Education Committee- House

name. Amen. Amen. Members and guests, welcome to House Ed, uh, if you are wishing to speak for or against the bill, please make sure you sign up on the uh in the lobby and we'll have that uh presented here shortly, uh, members, we are going to hear two bills this morning, HB 1005 from Representative Ray and HB 1060 by Representative Richardson were passing over 1085 uh from Representative Brown pending some additional conversations with DFNA, uh, so, uh, Representative Ray, you're recognized present HB 1005. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, committee members. House Bill 1005. This bill updates the National Guard tuition waiver program, uh, and improves it by allowing guardsmen to use it for a post-secondary credential or certificate. In addition to strictly just a degree-seeking program. Uh, by way of background, the National Guard tuition waiver program was created in 2017. It was actually created by my predecessor, Representative Doug House, who many of you know, um, or served with and um that was actually replaced uh a program called GTIP, the guard tuition incentive program. Um, but it was created essentially as, as an employee benefit, uh, a lot of surrounding states had similar programs and obviously the armed forces, one of their um all of the armed forces, one of their primary uh challenges is recruitment and retention and um obviously active duty, uh, military has the GI bill and so this was created really as um a retention and recruitment tool. It's been very successful since that time, um, each. year approximately 400 to 500 guardsmen participate in the tuition waiver program. Um, but the program currently only allows for the tuition waiver to be used by those enrolled in a degree producing program. But we know obviously there's a lot of worthwhile credentials and certificates out there that folks can earn that, uh, help with workforce development, skills development, help move people into uh profession where they want to be, where they're earning more money than before and help them provide for their families, um, so just some examples of programs that have those types of certificates that are not necessarily degree seeking or things like HVAC, uh, EMT, welding, uh. Elements of manufacturing like machining, CNC, quality control. Auto mechanic uh certificates diesel technician, collision repair specialist, high voltage linemen, there's a, a long list. You can probably go to your two-year college's website and find uh a lengthy list there. Just 2 points I would make about, uh, about this idea. Number one, I see this as a, a step forward in terms of workforce development. Yeah, I think by this point we've all come around to um understanding that there's a big need for more people in the skilled trades. We obviously need more people going to college and earning degrees, but we really need people all up and down that, that continuum of credentials, whether it's a certificate or certification or an associate's degree or um undergraduate masters, etc. Um, but secondly, you know, our guardsmen, um, we, we do this program, uh, for them because they are some of our finest Arkansans. Um, these are folks who um are in prime position to take advantage of this benefit because they're service minded, they're trained to pay attention to detail, um, and they don't mind hard work, and they are here for us when we have storms and tornadoes. And ice storms they're at the southern border when they're asked to be there, they do all sorts of things and, and this is uh uh a very successful program that I think we can make even better for them. Um And I just wanted to kind of give you the backstory on where this idea came from. I was touring Pulaskiack about 3 years ago and um at the time the, the previous president, Dr. Ellerby, I was having a conversation with her and I asked her how the implementation of the program was going. And her answer was she said it's going OK. And I, I, you know, that was a little bit of a red flag. OK, is not a, not the, the highest superlative you could use to describe something. I said, so tell me what you mean by that. She said, well, I think it could be better. And I said, in what way? And, and this was what she described to me, uh, that there was a lot of things that folks were potentially missing out on. And so that's what formed this idea. Um And I've had a lot of great conversations with, with folks, um, both in, uh, both at Pulaski Tech and in the two-year college community also with the National Guard. I've uh discussed this at length with adjutant General Chad Bridges and, um, I think there's broad support for this idea, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. If there's questions beyond my technical capacity. There are some folks here from, uh, from the National Guard and, um, and higher ed as well that can help answer questions. Thank you, Representative Ray. Representative Meeks recognized for a question. Language term. Um, uh, Representative, uh, what's the, uh, what the, the funding source for this. OK, good question. All right, so the funding, the funding source, uh, there's, it's appropriated from the higher education grants fund account, that's with the um Uh, Department of Education's division of higher ed. Um, there is an appropriation, um, each year, um, uh, there's a, a lot, I believe it's a line item in the RSA of 1.4 million. That's set aside for the program, um, in some years they spend, they've spent less than that in some years they've spent a little bit more, um, in the years that they've spent a little bit more, it's just been covered by the department. There is a governor's letter this year that is providing 3 $3 million to the program. Um, to be added to higher ed and so, um, they're Yeah, they can speak to that if they want, but there's, um, there's there's adequate money there to, to cover it. All right, thank you. Representative, I is there a cap on the grants? I know you said that there's governor's letter relative to 3 million, but on these, uh, should, should it continue to exceed and this be more successful than just OK. Is there a cap on the grants at all? Um, there's a cap on how much each individual guardsmen can utilize, uh, once you've earned a total grants, I should have clarified apologies. I don't think so, but there is a limit on how much of the benefit that's allotted to each individual and some obviously choose not to avail themselves of it, but. Representative Nazarenko, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my question when I was reading through it, I saw that uh the cap 11 cap that was kind of mentioned was the bachelor, so if they've got a bachelor's or above, then they are not eligible to utilize this is that, is that true? That's right. um I don't know what happened to my mic there, but in the, um, in the original bill in 2017, it laid out all of the qualifications that you have to meet and that portion, uh, is actually in the in this bill. Um, in the