rights that it's important for our students and parents to know that they have and can exercise, so that was the idea was that we didn't add anything that's not already in either case law or in Arkansas code, but we tried to put it in a in a concise manner that could be communicated to students and parents, so they're, it's and to make them fully aware of what they rights are. So there's there, there's nothing new. It's while it mentions what I would call Western civilization documents there, but this doesn't prohibit and certainly protects some Uh, religion that you and I are not even conversant in it exists, but people have those beliefs. They're religious beliefs are protected, and that's the fact that there's still some people that think that that schools are a religion-free zone that nothing can even be discussed or brought up or that that religion of any kind exists and that it's just not true. The Constitution protects the rights of all individuals and as stated in by Mrs. Nichols, you don't, kids don't check their religious liberties at the schoolhouse door. I carried a bill a few years ago to protect their rights of student journalists under the First Amendment, and we passed that and it's uh it's the same principle here of of the religious rights that are in the First Amendment. We're, we're not adding anything where you're simply acknowledging and codifying and by bringing it to this institution this way. In the form of a bill, it brings out this conversation that we're having now is being had was is has been. Going on prior to it becoming a formal piece of legislation which gets us in this situation, um. Has there been concerns? Is this just your concern or has there been concerns brought to you from citizens about this being an issue in our schools. Well, as I mentioned earlier, uh, when the issue came up that said that there was a misunderstanding by the school librarian about there being a Bible in the school and of course as you know, Senator, the Bible is not just a religious text. It is a text of of history. It tells it's very much considered one of the base bases of our Western civilization and consequently one does not have to be. Christian or Jewish to understand and even Muslim because, as you know, the Some people refer to those three great religions as the people of the book, meaning the entire Bible, including to Muslims, the Quran falls into that as well, but, but it's, it's our history, it's our heritage, and it's, it's the world's history of heritage, certainly that of Western civilization, and I'm sure there's in the eastern traditions there's equivalent things. I'm not conversant in that of course, but uh again this is to about we're open. We recognize First Amendment rights of students and parents, and we're just making sure that everyone involved in the education process, especially students and parents understand what those rights are. Thank you, Madam Chair. So would, would you be open, so. My concern, my small concern here is on page 2 lines 21 through 24 where it says that at the beginning of each year, each public school, um, shall provide each enrolled student and individual employed by the school district a copy of this act. So As I stated, we, you know, I have 4 kids in public school, a lot of forms are sent home at the start of each school year, most of which I throw away if it's not something I have to sign. Um, so, and I'll get it x 4. Which is fine, but we're talking about, you know, Half of a million students across the state taking forms home that their parents will probably throw away. Would you be willing to maybe say or it could be uploaded to like a school district website because if I get a copy of the act, I'm probably gonna throw it away in August, the first week of school, but if it's online, I can say, wait a second, like I, I think there's something about this and I can easily find it online on a school district website. It can be referenced somewhere in their policies or, I mean, each school district has to maintain a website. And then it's there all the time. Schools aren't, you know, Printing off tens of thousands of additional pieces of paper for something that's just going to go in the trash. And I think maybe it meets your point a little better to make sure people have a place that they can find out what their rights are in one place in an easy way instead of searching Arkansas law and trying to find where it's at, they can go to their school district website and easily see it, and it's less of a burden to make for every teacher to make sure a kid goes home with this, um, and it kind of puts it on the central office of a school district to make sure it's uploaded. to their website. Is that something you would be, you know, consider, in response, Senator, I had that same question, and uh I visited with Jerry and other people at family council about it because I didn't want to create the paper and I'm guessing you could say I was trying to save some more trees, but the fact of the matter is probably I I preferred what the suggestion is that this be an electronic submission that it can be emailed to parents and it can reference what you just said. It's on the website of the school district, but as there's no signature. They don't have to. Sign anything. Hey, I acknowledged I received this piece of paper. I would have written a lot differently if I had thought that was implicit in there. I don't believe it is. I think that when it says uh Provide a copy of the act. That's exactly what it can be provided electronically, email, and