Education Committee - Senate

Here The first thing off the bat, I would just like to uh recognize our pages that are here. Marshall Thurber McKee. Ella Parker, do you, where are you? Lovely Thornton. Gabriel Pole. And Alessandro Oliveira. Very good. Nice to have you here. Yeah. What about the people standing here, I'll shut the door, but do you want those people in or out? Yeah, thank you. And We have a very large group here, folks today. It's not everybody's going to be able to stay in the room, so we'd have to move folks outside the room we'll close the door. I'm sorry about that. And what you do. Is she drinking coke or coffee? I think I swear to God I know it. So we're doing. SB 89. Do you have any speaker for against it 8. on SB 89. No, they're all 180. This one right here. you are. Good morning, Senator. You're welcome to present SB 89. Thank you very much. Um, it's basically this bill adds some information to the uh school district's website with respect to the board of directors, so it makes sure that we have an announcement ahead of time about all the meetings they're going to take place and also it requires that Approved minutes are posted on the website. Members, do you have any questions? Saying no questions, we have someone signed up to speak. For the bill. Mr. Cavin. She would introduce yourself and you're recognized. Push the bottom button. It just takes you go. OK, great. You would introduce yourself and you're welcome to uh make your point. Yes sir, Jimmy Cavin with Arkansas First News, but I'm here representing myself as a citizen. I'll just be real brief with all the issues we've had in government transparency over the last couple of years. This is a welcome positive step in government transparency, and I'm really proud that Senator English has brought this bill. It's simple. It makes sense and Just zero reason not to do it, so I hope you give a good vote for transparency in government, and I'll answer any questions. members anyone have any questions? Say no questions. Thank you. Say no further questions, Senator, you're welcome to close for your bill. I'm closed. Members, uh, what is the will of the committee have? motion 2, all in favor say aye. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Thank you very much. I 1 I You are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joshua Bryant District 32, House Bill 1199 is a repeal of language that deals with the desegregation orders of the 80s prior to us having school choice and moving towards a more open enrollment system. We had provisions in place that would require all board members of both the transfer out school and the transfer in school required all board members for required to sign off on an affidavit agreeing to it. regardless of the vote of the board, so both boards could vote unanimously, but if they had one member withhold the affidavit. They could not effectuate the transfer so this removes all that language. It goes with under the existing federal court order about desegregation and removes This language from the From the code to allow the intent of the of the body of the board as a whole to effectually allow those transfers regardless of the reason. Senator Murdoch, you're recognized. Thank you, chair. So Senator. When you strike out a total bill, I mean a total statute like this has done. I begs the question, what are we left with? I hear what you're saying, but I don't see anything that we're left with it this is a very important statute that relates to, you know, transfers and certain conditions that it was liable under. So What do we have now? and you say something you refer to the segregation, which I don't have any, I don't have that verbiage with me to be able to affirm. My concern is what am I left with? You're left with the majority of the of each school board. On a motion to pass that those transfers, the school board as a as an entirety of the body as a majority of the body will be able to permit those without having to go into an affidavit from each member approving. And where is that written? How do I know what I have? Well, that's the existing rules they are now. For if you have a transfer at a school board transfer to transfer regardless of the reason, uh currently allowed in law. It's just the full approval of the board allows that transfer allows that administration to sign off on that transfer that statue or is that per district, how is that disseminate? Do we have local control on that issue. Can we do one thing in this place and another thing in another place. No, that is, that is in statute as we deal with transfers as they are now. Well. I believe it's, it's in. In 618,300 series as far as transfer eligibility overall. The difference is, is this one statute deals with just desegregation schools. Let me, let me ask a question of the chair. Is there someone here that can help us with this. I want to see what I'm left with. I don't know everything is gone here and I want to know what I'm left with. I don't. Is there anybody here from the Department of Education that could comment on this. Or somebody on the committee though. I, I just don't know what I'm left with. I think Desi or or ASR PC is here available. And, and only relevance, I mean, it's obviously I see what we're repealing. I totally understand what you're taking away. I can read that, but I don't know what I'm left with and. It's just you need to have something in writing that. I don't know that the public would even understand this. So. We have the secretary of Education who might be able to shed some light on this. Good morning. Good morning Secretary of Education, um, if you wanna go ahead and bring me up to speed on the questions that you're inquiring about. It was my question, Senator, I mean, excuse me, secretary. Uh, I got promotion or I don't know which way to take that. House Bill 1199 repeals the current language that we have as relates to transfer of students and the responsibilities thereof and my question is when you repeal everything, what are we left with? He gave me some verbiage of what he say we're left with, but I want to find book chapter and verse 2 Timothy 2:15. I want to see exactly what I'm left with versus A conversation. So did you statute or I don't know specific statutes or codes, but we'd be happy to research and get that back to you, but I, but I think the spirit of this is that we want to make sure that schools are able to participate in open enrollment and choice transfers and still work on those components as well. Individually as a district, meaning each district can set their own policy. Or board transfers so. are you speaking about the board to board transfers cause that's still this is a school district board of directors granting a legal transfer under certain conditions. So this is just dealing with students moving around and so if we can do one thing in this district and another thing in another district, and we're not going to have continuity. All I'm wanting to see is what is the current What we're repealing is this. So what are we left with? I don't have nothing showing us what we're left with. Because you may say one thing, he say another thing I say something else because we all, it's just verbiage. I'm looking for a document we'll you the code because the, the course transfer laws are still in place, so we'll be able to follow that with you because that's already outlined in current statute. Do we, so I guess I'm sorry. So I guess the question is, do we know what that is? Because that's becomes the uh the effective law now, right? What is that? 6 18307 deals with the transfer of one school district to an adjoining district in 6183. 16 deals with transfer competition of a student. So those would be the the rules applicable laws now comes back into effect after this is repealed. This was just an exception to those. You will follow those two separate statues unless the school is under a desegregation order. And then you're exempted unless all board members sign off on it through affidavit. This removes the requirement of all board members of both. The outgoing and incoming school systems having to sign that affidavit. OK, so I just need to be 3, I need to get showed up on 307 and 316. Which obviously I don't know right now, you know that. And I, I will send it, I, I will, I'll hold off the floor until you are comfortable with those. Yeah, I just thank you. I appreciate it. I just want to. Senator Flowers. Good morning. So I understand this particular Section of the code 618317 Applies to school districts that are under a court desegregation order. Do we have school districts under court desegregation orders still now in the state of Arkansas. Yes, we currently do. In fact, many of the districts are working from coming out of a purview like Garland County has been doing a lot of work to to get that removed, but there's still a few districts that remain. I can provide you a list. I'd like to see a list. And so His His bill. Is repealing. The board's ability To grant transfers. When the resident district or the receiving district is under a desegregation related court order. And the transfer in question would violate the court order. So what are we doing? Are we trying to go around the court order here. We are trying to make sure that all transfers because currently we didn't have school choice in the 80s when this was drafted. So those schools that are currently under DSA orders that are federally required. Or they have that authority inside the board to stop all transfers. It just takes one. It could have nothing to do with with desegregation. It could be they just don't like losing that student and so one board member has the ultimate veto authority over all transfers of one of those schools, and so this just gives basically the suprema supremacy clause allow, you know, that issue of any of these desegregation is already being taken care of under the federal court order. This statute just we, we recommend that we get removed so we can actually effectuate full transfers of any student in those schools. Well, are, are you suggesting or saying that there is no court order. learning these districts that are under desegregation orders. Concerning transfer student transfer. I think what you're going to find is each one's going to be differently and unique, so right now there is no ability for the students to be able to transfer. This would allow if you're under court order. Not necessarily per this statute, if they're under court order D say, OK, but what I'm asking is Are there existing court orders that relate to transfers of students either from a school district that is under a court desegregation order. Transferring Or a school district that might be under a Um, desegregation order receiving the student. So each one of those orders may look different and unique to that school district. So right now if if there was prohibitions on school transfers or student transfers in that court order for the DSA, the district would still have to follow that. That would not go away. We're going to follow whatever the court order mandates are. This bill says if you're under DSEG, no matter what, you can't do any transfers. And so not every may be under that um condition. He said this bill says if you're under DI order, you what? You, I mean, to me, It's particular. About schools that are under a desegregation order. Help me understand what the rest of the code says what are we saying when you don't have to. Uh. Abide by what's in the code now. Relative to Uh, transfers either from or 2 A school district that's under DA. And the The transfer would violate the court order. Are we saying we're allowing. You have a court order that's gonna have specific rules and implications for that district. You're always going to follow that. That's what the court has issued for that district. That's what we're going to follow. You here have a law that's an umbrella over that court order that says no matter what this order says, you can't do this, whether it says it or it doesn't say it, you can't do this. What this does is allow you to participate in school choice unless the corridor says you can't do it. OK, but why I'm asking that question is on line 29 and it says the transfer in question would violate the court order, and that's stricken. So I mean it to me if it's stricken from the code. Then it obviously to me the natural flow would be you can violate a court order. I wouldn't advise anybody to violate court orders, but I mean, do you see where I'm coming from with this question? It's because it's duplicative unnecessary language, and this would actually allow families in these school districts to participate in school choice, which we have numerous amount of families that want to go to a neighboring district or participate in school choice, and they can't because this law oversees Um, the authority for a school district to make decisions on their local level. If there's a court order, they're still going to follow the court order and you're saying that that is somewhere in the code. That they have to follow a court order. Or does it even have to be in a in a in the code when you got a court ordering something that's what's being required if, if a school district wasn't following the codes, the rules, court orders, and they could be, um, They could lose their accreditation status. Well, you mentioned the supremacy clause and, and I'm trying to understand what I think of as supremacy clause being more related to state law, federal law, but What about the court order? I mean, The court order has the overall Authority for those schools underneath the deseg. So again, this, this put in the 80s put an additional umbrella over that order that required all board members from both schools to have veto power. One member to have veto power. Well, that veto power enter this current legislation extends to all transfers regardless of reason. So if you had one board member that did not want to lose a student regardless of what the reason that authority was granted underneath the current. Statute. This strikes that language. It still leaves the court orders in place. They still have to follow what the what the courts say they have to follow, but it allows that that board as a majority to effectuate that transfer of the student. So in effect what we're saying, Mr. Oliva, is we'll take this out of our code. And in its place is a court order, if there is one. Otherwise, students and their transfers would be um, Authorized under another section of the codes that were cited earlier, that's correct. OK, thank you, thank you. Senator Johnson, Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could just point your attention to on page 1 line 32, the word each. In essence, that's, that's the. The only thing in effect that this current statute does because the court order affects everything else, so it says. If some school district. What it for whatever reason is under that DSEG order, then it triggers this to be in effect, and if I understand it correctly, one board member or each board member has to sign off on any transfers regardless of whether or not they're DSEG related or not. If that school district happens to be under a DSAG order. So all the rest of this section as was stated is really unnecessary because if it's a court order, we have to follow that regardless of the statute or not, but This gives an individual. Member veto authority over If once that check that box has been checked, they're under the DSEG order that district for any reason can. OK Can one board member on that in that district can then veto any transfer regardless of whether it's DSEG or it's not, so, um, anyway. Thanks. For clarifying that. Send her flowers. Tell me this, if you know. Or if you don't, I'd like. Maybe for some research to be done. Do all these court orders. That are in Desegregation cases. Do they all have a provision about transfers. Su transfers. I want to. Before I give a definitive answer, be able to research that, but most of the ones that I know that I've read recently do have um language around demographics and transfers. Do they limit transfers I think it would be best if I just bring you and I think it would be more appropriate senator. Bryant To know these things before I can take a A vote. I'd like to know what's in there because And I'd like to know how many. School districts are under desegregation orders. I mean, Madam Chair, with permission, I'd like maybe the resource center if they have answers to this, maybe Gary Newton or Scott Smith that would be fine. You'll identify yourself. You'll be recognized. Adam Chair, Scott Smith, Arkansas Public School Resource Center. Um Let me be clear, this is not my bill, but I think I can help out since I practice in this area, do some work in this area, as I understand, Senate Bill 1199, the intent and purpose of that is simply to remove superlative language that's currently in the code. Senator Flowers, as you know, if a school district is under a desegregation court order, then that in effect is federal law that controls that district and that federal law to Senator Secretary Levis earlier statement has supremacy over state law, right? So the language that's in this section of the code is unnecessary. Now the federalism provisions already control in this area, um, so it really doesn't serve a purpose. It is somewhat confusing because it requires an affidavit on top of that, and it requires every board members to sign off on that affidavit saying that it does not violate the court order and that creates some confusion, so my assumption is they're simply trying to clear out the underbrush as far as additional state law trying to regulate federal law in this area when federal laws already in control. And if there was going to be a violation of that DSEG order, it would automatically be prohibited by way of federal law and the state law is not necessary. And her flowers. Oh, thank you for that, but I'm, I'm more concerned about Court order itself. In these cases where there is a desegregation order. Do all of them or any of them. Or do they all have Provisions, rules, conditions for legal transfers of students. From that School that's under the Desegregation court order and the student is transfer wanting to transfer from that one. Or it are 21 that is under a desegregation order all of them have. Provisions regarding transfers. That's a good question. If I understand your question, the answer is no. Not all DSEG orders have to do with school choice. Some desegregation orders were about staffing, about what staffing personnel some were about transportation or bussing. Some were about cheerleading, various aspects, so they didn't all have to do with school choice. Well, it just appears to me that if they didn't all have to All have a provision about transfers. Maybe that wasn't an issue then. But maybe The legislature, I don't know when this was. enacted. There must have been some reason. For them to put in place A requirement that this board of directors. Do certain things to make sure. Something else doesn't happen in that school district that has the issue that's before court. Senator Flowers, Gary Newton with Arkansas learns. You just nailed it. When you've seen All federal court orders are unique. Even in regard to desegregation. So I'll give you the example of the County Special School District. Well, if, if you would just narrow it, I'm, I'm trying to understand. The purpose in the first place for this statue and why now are we taking it out? If there are issues that are not. Before the court in these desegregation cases. That might complicate it even more. I can't, I can't speak to the origination. Of how and why that was done, but I can say the practical effect was the board should be counseled and advised the respective boards before their vote. It is an undue burden to put on an individual board member to decide if a federal court order conflicts. With the student transfer and that's what effectively this has done. It's put the burden on an individual board member to say whether or not By signing that affidavit. Is it appropriate to transfer or not and Pulaski County, for example, they have been declared unitary in regard to student assignment. They still have a desegregation order, but I believe it's over facilities, just over facilities, but If an individual member of the Pulaski County Board after they voted. Or the receiving or the transferring district, an individual member didn't want to allow that transfer. They could use this. It become purport to understand what that federal court order said better than the entire boards and the lawyers for the district and it just puts the veto power in the hands of one board member from one district. Soer flowers, I would just finish my comments by saying, as you know, if there's a prohibition by way of federal law that already exists. This statute doesn't add anything to that prohibition, uh, in, in you know I guess I would should know that that's basic, but that's not my question. I think the language confuses the issue. And maybe slows down the ability to consider any transfers because it is confusing in that sense. Well, but I hope you understand. As you know, They're always Issues that could Me prevent it. And so are we putting in place by Take this out of the law. Something that might give way to some other problem. In my answer to that question would be no as it relates to the law in the sense that if there's any prohibition federal law already controls on that point. If there's any prohibition federal law already controls on that point. We don't I'm talking about prospective issues going forward, are we creating something by taking this out of the law. Another problem. That's what I wanted. Looks like to me you're helping clean up any prospective issues or confusion. It depends on, on, on your idea of what's a good lawyer and what's not a good law. I mean, don't, don't put me in the same category as everybody else, and I don't even know what the law is you're talking about. Uh But thank you Madam Chair. I just, I, I have issues with this. I'd like to to know more. About Things that This school districts under court desegregation orders are facing. I'd like to know more about the school district itself. So, um, Currently there are 2 districts that are required to report to us I was able to find that out and it's Camden Fairview and El Dorado. We'd be happy to send you those court order like so that you can review them as well. You say they are the only two currently the only two because we we've done a lot of work. I give Scott Smith and his team credit like Garland County, I think was one of the ones that they spent probably about 2 years getting to unitary status, but that are required to report to our agency. There's 2 districts left in the state. I would appreciate you. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the committee? Anybody in the audience who likes to speak for or against the bill. Like to clothes for you. I'm closed, but I'm sure I'd make a motion to pass. Second, on the table Thank you pastor Bill. OK, moving right along, um. Representative Carr. Was he here? He was here. Representative Carr, go ahead, have a seat. You're here present House Bill 1236. You identify yourself, you'll be recognized. District 34, House Bill 11236, and what that does, that just sets. A constant day. It calibrates throughout the state dealing with contracts in years past, typically teachers are rehired in March and contracts typically go out toward the end of April or early May, and the earlier procedure was they had 30 days to sign and return and uh starting last year with a with a reform that step was removed and so to prevent a situation that Different schools are on different timelines with their contracts. Um, situation like if a teacher uh works at a school 30 minutes away they're offered a job at a nearby school. It shortens their commute, or say you have an aspiring administrator that is under the supervision of a principal that's just 4 or 5 years and they'll be there a while. That person could never promote up within the profession if they were locked in and so what this does, it sets the date as May 15th. That contracts can go out at any time from the superintendents, but they become effective on May 15th. So what I did is I started working on this back in the summer. I worked with Dr. Hernandez and several of the superintendents on the legislative A committee within the AAEA, so I started with superintendents and started working my way back toward teachers and so that was the date we came up with those superintendents are in support of that because it sets everybody on the same page, levels the playing field, and that way it gives them a better idea of when they can lock in their employees, and it's kind of the sweet spot. It's after testing, but it's before professional development scheduling. begins. I shared