and by reference in that email if you want more information, go to our website and here's the link and you can click that and then read the whole thing in detail, so that's I I appreciate what you're saying. I had exactly the same question when when I first was looking at the draft, and I felt that it covered exactly what you're saying that it would, it, it's, it's not. Nowadays we don't do everything. I mean, we get our Democrat Gazette on an iPad every morning. We don't have to have a piece of paper that smudges your fingers anymore, and I think that the bill is covers that very well. Um, well, uh, so my follow up to that is that it says provide each enrolled student with a copy and all of the students have their own email addresses within a school district, so parents will not actually be receiving that. So the school would be emailing a six-page act to my kindergarten student next, you know, first grader, she'll be next year. So I'm not logging into her email, but each student, when they enroll in the school district, have an email address for them specifically, that's where they get a lot of their assignments and stuff like that. So, Students may receive it. But parents won't see it. Because we don't, we're not logging into their school email. Well, it does mention student and employees. I, Senator Davis, you have younger children than mine. Uh, matter of fact, my youngest daughter, as you know, is, is just a day older than you, so I never dealt with getting emails from my first grader because I didn't didn't have email when I had a first grader. However, I think we covered this notification thing and and I didn't even know that kids at that grade had a we had an email address, but I guess it should, and that's fine because their parents can help them understand exactly. what that is and discuss their rights, not just rights enumerated in this act and and which again already exists, but also any other information they want to impart, so I'm, I'm comfortable with the language. I would hope that you would see that we can, if something comes up, I'd certainly be open in the future to uh further clarification, but I think it's important that that as we've seen in these examples that some people did have some misunderstanding about their religious rights, and we wanted to to make sure that they were clear. Thank you. Just clarifying. I don't, we don't check our kids' email to the school. It's their school on their school to be the best we can, don't we? Thank you. so I'd really like to see that clarified, and I've been having to go back and forth between amendments and things, I think the bill would benefit from having it clarified that this is on the website and you don't want to have to send a piece of paper home. One can make the argument that's not what it says. One can make the argument that is what it says, I think I would hope you would could clarify this and either on the outside or right here before it goes to the Senate and clear it up. Thank you. Senator Sullivan, uh, Representative Brown is here, and I think we can get a nod perhaps from her that she would be willing to clarify that with an amendment in the House. Is that correct description? So she's agreed to do that. We don't do that. Yeah, either way, you're gonna have to come back here tomorrow you could come back tomorrow or Wednesday, uh, and bring it back and we've already heard the bill. I think we can move it through real quickly. Thank you. Is that a suggestion, Senator Sullivan? Yes, strong suggestion. OK. Well, in light of your strong suggestion and the fact that the House sponsor is sitting behind me and agrees to just doing that. We will, we will pull the bill down now and we'll bring it back later with those uh clarifications made. And I believe Senator Flowers has a question, Madam Chair. So Senator Johnson, I'm looking at uh your. Sorry about that. Normally you can hear me, but uh section 616, So Senator Johnson, I'm looking at uh your. Sorry about that. Normally you can hear me, but uh section 616145 of the code. That's Senator are you referring to? I'm, I'm referring to the Arkansas code annotated Section 6-16-145 that you referred to on the last page of your bill. Uh, offer an academic study of the Bible courses provided by this section of the code and I asked you earlier about other religious texts, and you said that would be acceptable, but 616145 only deals with an academic study of the Bible course. No academic study of these other religious text and why doesn't your Bill allow for that. are extend the uh opportunity to study, um, I don't want to say biblical, but his history from the standpoint of other religions and their religious text. Is there a reason you did not include that or try to amend this section of the code as well. Well, Senator, this doesn't even pretend to be covering every eventuality. My understanding of 616145. It was permissive. It didn't mandate any kind of course by any. School district or public charter school, but it simply would allow that and and I guess it's implicit under freedom of religion that that district could offer any such course as they thought was appropriate in the right context. Now that's not a mandate. It's not even a suggestion. It's just simply it's specifically authorized that yes, you could do this district, if you so desire, but it's Only for the. It's only for the Bible. Well, I know it's the academic study of the Bible course. That's what 616145 is. I wasn't trying to. I was only referencing that we do that and that that study