with a governor's office and also shared with the department Secretary Leva and they they're in support of it. Senator Dodson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Carr. Where does it say in here that they'll become effective on May 15th, or are you just assuming that because they can just allow them to get out of it it says that that they would be able to be released on May 15th or if the 15th falls on a weekend, then it would go to the previous Friday, so the most extreme situation, uh, May 15th would be on a Sunday, so that means they they would be able to be released up to. May 13th, but I, I guess. So regardless of when they sign. Right. And, and what I did is I I originally threw the idea around of, hey, we could do like we did in the past and I could set the timeline and the superintendent said, Please don't do that because that way we have the freedom to do our contracts when we want to with the understanding that May 15th is the effect date. So, so when I talked to superintendents, they said it would be easier for us if you just give us a deadline date. So I guess like I'm reading and I don't see anywhere in the bill where it says that they become effective on the 15th, so as soon as I don't know. As soon as you sign a contract, it's effective. And, and that says that the teacher or the public school employee would be able to be released from their contract. With a written statement to the superintendent. prior to May 15th or 13th if it falls on a Friday. I guess I'm I'm struggling with What's the point of having a contract if. Well, that's a good question. That's a good question because say if we don't have this, it's a one-sided contract. And you know, how many professions do you know that do not provide for a two week notice. So you're saying what we're doing cannot leave employment before the end of the year. So, so what we do is this basically sets that time of Notification that they would like to, they would like to take another job during a time that's going to be practical for administrators and for students. I'll see if anybody else has questions. Senator Sullivan. It takes a minute. So I know a lot of contracts that have employment at will. So the fact that one is going to get a two week notice. A lot of us work at will or did work at will, so this seems to say that A teacher will sign a contract, but it's not binding. Until the 15th of May. and that's the way our process had been in previous years that I think the the policy was that the On the date that contracts were distributed. They had 30 days to be returned. OK, so So if a school district signs a contract with a teacher. In the school district back out of the contract before May 15th? And rescind that contract. Uh I, I don't know how that goes. I know right now they can non-renew. So the schools up to that point when when they when they're ready to hand out contracts if they have somebody that they're considering not renewing, then they wouldn't issue a contract. Well, a minute ago you talked about one-sided contracts. So, so this is a one-sided contract. Well, if, if contracts are handed out and say here's an example of contracts were handed out in February. Then if that teacher had an opportunity to go to another school, they couldn't. Yeah, they signed the contract. Fruit. OK, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so it's because we got rid of teacher fair dismissal. That's what created this gap where initially, um, like you said, it was different in law where they had 30 days to get out or whatever, and this is just to simply go back and say there's an option, a lot of school districts are having teachers sign contracts in March and April, and if you work in a large school district, that's a lot of paperwork to get through and file and put into the system every single year. It's hundreds. and hundreds and sometimes in the 1,000s. So getting a head start on the paperwork and then giving teachers the option, which you may just have a handful that alleviates the burden of waiting until the 15th to start paperwork to be ready for the new school year, but also allows teachers the flexibility to get out of their contract if they are offered another job for some reason. So that's just sort of filling the gap that we created by striking all of teacher fair dismissal and coming back and saying, teachers, you have an. through the 15th, um, you know, a superintendent or school district cannot hold you hostage, um, but we're also allowing those superintendents to start the paperwork earlier on in the year, so that they're not behind. We're just simply balancing it out, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Sender Nason. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Listening to To all of that, um. So if a district passes out contracts, say, in February, like was mentioned. And there's a contract signed. Then something happens in April. So, and uh I don't know for whatever reason, the employment is insufficient for the district to continue that employment. They're now bound because the teachers signed the contract and they've signed the contract. Only the teacher can get out of it. Until May 15th, but the district is bound to employ the teacher through the next year. Uh I would think so. And the reason I say that is I don't know if there's a clause in the way of the non, I'm not familiar with the non-termination procedures to where that, but if you notice at the bottom, it does say that there's not a conflict with that statute, and I believe that goes along with OK. That it would not conflict with that. You see the reference at the the last statement. You said that. OK, sorry, I didn't give you that statute is referencing, so I'll have to look it up. Senator Davis. Thank you Madam Chair. So currently what districts can do if there's a reason for termination or they want to, you know, terminate the contract with the teacher, then that teacher, all the boards have their own policies, but they are entitled to, um, Having a hearing or going through the process if they want to. So there is a process in place for districts at any time to get out of their contract with the teacher if they, you know, say that the teacher fails to meet, um, you know, employment, you know, expectations or whatever. So that's not, this just has to do with the other side, school districts are already set up to terminate contracts as they see fit and have policies in place to make sure that teachers have some type of hearing in front of the board if they choose. But on the other end, teachers were, you know, in some extreme cases may be held hostage to a contract for the following year, um, because they're signing contracts in March, but maybe they get offered a job in April and it's a job that they want to take and then they can't get out because they had to sign a contract early. So this doesn't bind school districts and say you have to employ these teachers for the following year, no matter what, there's a process already in place for that, which is what is referenced here. This just allows teachers opportunity that if they are offered a job that they would rather take that fits for them for whatever reason they have until May 15th to accept that employment and basically be held harmless, let out of their contract. This Senator Dawson, did you have another question? OK, so I'm just trying to process exactly how you're how this would work, um, is there a requirement right now that say that they put out the contract in February or March or something that they have to sign up within 30 days or a time frame before May 15th, not, not with the in, in, in prior years it did the the the policy was the date, the contract is issued. That public school employee when they received it. You sign off and you date when you received it documented. You had, you had 30 days. There's no requirement now, so right, so that was that was absolved that was that was that that part of personnel policy was, was, was reformed and so it doesn't exist now. And so what this does, this just kind of addresses that one small fine point dealing with personnel for uh public school employers. To To be able to go to another school district in the event. That they would choose to. Instead of being I hate to say locked in, but But when I talked to the superintendents about it, they said, oh, that's fine, they said, as long as all the other school districts have the same date, then we don't feel like we have to get ahead of the game and start contracting earlier and earlier and earlier and earlier because if you do that, then everybody's going to be set, so they said because This levels the playing field and it calibrates throughout the state. Then And, and, and this is Just to dive in the weeds a little deeper. This is dealing with veteran teachers, so the date we kind of came up with if say they shuffle around and there's one school district that lost a veteran teacher to another school district, and there's no other veteran teachers that they're catching. This is also the same time that the new graduates are coming out from the universities looking for a job, so it's not like, you know, they're going to be with without. Someone to apply. So was this? Is this from Like administrators, superintendents, or is this from teacher where this is from you, OK. I became aware of several situations to where Um I'll tell you the situation without telling you the schools. 11 teacher. was driving 30 minutes. One way, so an hour and was offered a job at another school about 10 minutes away. So 20 minutes round trip, so considerable smaller commute. And could not accept this job, and it was early in May. could not accept this job because they couldn't get out of their contract. And then as I got to thinking. Uh The example I gave of someone that's really coming along showing leadership skills and top of their game, but if they're under administrator or vice principal or a principal and they're going to be there for 10 or 15 more years, that person that's showing the aspirations of being an effective administrator, they can never promote because they can't move up because Those spots are occupied. Well, if this situation occurs, then they're not able to go to another school to start there. So what this does, it allows people to either change venues for the the fat or change districts for the fact of a shorter commute or to develop leadership within to the profession. Thank you, but in the leadership committee that I spoke with, um, it was superintendents from Jonesboro West Side, Pine Bluff, White County Central, Cersei. And there was a 5th 1. Uh, I've forgotten, so, but Senator Bryant, do you have a question? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in your, your example that you gave where the teacher could not get out of the contract. And that was a school board that would be a local decision decision on what those contracts would have looked like once they were handed out to the teachers that they wanted to come back. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I didn't, I didn't understand what you said. The the the teacher signed in your example, she signed a contract committing to that school system for the next year. Yes, that is a local, local contract. And so there would have been a provision in that contract that said if you If you do not show up next school year because you signed somewhere else. Like a non-compete clause like what, what kind of penalties would, I mean if it's better for the employee, I'm, I'm not, I'm not, well, you know, that's one of those where There are occasions where people just do a breach of contract. It doesn't happen a lot. I'll say this, our public school teachers, public school employees, uh, a majority of them will not. Leave a school in the lurch because they know it's going to hurt the kids. And so, you know, that's one of those where I mean, You know, that would have been nice if they would have done that, but And they typically don't, and there are several superintendents if someone wants out that they, they try to work with them on that, uh, but obviously the situation that I shared and some other incidents that occurred last year. They they didn't. Thank you. And you send her flowers. Representative, you mentioned, you listed these 4 or 5 school districts. That you met with, that you talked to, you said, and what was the result? He didn't say. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, they were all in support. Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, yeah, and that's what I was saying is I conversed with the legislative committee with the AAEA and so the nice thing, it was kind of schools broad broadcast from a good array from the state. Yes ma'am, they're in support of it. Sorry about sorry for not clarifying. There any other questions? Seeing none, what is the will of the committee? Oh, anybody public private like to speak for or against the bill, seeing none, what is the will? Do pass. 2nd, all in favor, all those. Thank you very much. Passed your bill. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senate Education Committee. OK, let's see the next one up here is Senator Crow. SB 206 Steve Kroll, Senate District 3. The bill that we have today 206 is on the literacy tutoring grant. And all it is doing is we are changing it from 500 to 1500. Uh, per student. We, um, when they made this rule, it was kind of funny because he was in front of us and we questioned whether this would be enough. He's like, oh yeah, I think it would be enough, and it wasn't enough. Uh, we have about 9 million in the bank for this grant, so there's no hit to the GR and we just uh we're gonna help these students. Reading better. Any questions? OK. So you got him. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kroll, do you have any idea how many, how many students are, are. Accessing this right now if it's going to triple the the cost of their waiting list or it is, I have it. Hold on one second. Last year we had. 5,398 people. Uh, do this and only Well, about, about 30% of those used all the money. Some of them didn't, but we, we predict that this will last. The money's going to last 2.5 years. So, if they used all of 500, that's 2.7 million. Yes, so if we tripled. Each of that Right at hitting that that fund balance is that how much we put in there every year. Um, that I don't know. Is it a fund balance we replenish every year. I think it's a one-time fun bounce, correct? here. My name's Jacob Oliva. Department of Education. This is one time funds that we're using right now to to support this program, so this will only last for one more year unless we continue to to put some more funds into it. Well, we, we think at the current rate of expenditure we can get 2, maybe 2.5 years and then I think the hope is, is then we'll have a good enough data sample size to measure their return on the impact and the investment to make sure that the kids are participating in this program or getting the desire. outcomes that we want to see and then we would bring that back to the legislature probably for future consideration to consider funding. And, and if I Is it just a flat amount or is it up to that amount? They don't have to spend the entire amount. To that amount It's up to you. And some of the people didn't spend the whole money because they got to where the proficiency they needed. And rolled off of it. All right, thank you. Any other further questions? anybody in the audience who likes for or against the bill. See none, what is the will of the committee? Du pass second all in favor. all opposed. Thank you very much. Pass your bill. Um, next on our list is uh House Bill 1180 Representative Bentley. Chairman and committee, thank you so much. Senator Penzo and I have been waiting 2 years to get to present this bill. We went to a legislative conference in Utah and saw what some other states were doing with the baby Olivia video and we're really excited to bring it here to Arkansas. So thank you for this opportunity to bring the baby Olivia, uh, actor, you guys. I'd like to start out, uh, today's talk with one of my favorite verses in Psalm 139, if that's OK. This is Psalm 139:13 to 15. You formed me my innermost being, shaping my delicate inside and my intricate outside and wove them all together in my mother's womb. I thank you God for making me so mysteriously complex. Everything you do is marvelously breathtaking. It simply amazes me to think about it, how thoroughly you know me, Lord. You even formed every bone in my body when he created me in the secret place carefully, skillfully. You shaped me from nothing to something. I remember being a registered nurse at Arkansas Children's Hospital when they first came out with ultrasounds in the 1980s, we watched little Pixley things on the screen and where the cardiac surgeons could see the valves and all that, just fascinated me, but they were really very hard to see what was on that screen and you'd bring an ultrasound home then and try and maybe figure out the femur, the little bone. It was just so very hard to see ultrasounds when they first came out, but now I went on Facebook last night, one of my friends bragging about her new grandchild and the ultrasound is perfectly accurate. It's amazing what they can do with ultrasounds now. So now, We can see we haven't been able to see in the past and that we were able to see fetal development from the very beginning and watch the embryos as they grow so we can really see what we've never been able to see before and I just love to uh bring to our kids in school things that are exciting and full of awe and wonder. I'm really very thankful for what my colleague Senator Steven Meeks, is doing with his planet here bringing planets to our kids in schools here all across the state. So this is an opportunity for us to bring some great exciting things to our kids to be able to see what they haven't been able to see before. So we'll go over the babylivia Bill just a little bit. Baby Oliviya is a medically accurate animated glimpse of human life from the moment of fertilization. The story details Olivia's growth as she progresses from one development stage to the next in preparation for her continued life outside of the womb. Baby Libby was created by live action and collaboration with a panel of medical doctors, including experts in embryonic and fetal development. Wow This film is done in chronological order, so it's important to note some of the critics about this don't understand that it starts from the moment of the gestational markers are calculated from fertilization. When we get when a woman goes to the obstetrician, there's a two week period from her last menstrual period until the babies can see we don't know what it is in that two week period. So this has nothing to do when you go to an obstetrician. This is this is a biological film based on actual fertilization when that occurs. So when people talk about maybe the two week The window is because we're not doing an obstetrician visit. We're doing gynecological, we're doing, excuse me, a actually a a film from the moment of fertilization, so Many of the development facts shared in Baby Olivia are sourced from the Endowment for Human Development, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health science education and public health. Its website states that it's committed to neutrality regarding all controversial bioethical issues, adding our board of directors, board of advisors, staff and volunteers include accomplished educators, researchers, authors, programmers, and clinicians from a variety of scientific and business disciplines who share the common goal of improving lifelong health through prenatal development-based education. I think that's something in the state of Arkansas would all agree with that. We need more prenatal education. We want to improve the health of all our Arkansans. Certified OBGYN, Cathy Altman has said Olivia's a spectacular medically accurate portrayal of development of a baby girl within the womb. It is based on information from the Endowment of Human Development, a highly respected scientific source on embryology and fetal development. Olivia draws back the curtain on the wound, giving a realistic glimpse of the baby within. And I'll also say that our own very own surgeon General Kay Chandler, a renowned OBGYN here in the state of Arkansas, very well respected definitely endorses this video as well. Each and every word and every image in this short video have the backing of experts in embryonic and fetal development. So if it's OK, we'll go over just a couple of, of the first statements of, of the video when the video starts, it says this is the moment that life begins, and this is a statement refers to fertilization. The Endowment for Human Development states biologically speaking, fertilization or conception is the beginning of human development. The journal Nature states in this January 2010 issue, the Life Cycle of Mammals begins when the sperm enters an egg. The text patterns Foundation of Embryology states the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history of Aunttogeny of the individual. So as we see as fertilization, uh, the second comment in the video is that fertilization, her gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, and countless traits are already determined. The Endowment for Human Development states that zygote contains 46 unique chromosomes with the entire genetic blueprint of a new individual. So we know the sex of the baby is determined on the X and Y chromosomes at conception. Uh, we're going to go down to talk about the next one, I as a CBS senior at Children's the baby's heart was always fascinating to me, so I think it's amazing that 3 weeks and 1 day, just 22 days after fertilization, Olivia's heartbeat can be can be detected. We'll hear from the Endowment of Human Development at 3 weeks, 1 day after fertilization, the heart first begins to beat. The Merck's manual stated the heart and major blood vessels begin to develop earlier by about day 16. The heart begins to pump fluid through the blood vessels by day 2 and the first red blood cells appear the next day. So we can see that each and every word, each every statement on this has been a scientifically backed up and endorsed by the human endowment. OK, we're gonna look at the very, uh, at the beginning of the 9th week, the delivery will grow from a single cell into nearly 1 billion cells, and she is now called a fetus. She will suck her thumb and swallow and grasp an object and touch your face, sigh, and stretch. So again, our children will get to see the development, fetal development from conception to the time for the baby to be born. And I'm not gonna go through each step you guys have been here already for an hour, so. Let's go over the bill just a little bit. So we're just adding a human growth and development to the health class that starts in the 5th grade. I have some folks concerned about the 5th career, but we know that on the 5th grade students also begin their sexual. A risk avoidance, education starts at 10th grade, which is the 5th grade, so we're already students are already getting that type of education, the sexual risk advertent education they get SARE. They're already getting in the 5th grade, so human growth and development education will start with a health class that they have in 5th grade. So we're asking schools to show an ultrasound, like I said, ultrasounds are much more clear and different than they were in the past and to show that Baby Olivia film you know some people are asking why this film because it's scientifically backed, it's been endorsed by our surgeon General and we our school boards are extremely busy. Our school boards have so much on their plate already. We don't need to be arguing about which film, which film to not do or not show. Um, so that's what we're we're suggesting to baby Olivia film, so. And it's pretty, pretty much is very short, uh. So again, this couple of things before we take questions from the committee there's absolutely no cost to school for this. The live action has granted a non-exclusive license to be used for a resource for educational purposes and perpetuity and at no cost live action has a provide the resource unbranded for educational purposes so the students, no one, none of the kids are going to see live action on the videos totally completely unbranded and it's they're in perpetuity for them to get. And uh Anything you'd like to add, Senator Penza before we take questions on there. OK, happy to take questions from the committee. The questions from the committee. Senator Bryant, oh, I'm sorry. Thank you Madam Chair. Just going through, uh, you answered my question on 5th grade. I think there was watching the discussions in the house, both in committee and on the floor, you know, this question is about 5th grade, but you say that's, that's when sexual activity typically begins to occur statistically, you know, 5th graders are getting many young girls, that's when they're starting their periods, so we're talking about puberty, so that's when we begin this class you know when it's common in public education to actually start having sexual education classes in general. 