is acknowledged just like the rest of this bill doesn't add any new law. It's simply or case law, it simply is a notification and codification of what we already have. Well, it appears that you do at Something new when you say, and as you said, other religious texts. And you acknowledge that could be the Koran that could be uh. any religious text of some other religion, the fact that I didn't enumerate any potential religious texts out there didn't mean that I'm condoning or allowing them because we're specifically protecting everyone's First Amendment rights, which would include those regardless of the ones you mentioned or anything else that anyone has. Some that you and I have never thought of or heard of, so because of the First Amendment and the rights of these individuals have, then they could potentially be included, but I'm not trying to to cover every possibility of what kind of course of school. Could, could I wanted to bring to your attention that 6:16, 145 is exclusively about the Bible, and it's permissive, of course, Senator shall allow for an elective academic study of the Bible course, and that's fine. I agree with you on that. It's being permissive, but shall allow. That means they have to allow for it. Do you know since the enactment of 616145. Were there any school has Actually A an elective academic study of the Bible. Do you know? No, ma'am, I don't. This witness know in Arkansas. Yes, Senator Flowers, I do know that I, I do not know how many school districts have an academic study of the Bible, but I do know that some school districts do, specifically West Side School District in northeast Arkansas has an academic study of the Bible and um I remember hearing that there are other school districts as well. I'm just not sure how many. OK. Madam Chair, with your permission, we will excuse ourselves and we'll be back with a good amendment will not meet on Wednesday. We may not be in the Capitol on Wednesday where we're headed. We're planning ahead, but good Lord willing, and the weather cooperates when the committee comes back we'll have something thank you for the opportunity to present the bill. Thank you very much. OK, Senator Leadding. You will identify yourself, you will be recognized. Thank you. State Senator Greg Letting District 30. And you turn yours on too. There you go. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. My name is Jason Case. I'm a licensed athletic trainer in the state of Arkansas, uh, currently work at Cabot Public Schools and serve many uh state and regional committees. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, 8 years ago while I was still in the house, I worked with former state senator Lance Eads, Mr. Cates, the Arkansas Athletic Association, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health to pass these sudden cardiac arrest prevention Act. Schools have long been required to have certain policies in place to handle certain events or conditions during athletic events and athletic training events, things like concussions, dehydration, and the like. What we did in 2017 was add cardiac arrest to that list, and set out the Training requirements for personnel involved. thanks in part to that 2017 law and other laws. Arkansas for a tie ranked in the top 5 in the country for the policies it had in place to protect student athletes, but as Mr. Cates will tell you, we have unfortunately slipped quite a bit, so what we're hoping to do is send a Bill 226 is help restore that ranking by making sure that all necessary personnel are covered under the law and by adding a basic certification requirement for CPR, and with that, I'll let Mr. Cates explain more. Thank you, Senator letting, um, with this ask uh is simply Just asking that our, our traditional coaches are uh maintaining CPR and AED certification, uh, as it is currently right now in the state, uh as in has been talked about this morning already to this committee. There's there's uh different ways to come into to education in the state of Arkansas and so our non-traditional teachers that come in and then uh want to get a coach's endorsement through the Arkansas Activities Association. They are, they are required to keep a current. CPREED certification, uh, volunteer coaches that uh may work out and some other uh portion of the community and they come in and work with school teams, uh, in the athletic setting they are required to keep CPR and AED certification as it is right now a traditional teacher coach that goes to higher education, um, and then comes to get employment in a school setting that is missing, um, and we have looked at All possible ways to try to uh tackle this and um we, we just don't have it through our current policies other than to come to you guys in the legislation to help us with this, um, as we know in. Certain parts of our state, rural areas, um, it's, it's several minutes before we get EMS to some of our, uh, to some of our schools, um, should we do that and we also know that right now in the in the country, the numbers show that every 3 days there is a sudden cardiac episode on a school campus somewhere in this country, um, so it is very prevalent, uh, we're just trying to continue to be a leader in the country, uh, with our athletic health care policy. and uh with that, I will, we will answer any questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just curious, uh, just looking through the entirety of 708. Is this, is this a financial requirement on the on the employee to go get that training through a local affiliate of