5th or 6th grade, depending, and so um we do very limited sex in Arkansas. This is really not to me it's not sexual education's for fetal development of what the baby goes through in the morning and then just another question when talking about the core shall include high definition ultrasound video and then this, uh, baby Olivia video. I guess it's a two part question. One is as far as far as parent involvement, is this an opt in or opt outs based on the school system and then is there any limitation on other videos. That can be shown that also deal with reproductive rights, reproductive the school would like to, and any parent can opt out of any, any video that they don't want their children to watch, so it's it's in current statute now for parents to opt out since we're going to mandate Baby Olivia in our in our public education there'll be a form that goes out maybe at the beginning of the school year that says here's the video parents watch it. We're going to discuss this video in class if you do not want your child to participate. Please know that you have the option to pull them out, right? of the school board wants to handle it when when the school board wants to send the notes that'll be that's perfectly capable. So if the school system decides they want to add a complimentary video. To this, they also have the mandate to send out You're going if we're going to do this video as well. Would you please sign off, yes or no that you want your child to. As told after the school board again for them to decide what they want to notify the parents on, but if they're going to add to it, yes, they would have to add another notification of parents. Senator Sullivan. Oh, OK, Senator Davis. Um, I guess I have some follow-ups to Senator Bryant's questions, um. I, I don't see an opt out. Option, um, and I think typically we do put that in statute that parents have the ability to opt out. Um, it's already in statute under the Learns Act. This already is part of the statute that we had, and that's what I was told. That's part of the learned that the parents have an opportunity to opt out of anything that they don't want their children to watch. So if that's in statute now for an opt out. In the Laws Act, that's where I was told to be able to use that, so that's what was brought up to me and I will look back through that. I don't recall that, but, um, that doesn't mean I can show you the statute that it was sent to me. I'd be happy. That would be great. Yes, thank you. Um, and then in terms of school districts being able to choose different videos. I mean, it does say that they 2 times on, you know, on page 2 and section B1 that they shall incorporate this discussion. And that it shall include these two things. Um, I don't see where it gives them leeway to include any other videos or look at other options. It just, it looks like this is the curriculum and these two things specifically the um high definition ultrasound video in the Meat Baby Olivia video are the only two things that are included in this. with no extra room and other, other videos as decided by the state board or local school boards or anything like that. It looks like it does not give that option. Well, there's standards in place, so I'm just saying as the child gets because again, they don't have health class every year. It's different years they do have it and they don't have it, but there's standards in there to add things about pregnancy and those things as the children get older, so I'm just saying as time goes on, the school wants to add more, it's in the standards. There's things that they can add in discussion. I'm just saying these are the ones we want for fetal development, so you understand what I'm saying. So in the standards for 6th grade, 7th grade, and for health class, there's more things they can add in discussion. This is the same for fetal development. We want this video to be shown. For human, but I'm just saying there's other things in health class and human growth and development. This is just one we're adding. of the fetal development section. So if you look at the standards, you'll see more things are added in there as years go on for what they can include in health class. OK, I will, I don't, I don't see that here, so I will look that up and see. Thank you. And again, I showed the video to Secretary Lee and to the governor's office to make sure there was it was on board with this, so. Senator Sullivan. So I guess I'm kind of in line with others. What I'm hearing is there's concern that school boards are locked into this and only this video, um, an options are limited, if not. Can you speak to that? Again, we're adding this is human growth and development, so we're adding this section to already current standards, so they're already current standards out there for health class as age appropriate right for them to have things about pregnancy, so there's a lot of things that are going to be discussed further on. We're just adding this to current standards, standard is is very general in nature, and one can meet the standard in multiple ways. If this limiting meeting that standard to this one video. And the ultrasound, both of those, yes, because again it's been scientifically proven this video has been approved by our surgeon General and OBGYN certified. physician here and so I believe it's a great video. Why would we want school boards have to go through and find another fetal development film that covers all these issues that's not been scientifically proven and backed by our surgeon General. I'm just making it easier and kind of the same way. We don't know why people disagree with us, but they often do, and uh you know, so we're limiting this to one. A general standard. But there's only one option to meeting it, and the school boards have no other options out there other than to do this one video that's of concern, but I understand what you're saying and there's a lot of credibility to the video. The the video has a credentialing and the credibility to stand as it is, but again that's just of my concern. Thank you. In response, I'd say Senator Sullivan, this is free of charge, and there's nothing preventing you or any other legislator from adding more to this as we go along. This is a beginning point if we've got some other legislators they want to add some more things to it, feel free, but this is a good starting point. Again, ultrasounds are new. The clarity and the imagery that we see on here is just something we've not been able to see before, but if If legislators want to add more and to education wants to add more, they're more than happy to do so. I think that's always a wise thing if legislators want to add to it, they can certainly do that. That's a good free nation. Thank God. Are there other questions? The Committee. We have a number of folks lined up to speak for and against this bill, um, so we will call your Your name, we will limit the each person to 3 minutes. And the first person is Dr. Chop. Taylor If you would identify yourself and who you're with, you'll be recognized. Punch that little button it takes for a moment. The bottom one, yeah. You punch the bottom where it says. You use that other one that's there. Thank you. What was the time limit again? 3 minutes. OK. Thank you. So uh my name is Doctor Chad Taylor, um, and I'm here speaking for myself. Um, I am a board certified obstetrician gynecologist practicing here in Little Rock. I am very grateful that you have allowed me to come and speak with you today. And I'm excited to answer any questions you may have. Uh, I took personal time off from my busy schedule because this conversation simply must be a priority. I want to start by saying that I appreciate that members of the legislature are interested in the delivery of factual scientific educational material for our wonderful citizens. There are many in this state who simply do not have access to pertinent, truthful medical information. Sadly, the baby Olivia video does not meet any of these goals. It is grossly misleading and does not provide important scientific information. It is if it were made with a political agenda in mind. In fact, it is a classic, blatant propaganda and indoctrination at its very worst. At best it is a political show and does nothing to help the people you were sent here to serve. So might I suggest that we focus on actually helping the people of Arkansas. Let's start by giving them the facts. In fact, Arkansas has the worst maternal mortality rate in the nation. Fact, Arkansas has some of the worst health care outcomes in the country. Fact, Arkansas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates, repeat teen pregnancy rates and 3 peat teen pregnancy rates in the country. Fact, Arkansas is one of the poorest and most underperforming states in the country when it comes to education and health literacy. In short, Arkansas, Arkansans are among the least healthy in the country, and their maternal outcomes reflect exactly that. So let's work together on something meaningful instead of this terrible legislation. If you would like a well produced medically sound video, I implore you to seek the assistance of a professional OBGYN department at a major academic center, such as UAMS, as the people there are experts in their fields and are proud to work both for the state and the people of Arkansas. I'm quite certain they are up to the task. I'd also like to point out that another expert organization, namely the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not support the use of this video. Thank you so much for your time and allowing me to speak to you today. Thank you very much. Um, Eric Hogan. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, doctor, would you have that seat. So are you, are you suggesting that the pictures depicted in the video are inaccurate. It's a cartoon. That's not what I asked. Yes, it's a cartoon. I agree with you, sir. I, yes, but the pictures are inadequate, inaccurate, yes. OK, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Eric Hogan OK. Hi, committee. Uh, my name is Erin Hogan and I represent family council here in Little Rock. I appreciate the time. Um, I just wanted to come here and put it on record that we 100% uh support this bill. We're grateful for Senator Penzo and Representative Bentley and uh what they're trying to do with this bill. We believe it is very important for children to be able to see uh where they came from, um, every single person in this room, um, was at this point. Uh, at, at one point in their in their life. And so I think it's really important that children are able to see that, uh, um, find it very sad that so many people here in this room, including the gentleman that just spoke, came to testify against this bill. Um, it's a video that that shows the fetal development of a human being. Um, there are numerous, numerous, um. OBGYNs across the nation. who helped put this video together, um, I'll just list a few here. Uh, the, the meat baby Olivia Olivia video was reviewed and certified by leading OBGYNs and medical professionals, including Doctor David Bolander? Uh, Doctor Donna Harrison, Doctor Tara, Sandra Lee. Doctor Katrina Firth, Michelle Cratella, MD, and Jeffrey Barrows. Fetal development education has not been controversial in other states, but if for some reason a parent does not want their child to participate in this, there are opt-out options. And that is in current statute. Um, the first section of the bill addresses, um, it's, it fits into this section of learns, and learns does give the option of allowing a parent to opt out their child, and then the second part of the bill also goes into the current statute, um, in the sex education section of code, and it also allows for parental consent. They have to have parental consent for um a participation, so that is covered in current statute, um, so we are, we're good. There, um, At one more point to consider North Dakota passed the first baby Olivia Law in 2023. In 2024, 10 other states introduced or passed similar laws, including our neighbor Tennessee. So it's a great bill. um we, we've 100% supported family counsel 100% supports it, and we would just ask for a good vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Um, let's see, Jim. is poor Everybody has had trouble with that name since I was born. We try to say wool, if you can do that, but otherwise, Wallab or I had a Chinese friend who pronounced it differently every time we we met and it finally came out wobble, and in that group of friends, that's how I'm called. Sorry, introduce yourself, you'll be recognized. Which button am I? There we go. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the There's a group of senators. Um And I'm speaking for myself. House Bill 1180. which has passed the Arkansas House, of course. Mandates adding a or any high definition ultrasound video of at least 3 minutes in length and showing vital organs in early fetal development. Into a 5th grade health and safety course along with specifically. The artistic video produced by the anti-abortion group Live Action. Entitled Meat Baby Olivia. That video partially describes human development. Before birth with some unscientifically sound claims. Arkansas's standards for health and safety instruction requires scientifically sound information. However, the state allows school districts not to teach human development and reproduction at all. So HB 1180 appears contrary to Arkansas policy and would expose many students to new information who have not studied reproductive health and With qualified teachers. There is also no provision for alerting parents or having their permission for their children to see the videos, which has been addressed by questions here just now. Moreover, students are given no option to viewing the videos. Likewise, during these videos does not require a teacher qualified to teach human development and growth. At least according to the bill. The second videos producer. rated as a low credibility organization. By media bias fact check. became famous for its deceptive investigations of reproductive care clinics. Its video does not actually show a baby in a mother's womb. Even though one of HB 1180 sponsors said so. The script of Meet Baby Olivia follows opinions appearing on the producer's website. Which states as fact that human life starts at the moment of fertilization. Which is a conviction or a religious belief. That of course deserves respect, but is not a biological or medical description which would include continuity of life from parental influences well before coit. Sir, I'm sorry, but your time is up. OK, thank you so much. Thank you very much for your comments. Um, the next person to speak for the bill is Jimmy Cain. I'm Jimmy Cavin. I'm with Arkansas First News, but I'm here as a citizen. Uh, you know, we, we have no problems. teaching plant life or animal life in schools, in fact, if we were here talking about uh uh how a calf. Progresses through the womb. This room would be empty. I don't understand why we have a problem with doing that with human life. There's nothing about indoctrination in this. This is actually biological science about the process of the human body of a baby growing in a woman's human body and that process of that baby. Now the gentleman spoke earlier ago and and I know he's talking about the AI generated. Video in Baby Olivia, right? And he called it a cartoon. Well, ultrasounds aren't cartoons. And they are included in this, but are we going to ban cartoons and IA from education. In our schools We use AI in cartoons every day in school for educational purposes. I don't see why we would ban it just because of this. We hear a lot about the timelines aren't right of what happens in the womb in this video, OK, but Can anybody deny that a baby's fingers grow in the womb. Can anybody in this room deny? That a baby at some point can hiccup. Now I don't know if that's 12 weeks and, and one day and 5 minutes and 30 seconds, that happens. But I know a baby can hiccup in the womb. Can anybody deny that a baby can start to bras, grasp and play in the womb. Uh, nobody can deny that, so the arguments about The exact timeline to when these incur in the room, I think are disingenuous. We're talking about the process. Uh, as far as. What doctors agree and disagree with accuracies, you can have that all day long. But I think you've got the surgeon General of this state that says, hey, this is fine. Now I will go back to school boards and what they do have the right to do. This is set up as a standard, so to say that, so I want to make clear school boards can add other stuff to this. All they have to do is meet the standards set. It's up to them, so to speak, on curriculum. Now there is an argument, hey, this established curriculum, but this isn't a class you take on a yearly basis. This starts at 5th grade with discussions, but make no mistake, school boards set the curriculum, so if the school board feels like they want to add something to this. And as long as they meet the standard. Then they can do that. That's part of their powers and duties, right? In Title 6. So they can do that. So in short, I would just say, This bill is not indoctrination. It's science about human life. Why wouldn't we teach it? And I'm glad to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your comments. I don't want to take that with me though. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify a point that if school boards want to add to the standards we just heard from the bill sponsor that the standards are specifically and high definition ultrasound video in a 3 minute video made by Live Action, live action. That is the standard. There is no. Adding to it without legislation. There is nothing else that can be done here except showing a high definition ultrasound in a 3-minute video made by live action. Shown to 5th graders all the way up to 12th grade. There is no wiggle room. That is the standard. What is controversial here is not human growth and development. I have 4 children from kindergarten to 11th grade in public schools. We have been talking to them about sex and genders and all the things that we see in society since they were like in 1st or 2nd grade. We've had those conversations. That's not what's controversial. It's how humans grow and how they're developed. I think that's great and I think that's something we could be talking about in schools. But the way that we will be talking about it in schools is through a high definition ultrasound and a 3 minute video made by live action. That is not discussion. That is not wiggle room. That is how human growth and development will be discussed and depicted in our public schools from 5th graders to 12th graders, if we pass this. And I just, it, it really makes me frustrated and angry because this bill is being framed up to be if you're pro-life. Or pro-choice. If you're for abortion or if you're not, let me tell you, I am pro-life. I am not for abortion. I'm not, and I vote that way, but that's not what this is. Me being against this bill and thinking that it's not right. To say this is how we define human growth and development in public schools does not make me pro-choice. Or anti-life, however you want to say it, we're going to say anti-abortion. I'm going to say anti-life. It does not make me anti-life. I am pro-life and I think we should be discussing this in a different way in the classroom. So to say that this isn't controversial, you like the way that this debate is being framed right now is that if you're against this, then you are anti-life, and that is simply not the case. We are having a discussion, a conversation about the way that kids are taught about human growth and development, and let me tell you, I had 4 kids. I've had 2 miscarriages. I go to a doctor who shares my values, and when I go in and he tells me about the development of all 4 of my children. It was not the way this video depicted it. So we're going to be teaching children about development in a way that when they go see their OB-GYN. The doctor will not tell them the same thing. And that is what is controversial. That is what I have a problem with. It's not about the human growth and development portion of this bill because that is good. We should be talking to kids about that. I think that's great for health classes, but let's not try to turn this into something that it is not and back people into a corner. To support something that is not honest or true about the bill. I wanted to clarify that because I've heard it from several people who have testified on this bill just now that I just wanted to clarify that because you can't just add to it. It is very specifically depicted in this bill, what that includes. And unless somebody runs another bill, that is all that it will include. Thank you for the leeway, Madam Chair. Are there any other questions? Comment See Jan Hart. OK, which one do you want? The identify yourself, you'll be recognized and you have 3 minutes. OK, thank you. Can you all hear me? OK. Uh, I'm Jan Hart and I am a retired medical librarian with 40 years of experience in working with uh teaching people about bodies, teaching people about health, showing the human body medical imagery, um, Medical information that goes along with it. I do not object at all that you all are providing students with appropriate agent and grade level accurate information on um inception on the development of embryo, that's great. I think that is a very good thing to do and doing it with video is great because that is what really helps students understand what's going on, but it is inappropriate to require of the video that is inaccurate and misleading with its information. Excuse me, I'm sorry. An important part of um the information on this is live action says right on the front of it exists today to shift public opinion on the killing of preborn children. I mean, that's what they say they are. That's who made this video, and to that end, they have chosen to use inaccurate information on important topics such as when the fetal heartbeat. Because uh detectable at what point a fetus can survive outside the room. It shows um very, I don't care whether you can call them, um, AI or cartoons, they are. person created images that make it very, have you guys looked at this actually I don't, OK, uh, it gives you a very different idea of what a child is like at a different ages, and they have definitely chosen to move the time period down, so it's, it is a an accuracy on their part. Um, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as we know, have identified those inaccuracies, and they have shared it with the video creators and those who are considering this program. But other states are just like us. Some have gone with it, and there are those who are still out there wondering what to do because they're confronted with the same thing about the accuracy of the depiction of the time frame. So They, like us, are trying to figure out is this really educational fact-based program, or is it indoctrination? I'm sorry, out there, um, that they are choosing their message versus the fat. It would be very easy for them to straighten up their time frame. Thank you very much for your comments. Carol Egan. Hi, my name's Carol Lee, and I'm speaking as an individual. I spoke in front of the House committee and It was very unsuccessful, so I'm going to try again, and I'm gonna, because I'm limited in time, just narrow it down to the inaccuracy of the video. I don't know if you guys can see this or if I can pass it around, but what I've done is compare. A 12 week fetus that is an actual 3D ultrasound of a, of a 12 week fetus to the visual I'm the baby Olivia video, and I can pass this around on. In actual development at 12 weeks. This child, this fetus is 3 inches long and weighs 1 ounce. Um, this looks like it's a baby doll about to be born. Um, at 20 weeks. Um, again, same comparison, um, the baby now, according to medical science, is 6 inches long and weighs 9 ounces, according to baby Olivia, this child can survive outside the womb. That is very dangerous and misleading information. Um, the fact of the matter is that the chances of a 20 week baby surviving 5 to 6% chance that they would live at all outside the wound and then a 99% chance that if they did live they would then die, so why on earth? Why on earth would we share that kind of information? with our children. I, that's what mystifies me about this. When, when, as the doctor earlier could earlier said we could give them true scientific fact. We could give them good information. We could put the timeline appropriate with what the obstetricians and gynecologists recommend, why do we not do this? Why is this video misleading. I think as you're considering voting on this, you really need to ask yourself, Why do we care so much about fetuses and so little about the children after they're born. And I would take any questions. And do you want to see these? I'm happy to pass this around. OK. Um, Scott. Pillman Um, is that Bale show choked. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Gail Choate, and I am a lifetime educator, uh, and I'm here to speak against the bill for a couple of very specific reasons. The first reason is as was pointed out a little bit earlier. The bill that concerns me greatly because it limits the opportunity for school boards the Department of Education to determine appropriate sources of curriculum. According to the Arkansas Department of Education in Arkansas, the selection of textbooks is primarily managed at a local school district level. Each district is allowed to appoint an instructional materials selection committee composed mainly of licensed educators, including classroom teachers. This committee is responsible for choosing instructional materials that best meet the needs of their students. Further, according to the Arkansas legislature, the Arkansas Department of Education provides guidance by offering a list of suggested materials, but districts have the autonomy to select resources that will align with their educational goals and the state's curriculum. framework. Finally, this decentralized approach allows districts to tailor their instructural materials to the specific needs and contexts of their student populations. My mom used to always say there's no such thing as a free lunch. Any time something is being offered by a private organization under the onus that it is free, there's something going on besides that. I argue that one of the major problems with this bill is that it limits the instructional material to one specific company with one specific point of view. And by not charging for it are giving themselves the latitude and the flexibility to make changes. There is nothing in this statute in the bill that is coming before you that precludes the spot, the producers of this video from making changes at any time. There's nothing that says a addition a version, a publication number and requires any subsequent changes to it to be approved by either the Board of Education, the local school districts, nor this legislative body. So I put forth that this bill is a bad bill for a lot of reasons, but number one is because it is taking away the power that the legislature has endowed upon the local school districts as As well as our Department of Education and doing so is bad for Arkansans. I thank you very much for your time, and I welcome any questions that you might have. Are there any questions from the committee? Thank you very much. Thank you. Doctor Whitall. OK. You will identify yourself, you'll be recognized. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Whithall. I'm a board certifiedneonatologist, which is a fancy term for a baby doctor, and I care for babies as young as 22 weeks who are born as young as 22 weeks' gestation. My area of research is neonatal pain. Uh, a couple of things that the hours is late, a couple of things that I want to emphasize about the video. It is extremely inaccurate. I have a whole page full of inaccuracies, and I think most of them have been have been delineated. I think probably the most, one of the most representative of the written accuracies. It's when they talk about a baby who is or a fetus that is at 11 weeks gestation who is approximately 18 g, which is a little more than 0.5 ounce and who is about 2 inches long is playing in the womb. That's just simply not true, and people that have suffered through a miscarriage, things like that, that is. very that would be very difficult on those families that have to deal with that if they think they're miscarriage is a baby that is essentially playing in the womb. The second thing that I want to talk about as a general pediatrician, which I did for 14 years. Taking this video, which is set to music and which is obviously something that is pro-life and which is something that really glorifies motherhood. is very, very concerning. Now I love motherhood. I've got 4 natural born children and 5 adopted children, so I think motherhood is a wonderful thing. It's also wonderful when they leave the house, so I'm now an empty nester, uh, so, so, uh, but the other thing that I'm very concerned about. This has the potential at least the way that this is set to music and the way this is advertised as to really glorify motherhood. to a 5th grader who may have a very mature body, but the mind of an 11 or 12 year old and who may be getting pressure from a 13 or 14 year old boyfriend to become a mother. I think this is terrible. This is a terrible thing to show to our kids for those two reasons, and I think that's an unintended consequence of this video. Thank you. You very much for your comments. That's all we have for and against. So Committee Where are you? Are you prepared to close for your bill? We are, Madam Chair. Um, I'd, I'd like to start out in Mary will finish up. Um, there was mention about is this age appropriate. I know when I was in 5th grade, it was roughly 1985 and we, we had Uh, sex education discussion on STDs, pretty graphic videos at the time and this CGA CGI is pretty light compared to the videos I saw in 5th grade, um. I think, I think we need to discuss and clarify the the timelines, um. This, this is true cell biology. It was mentioned that um it's a, uh, faith or religious belief that fertilization begins, uh, uh, life, um, that's, that's cell biology when the egg and sperm come together, that's a unique individual that sell is unique from both its parents and and it and it is alive and it uh a sale you cannot argue that a cell is not alive. I mean, it's like I said, basic basic cell biology, um, a woman's cycle, um, The medical, the doctors will say, when was your? Last period. And that's the timeline they're based on this, this video is basing on when an egg is fertilized. I think one of the biggest fears from Pro-abortion individuals is that this video dispels the whole uh clump of cells argument that they use, oh, it's, it's not a baby, it's just a clump of cells. This video is accurate based on science, and shows the development of an embryo into a into a baby, so I think that uh people can say it's inaccurate. It's, it's very accurate, um, I mean, I'm, I'm not a doctor. I don't, but uh I did, I did uh study and, you know, taught anatomy and physiology for 3 years. I studied microbiology, cell biology, uh, mechanics human movement. I mean, I understand the body very well. I do have a health care background, so I think, I think that the arguments that are being brought up. That it's not accurate or completely wrong. This is a very accurate video shows the development of a child, and I, I think it uh I don't think there's anything in the video that Or any anything in this bill that would prohibit. Other videos from being shown. I don't know what the enabling language looks like that existing code for videos, but I know that this bill would not prevent other videos from being shown. that Mary follow up. Thank you again, you know, uh, when a woman goes to her obstetrician and she's trying to figure out the last time we last menstrual period was is it can be a different, a different time, so women drop eggs at different times. This does not, it's not trying to base it on an obstetrician's visit. This is trying to base it on biological facts. We're talking about biological facts from the egg and the sperm come together. That's when we're going to start discussing the age of the embryo and of the fetus that's developing in the womb. That's why it's based on those ages. In fact, I've known with my daughters who have gone in there and thought they had the right. time period for the baby going on the ultrasound, they changed the date of the delivery. I think the date of delivery gets changed all the time based on the ultrasound. So this is not trying to be a visit to the obstetrician. There's nothing at all preventing the teacher from discussing the differences of as the girls go along as what happens in the obstetrician's office base versus this video. So this is scientifically based video of when the egg and the sperm come together. It's a biological film based on fetal development. I think it's a wonderful video. I think it'd be great for our kids to start seeing what fetal development looks like. Because now we can see what fetal development looks like along with the ultrasound. This is just the beginning. I hope we add more to this as a registered nurse and a nurse that worked at CVICU and often went into NICU and saw teeny tiny infants there. It's a spectacular thing for our kids to see, so I think it opens up the discussion in a great way. Other states have allowed this as well. Again, it would be an unredacted copy sent to our schools free of charge, live action will not be mentioned whatsoever on this film. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Are you closed? I'm closed. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. And again, I would just say one final thing that you know, Kay Chandler, our surgeon general, a board certified OBGYN who's worked in Arkansas for over 30 years. She supports this film 100%, so thank you. Thank you very much. What is the will of the committee? I, I would motion to pass with discussion. OK. On their this discussion. What do we need a second for that? Wait a second. There is no second. Did you second it? OK, all in favor. Well, the discussion. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a Um, as a co-sponsor on this bill, I watched the video. I On the drive home last week since this went through the House last week uh pull up the videos and I try to listen to the testimony of both of our colleagues in the House and Senate. I'm sorry, our House Education Committee and I think the conversation today that's generating some concern to me on a on a maybe a macro level. Um, you know, I, I have a, a nephew that was born super premature, like the I'm surprised they even make diapers. That fit on this child because it was like almost the tip of my pencil, it seems like it was that small in my hand. And they obviously he is, he has had his setbacks, but he's maturing and starting to walk and he's going to pull through and that may not be the case for everything, but while, while I, I think it's somewhat entertaining to to see experts in their field, scientific communities disagree in opposition. You saw that with, you see that with vaccines, you see that obviously with human development and growth. I think my my concern would be the clarification that Schools can Provide other options for discussion on human growth and what does that look like, but secondary is we we might agree or I might agree with live action today. Even though it's not on the video and it's and it's pushed through. I may agree with it today. But I'm not going to be here in several years and what if live action. Become something that I don't agree with tomorrow. And so I think to. If we're going to go into the next steps of what this looks like for our education system. That would be my concern is live action tomorrow may change their stance, and it may be, you know, to To our detriment That we are mandating this to be taught in our schools and then not having the ability for our schools to have other options, so that would be my my discussion I'd like to have with my colleagues. Yeah Thank you and I'm Appreciate that and I appreciate your comments that people are trying to hijack the conversation uh that often happens down here that we get off of the topic of what this is about. The, the my struggle is with identifying one particular For whether it's live action, whether it's this video that has very few options for local school districts and local people to amend. That's what I'm struggling with, but I, you know, I think the topic is. Uh, very much needed, I think some of the testimony was very off targeted and to me offensive that they would try to hijack this opportunity for us to have this discussion. Um, and set it one sided. But again, I'm struggling with the, the single point of whether or not we offer in there any