American Red Cross or is a school district provide this. Uh, great question. Yes, sir. School district provides this. There's no additional costs, no, sir, because the bill is already that's already in place. We've already addressed those issues previously, um, uh, we have the, uh, studying cardiac uh training for coaches, um, a lot of people, a lot of lay people, uh, They, they tend to wait in a sudden cardiac episode because a lot of people think that individuals having a seizure. Um, and so they delay training and so they'll sit there and try to hold them and, you know, keep them from hitting their head on the floor and things like that. Um, but what they don't recognize is this is a, this is a cardiac arrhythmia, uh, issue and so the, the individual, the patient will, will tend to look like they are having uh a a seizure, um, but then it's delayed care and so we've gone through, uh, through the, through the passing of this previously with, with uh Senator Leding. We have the educational pieces out there now to educate our lay personnel of what this looks like, what happens. Time is the essence, how to administer and put these things in place, put these. policies in place in school and so there is no, uh, that's a long, long answer to your question, but uh there is no funding uh with this, no, a school district puts the course together probably annually just to catch any new, newer. Correct, yes sir. That's all through the Department of Health and, uh, uh, Arkansas PBS, um, they put that together and so once every 3 years, coaches have to undergo this training, um, so anything that's new, uh, they're able to get it through their PD, uh, professional development, uh, responsibilities, uh, for, for being the coach, holding the, the, the title that they hold, um, but as far as the uh actual CPR that comes along with it, there's no additional cost. OK? And I guess final question would be is if you have a recurring parent team. Mo, teen dad, are they required to under this do that or only if they register and are on staff or only if they are on staff, they're part of the staff. So Is more likely to have a cardiac event in higher math classes than sports, but we'll leave that for later. So I noticed higher ed isn't in here. Is there a reason for that? NCAA does their own, their own level. They're already so they have their own statues and things like that within the Department of Higher Ed. This is just secondary schools. Thank you. Madam Chair, um, Senator Leding, a couple of years ago, you passed the uh coach Safety Act. And Within that, looking at it, you specifically exempted. Licensed teacher with coach endorsement, uh, a licensed teacher complete completes the Arkansas Athletic Association's, the AAA, and the National Federation of State High School Associations coaching endorsement program or a registered volunteer. It looks like you're adding a couple of those things into this act. But you're not repealing the exemption from the other from the overall. How, how are those going to conflict? I have not looked at the coach safely. I can relate to this, uh, relate to that law that might be something that we need to revisit. There have been some conversations about revisiting that law this session. Um is that those, I mean, it seems like you're adding these two. The requirements for professional development. But those are exempted from the. From that particular the some of these are specifically exempted from that. So I'm just trying to see how they're dovetailing together. A great question. Those and that's what we're going back to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together from uh the board of directors from the Arkansas Activities Association. Uh, the reason for those exemptions where they're uh in that piece of legislation there was already things in place for that, um, but now coming back to this particular ask is that bringing those. There were, there were missed. Into the fold for that. If that makes sense, so those coaches, those individuals that went to higher education. Got a history degree, got their coaching endorsement. Now came and got hired at Cabot High School and they're teaching soccer now we are making sure that they get the exact same thing that the AAA is providing for those others that we ask the exemption on because they were already being provided that. And so now we're trying to to marry it to where all coaches get the exact same training, same PD, everything and they can't, which is fine with regards to your coaches and your your teaching staff, I guess that that have uh my concern on the coach. Safety Act a couple years ago and one of the things that The registered volunteers aspect of things if you're a volunteer and then you're not gonna be able to volunteer potentially if you don't go through this particular training. And so they were exempted from that coach Safety Act a couple of years ago, but now they're going to be rolled in under this aspect of things and um I I'm not entirely sure what it goes all into being a quote registered volunteer. However, volunteer seems to suggest they're not being paid and and so then of course the extra expense and the training in the classes, the course requirements and everything like that that someone would have to go through the hoops they have to jump through in order to go be a participant in helping out kids. I mean that seems to be obviously more of a uh thing that we would want to require of the coaches and of the people who are in charge of the field, but not necessarily our volunteers that are coming in and helping out with their kids' games or something like that. Yes, sir, I understand. Yes, sir, um, and the school picks up those tabs for the volunteers. So do we have any idea how much that's going to cost the schools on a per volunteer basis because that could create a situation where we don't have activities, volunteers because the schools can't get them trained or going through the and we want volunteers to be. Absolutely to participate in I don't want to tell you're a bad number, but I know that, you know, uh. Take Cabot, for instance. We, we, we are very well established, um, when we write these policies we are thinking of uh schools, uh, like Earl, um, like village, things like we do not want to handicap any school, um, from, from being able to do that, so I know that the the ask is not much at all, uh, it's, it's to make sure that we are making those affordable for all schools and all individuals, um, and to my knowledge, we have not. No one has ever come back and said, hey, this, this is too much and this is not doable, um, and so they haven't had this requirement before, so I mean that that's the, the law of unintended consequences is what I'm concerned about here with regards to adding the registered volunteers into this, not, not the fact that we're trying to keep kids safe. I mean, obviously that's a major goal for everybody, but the hoops that Smaller districts and smaller teams and individual sports that may not have a, they may only have, you know, a coach and 3 or 4 volunteers that are helping out or whatever, but then if they have to jump through too many hoops, you lose those volunteers and so anyway that that's The correlation between those laws would be something I would suggest you look at. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, you know, currently what we're seeing with stats is that we're averaging 1 secondary school cardiac death in the US every 3.5 days post COVID, post the COVID vaccine, and we're seeing it specifically in males aged 12 to 29. So I think this is really good. I think it's important for volunteers, coaches, everyone to be trained on it because we are seeing a rise in those secondary cardiac deaths, um, and specifically, you know, men that, you know, young men when they hit that age of doing athletics in school, I mean, 12 through 29, but 12 through 18 specifically in K-12, I think it's important that we're training people, um, to be alert and on the lookout since we're seeing that post-COVID and post-COVID vaccine. Thank you. You speakers for or against this bill. See none. Are you closed for your bill? I am, Madam Chair, and I would ask for a good vote. Thank you. You pass Senator Bryant. 2nd, Senator Flowers, on paper, all post. Thank you very much. OK. Oh, he is here? Oh, where is he? 00, Senator Hammer. Senator 2:28 Senate Bill 228. You identify yourself, you will be recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kim Hammer, state senator, District 16. Go ahead. Thank you. The bill is pretty short, sweet, and to the point. I'm carrying it on behalf of one of my school districts that approached me, Bryant School District. I have consulted with the department and they are not in objection to the bill, correct, correct. OK, make sure, uh and I, I'll just read the bill for simplicity. The superintendent couldn't be here because of responsibility to be back at school, but it says a waiver granted by the board of directors of an education. under the subdivision shall be valid for the duration of the applicant's deployment with the educational entity only if the applicant does not experience two things one, a break in employment with the educational entity after receiving the waiver and 2 an additional disqual conviction under this section after receiving the waiver. The groundwork for this bill is that school has an employer has had from time to time and has one now an employee that when hired had to go before the board because of something. showed up on their background check and the way the law is written now every 5 years that individual has to come back up before the board to justify hiring under the original event that showed up on the original background check and what the school is asking for is that as long as that employee does not have a break in employment or does not experience another disqual disqualifying conviction that would show up on the background report or would show up, you know, as an action that they would like to not have to bring that person back up in front of the board every 5 years, and the rationale, there's a personal story that goes with it. Leave the names out, but they've got an employee, I think that's been there for like 2025 years. It's happened a long time ago, and every 5 years they got to bring that employee back up in front of the board, dredge all that stuff back up and go through it again and she was a model employee and all they're asking for is as long as those two things don't. happen, that person doesn't have to come back up before the board and justify the hiring based on what happened over 20 years ago. Pretty common sense bill, and I'll be glad to answer questions to the best of my ability. I think there are thousands of waivers out there in our district. What happens if the conditions of the waiver go away. In other words, someone qualified under a waiver for X, Y, Z, and that law changes and that's no longer applicable. What happens then? Or maybe the department could help me out if they were of a notion want to help out, but I'm going