options outside of this one video and this one format. Senator Dawson. Thank you, Madam Chair and Just As part of the discussion overall, I hear the concerns in particular with with regards to a video that Is designated by a single organization that we're putting into code, uh. The video as it exists. I've watched it and I think it's. It's good and I think it's good information that we need to. Um Have in front of our students as far as human development. Oh If you're, if you're going to make any changes to it, that would be the the thing that I would like we do with many other things, maybe put a date on this that says Um This video as it existed today so that it can't be hijacked in the future. So I'm not exactly sure if you want to make any changes to this and maybe pull it back and and. Add some of that clarifying language, but that would be one of the suggestions I would have if you do. will of the committee for us to pull it and make that adjustment, we can do that. I'm fine with this making sure that it's the video as it exists today. It is an unredacted version that comes to the school completely unrejected. They were down low, so it's not like it's going to be something that is going to change down the road. So if you want us to clarify that in language, I'm happy to pull it today and bring it back clarified, but again, I think it's vitally important for us to get this education. I'll leave it to Senator Pennzoto. So you're going to pull the bill down? We'll pull the bill and make some to to clarify and to get some other clarifying language for uh my colleagues who want to make sure that there is other human development study just for them to clarify it, we'll pull it back and bring it back another day that will pull it down and bring it back. Thank you. Uh, Senator Flowers. I, I'm trying to understand this process. motion was made. Do pass with discussion. I didn't think that that would allow the presenter, the sponsor to participate in my in in the discussion and I call for a vote. With I withdraw my motion. He's withdrawn his motion. But drop the second. Thank you. OK. I make a motion do not pass. There is no second. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, OK. I'm sorry I missed your missed your hand, OK? Um, is there any discussion? Yeah, just clarify for me, so we have a motion do not pass. So a yes vote means we don't pass it. A no vote means The motion fails. The motion fails, OK. Are you run that by me again. One more time, means there's a motion do not pass. A yes vote means the motion passes and we don't pass the bill. A no vote means the motion fails, and there the and there is no motion on the floor to pass the bill. So they it fails on the on the because there is no motions like right it fails lack of emotion. Senator Davis, thank you. But they can regardless bring it back if it doesn't pass or whatever, OK. Thank you. All right. What if we pulled it down already. All those in favor? All post. The nose happens. Go ahead. Senator Flowers. Yes Senator Davis, yes. Senator Murdoch, yes. Senator Dodson, no. Senator King. Senator King, Senator Bryant, no. Senator Sullivan, no. I Yeah, ain't no, I mean, yes, yes. Yes The eyes have it. Beg your pardon? I You know There's 4 eyes and 3 nays. said. For For Point of order. If, if we said we're going to pull the bill down, why are we still voting? So we had motion on the floor. There was another motion on the floor. They took their motion. OK. So we had a motion on the floor, so what is the question here, Senator Johnson? You need 5. To pass a bill. So you need 5 for motion. They he he the prohibited from trying to influence. How this committee operates. It might be not pass. I don't think you're on education, are you? Flowers and Senator Penzo, they do not pass. It only requires a majority. The majority of the committee, well, more of whoever's here to vote. Majority of the quorum. I do not pay your motion passed, yes. Thank you. You You stayed there, Mary, because you've got another bill. We have one more bill. We have one more bill right. We OK, everybody, everybody. Please leave quietly. Thank you very much. Representative Bentley, you are, uh, Proceed with House Bill 1215. Thank you, Chairman. This is a, a minor amendment that was asked by my superintendent. This is a minor amendment to a bill that I passed in this committee last year to make sure we keep our girls safe in the bathroom, so my, uh, when it came down to rulemaking, we realized we didn't have a provision in the bill to allow coaches to go on the bathroom, so we made a, this is just simply allowing coaches to go in a halftime following certain provisions to make sure that girls are clothed and the coaches come the uh team captains come and let the coach know it's clear in the bathroom, and we get allowed to. into the bathroom if they are the coaches to talk to the girls at halftime, so it's just something the superintendents and the coaches have asked me to bring. you This is House Bill 120. No. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you, Chairman, again. OK, so House Bill 12215 is an amendment to a bill that I passed last session to make sure that the girls and the boys' bathroom and the boys in the boys' bathroom, and we did not have a provision in there to allow for coaches to come in at halftime to talk to the girls at halftime, so this is an amendment that was brought forth to me by the superintendents in our in the AAA to make sure we can get coaches in there at halftime. There are provisions to make sure all the girls are clothed and the team captain comes out to let them know the girls are all clothed, and now we're going to allow two coaches to come in at halftime to speak to the girls. of opposite sex like the girls' basketball team. So this has brought forth to me by them, approved by everyone I know with no opposition and appreciate a good vote. Other questions from the committee. Motion the proper time. This is the proper time. I mean your clothes for your bill. I'm close. Second. All they were all. Thank you very much. You've passed your bill. Thank you committee. Thank you, Chairman. Did you find out? Sit back down here a minute. Oh, I'm gonna. Madam Chair, on the previous bill, the motion to expunge requires the same threshold as it does or the motion to do not pass requires a majority just like it requires a majority. To do pass, so that would be 5 votes according to that motion sheet. It's the same majority and doesn't delineate whether it's a majority of the quorum or a majority of the committee, but it still says majority, and I would contend that last vote did not have a majority of the committee. the community in the. And my chair has already ruled. And you have this out, is that correct? Heard a gamble. I was telling people, please be quiet. Oh, I didn't hear that. I thought you said. Yeah She didn't say a germ. Well Excuse me, go ahead. I think we already ruled your. I think the majority is majority it's a definition for majority and that of the members present. So, I would motion to expunge the vote which do not pass. And how many do you need for that majority. 5 Well, you're ruling for it. The We need 5. It would need 4 if if you're saying a majority is 4. If it passed with 4, you can expunge with 4. boy. So, so we're saying that that. It couldn't pass before because we didn't have 5, but this could pass. If we don't have 5. Is that what we're saying? For this vote and 5 for the last vote. Yeah, I would say there's no reason to expunge if we had to have 5 for the last vote because it didn't pass. But And I would say why this attention matters is she can't. You can't, you can't kill the bill it mattered either way when we voted. Cause I asked for that clarification, like can they still bring it back no matter what, but I'm actually not sure if it passes with a do not pass. It's dead. I don't think they can bring it back up, and that would change. How I voted on that. I didn't think we were permanently killing it. I just Like, so I think that I do think that's why this debate matters, so you understand exactly. If it's dead or not. Yes, Senator Flowers. I would make a lot. To the next week. OK. Have a Definite answer. whether that vote was uh In order or not. No. Yeah, I, I wanna be, yeah we're probably one side or the other. the. We do have a motion and a second on the floor to expunge the boat. And that would, that would take care of it either way, and we could find that information out for for the future. What the rule is it What the rule is a lot of things so. Well, I ask that the parliamentarian. I have a view of the rules that you do. So the parliamentarian is the one that should be. Uh, look to To provide us an answer. And when I asked for that earlier, we didn't stop the meeting to get. I did. I asked for parliamentary inquiry to expunge the vote. And we can we can make them, we can make that boat and the parliamentarian can rule on that as well, whether it's valid or not. Pardon? That you're talking about. We haven't had the vote yet. We had abortion in the 2nd sponge and how many votes does that take? We don't know, so I asked for a part of it's the same boat, take 5 or We don't know, so I asked for a part of it's the same boat, take 5 like you can see the rule sheet right there. I just read it like that. I don't think any of you all have been designated parliamentarian. So are you, are you going to acknowledge the motion to expunge? Yes. My substitute motion. Go ahead. Be of the parliamentarian. As to What's the rule should be. For motion do not pass. for emotion. Yes. And I have a substitute substitute motion. Oh my gosh, OK we can go back and forth to all we want, but the parliamentarian can move the parliamentarian can move both either way, but I think it's incumbent upon. This body to send to the parliamentarian with the vote. I want to know what the vote is to explain it. If it's 5 or 4. I just want to know. Well I just said that. Well, I want to vote. You don't want to vote, I want to vote. I make a, you've just introduced a substitute motion. To inquire about the parliamentarian what the vote count should be to a when there is not. 8 members. That sounds like a substitute substitute motion if we vote to expunge the vote. And I have a substitute substitute. So, so, yeah, point of order. Is the Senate parliamentarian here today? Not here. To the substitute bullshit and you accepting that. That we have clarity on all the previous motions and motions. Oh, before we go forward. I. Second Uh Madam Chair, I'd be recognized. Yes I would suggest that we take a 2 minute recess and see if we can get the parliamentarian who should be one floor away down here to clarify this before we. We can do that we can take a 5 minute recess and and get the parliamentarian. So. That Is that my job? You can do that. You can. Jim, are you going to get him? Adjournment or from recess because I So just, just for clarity. Should we gavel back into Thank you, Madam Chair. I withdrew my motion. There was a new motion made to do not pass. It requires by my understanding the parliamentarian requires still requires 5 members of the committee. Only 4 members. It was 4 to 3. And the chair ruled that the motion passes. Do we need to rescind that. I'm not sure how we do that. Go back and rescind the motion that was made that you made. You want to make that motion. What do you need emotion if you had a parliamentarian to tell you. He's standing right there. What does she need to do? I would just rescind your ruling. Clarify your rule. That it was that the motion failed. OK. You don't need it. That's right. The motion failed. Your motion failed Her do not pass motion failed. You, you don't have OK we took you without through it, OK, alright, so that do not pass and for clarity as to Senator Davis asked if a motion of do not pass were to pass out of this committee with 5 votes. That bill could not come back to committee. Is that correct? So that I think you all have committee rules, is that correct. Yes, we did. It would have to be it requires an expungement. That So do not pass it, it would require an expungement for you to consider it again. It looks like for your committee rules. And the and that experiment would take. But they do not pass fail, so it's not. It, it failed so she's taking it back. She said She's just taking it down for today and she can bring back. OK. All right. That's it. I think we've we've muddled through this. We are adjourned.