to give you what I think is the answer, and that is, um, I I don't think the person I don't, I don't see how this would affect that if that waiver. Went away. Because all we're asking is that they just don't have to come back up before the board and explain what they already had to explain once. OK, so in the case of we have somebody gets a licenger if they haven't had a conviction within the past, let's say 10 years, and that law changes to 5 years. And they raised the The bar for qualifying for that waiver, what happens to that person then. Run that by me one more time. I think I know what you're asking, but let me just make sure I get my mind around it. So you have somebody who qualified for a waiver because they committed a crime and the law allowed for a 10 year, you know, it happened 10 years ago. OK. All right. And then now they that law, the waiver of changes and they say, well, it had to happen 5 years ago. We changed the raised the bar for qualifying. What happens to them. And you're talking about a waiver granted by the by the school board, correct? Yes. OK, because a waiver granted by a board of directors of an educational entity under this subdivision, which I believe is going to be the local school board. So if the qualifications change, what happens? I got a waiver and now the qualifications, the bar is raised and I'm no longer qualify under the new threshold. What happens? I think at that point I think probably at that point they may have to come back before the board. And reset the clock. As far as giving explanation. Of that offense that occurred that's not what the bill says though. Bill says they're good to go forever. I guess I'm wondering why would the Why would the board change the waiver knowing what the employee's history in my conversations with the department, how many, how many waivers do we have? 18,000 or something like that. There are 18,000 waivers out there and there's um some people including myself are looking at ending some of those waivers are changing the criteria for those waivers. That's way too many waivers, 18,000 people in our schools where we waived the criteria. So if we go in and eliminate a waiver or change the threshold for a waiver. What happens to all those people that we let in. I'll tell you what I do, madam chair. I'll pull it down. We'll have a conversation, but I'll answer other questions if you don't mind. I just want to come back, I can already plow through them. How's that? Is that OK? OK. Thank you very much. Senator Dawson. Just point of clarification, Senator Hammer, if I'm understanding your bill correctly and listening to Senator Sullivan's questions. This only Relates to. Non-licensed staff positions, so we're not talking about teacher waivers and things like that that the state board of Education would grant a waiver for, so we're not, we're not dealing with the 8400 state waivers. This is a local district related to a background check only for that non. Licensed staff, so you're talking about cooks or or bus drivers, various ones that they got an employment waiver on their background checks, saying, hey, This thing that came up. We're going to go ahead and give you a waiver to employ you anyway, um. Because it's not a serious offense for the job that you're doing, that's the only instance in which this waiver wouldn't have to come back up again. That, that's correct. And thank you for bringing that clarification. I failed to mention that. This is, this is applying as it says up here, a waiver of the required background check for non-licensed staff positions, so you're talking about your janitors, bus drivers, um, you talk about those that wouldn't be covered under the waivers of the department. Thank you. 18,000 waivers inclusive of those people. Well, I think it isn't just teachers will come up, she's willing to come up, Madam Chair, would you allow Courtney to come up, please. Thank you. Courtney Salifo, chief of staff of the Department of Education. um, so there is a little bit of clarification. The waivers that you're referring to, Senator Sullivan, would be like an actual 40 waiver, a charter waiver, or a licensure waiver that's granted by the state board. That's the number you were referring to. Um, what Senator Hammer's bill addresses is specific offense waivers that are granted by a school board for classified employees, so it would not be included in that number. Essentially what that school board is saying when they grant that waiver is that they are aware of the offense of that employee, um, and that even though it is a disqualifying offense. They are choosing to employ them anyway. And so to your question earlier of what if the law changed and changed the standard, you can't retroactively apply that law to an employee that's already been granted a waiver and so if that school board has said, I want to continue to employ them, knowing of this offense, then they can continue to employ. them, or they could decide that now that there's a law change they wanted to rescind that waiver or revoke that waiver or make it conditional. Thank you. You're going to pull it down. I think I'm pretty well ready to close with her explanation. I don't want to muddy it up. OK. Are there any questions from the committee? anybody to speak for or against the bill. closed. I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote, members motion to pass. Second, on favor, all opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank members Committee. Thank you, Gordon. Seeing no further business, the meeting is adjourned.