existing language you can see there, um. But yes, one of the qualifications is that they cannot have already earned an undergraduate degree. OK, uh, in order to be eligible for the program. That's how I was understanding it too, and I think my only concern with that or my only You know, thought process was if, if that, um, guardsmen had a a bachelor's already and then something happened to life altering event happened, they weren't able to go into that avenue then we're kind of limiting them. They may be able to get an HVAC or into, you know, plumbing or whatever certification program and this would kind of not allow them is that, is that a correct statement? Well. You're correct in describing how it works. Um, I'm not changing any of the eligibility for the program that was already in the, the 2017 law, but I think going forward, that's something to consider because of the, you know, kind of the hypothetical circumstance you, you described. And I do know that some of them, some of the guardsmen reservists, veterans, they do have life altering events that happen and in that degree that they have, you know, even if it was a master's degree, sometimes isn't valid for what they're needing to do. So that was my only concern with that. I thought it was a Great, great, uh, great ideas and I think would make some good positive impacts. Thank you for that. Thank you. Are there additional members uh questions by last year McKenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, Representative Ray, I want to begin by commending you for bringing this bill. Is it, is it your belief for the National Guard's belief for um workforce at commerce or um anyone at AD that this is actually a force multiplier. I mean, if we get no guardsmen into a certification or some kind of um. Uh credential, it could also lead them down the path of achieving that two-year associates, that 4-year or that terminal degree. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, one thing that I would point out is that a lot of these shorter term credentials and certificates are stackable, right? So you earn that certificate of proficiency, right? That may only take you one semester to complete and then you can take a few more classes and then it becomes a technical certificate, you know, after a year, and then you can keep working toward an associate's degree and so forth. So, um, this is, this is pretty similar, um. from a policy standpoint to what we did with the constitutional amendment on the lottery, allowing those funds to be used for skilled trades last last session. And then the voters approved that with, with 90%, uh, almost 90% at the ballot in November. So I think, um, There's wide recognition that these sorts of um workforce credentials, um, bring a lot of value. Very good. Thank you. Thank you for your time and thank you for this bill. Representative Ray has explained his builder additional questions, sorry, Representative Barnett recognize. Yes, I did have a question, I guess in regards to some people that may join the National Guard after they've completed their bachelor's degree. Uh, is there a particular reason why you would not, um, make this eligible for people that want. You know I was not I was not in the legislature in 2017 when, when that was when it was set up that way. Um If I had to hazard a guess as to why they set it up that way. It was probably due to funding concerns, you know, because, you know, um, Representative Bo and Meeks and back. I'm looking at some of the folks that would have been here at around that time. The budgets were quite a bit tighter back then, um, the surpluses weren't quite as large, and so I think they were probably trying to Craft the program in a way that it wouldn't have an enormous cost, um. But you, you raise a good point similar to the one that that Representative Nazarenko raised about You know, maybe we should have a discussion about. What all this could apply to in the future. Thank you Represent vault, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think in previous legislation. There are some um probably restrictions, right? Like. So I'm wanting to know, are we gonna restrict or we like on what the certificates could be or is cake decorating going to be a certificate that they can get or 101 and the kitchen or whatever it might be, or is, is it gonna be restricted to workforce development type things. So, I have not drafted this in a way to basically micromanage which certificates and, and um which course work they can complete, um, I think this is a population of folks that's On the whole, extremely responsible, and I, I trust our guardsmen that enroll to, um, have a good sense of what brings value for economic value for them and their family. There are some certificates in, you know, culinary arts, for example, um, things of that nature, you know, you can get a certificate in um food safety and dietary management, things of that nature, um. Uh, but I, I think those bring. Economic value as well. I'll recognize you at that time. Members, thank you for the questions. We have one person signed up to speak for the bill, uh, Madam Chancellor, do you still want to speak on the bill? for me to Up to you. You recognize if you would please introduce yourself and then uh proceed. Thank you so much, um, I, I just want to share one experience I've had recently, many of you are fami you would you would recognize yourself to Chancellor, University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College. I've had uh some good experiences recently with the hired grant process where we were expected to receive commitment letters from our industry partners as part of that process and in doing so and working with companies such as Deso Falconett, Myo, Southwest Power Pool, and Entergy, they are all very much asking for individuals who have been through any level of military training. But they are also uh wanting them to be in a skill set that is appropriate for those types of jobs and I think what Representative Ray is doing is opening up opportunity. It does have a physical impact, but there is money in the account, but it is relatively small because of this is a last stack as we call it and the financial aid world and representative Ray, you've done a great job of describing higher ed. You claimed you didn't know much about this, that's not true. He did an amazing job about this could be a gateway opportunity for many guards, men and women who have not pursued higher education. So thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the bill. Thank you, Chancellor Pro. Are there any questions for the Chancellor? See none, Representative Ray, or would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for the bill and thank you for all the questions and your attention this morning. Representative Ray is closed for his bill. We have a motion do pass all in favor CI all opposed. Congratulations, Representative Ray, your bill is passed. Thank you. Members moving on and next we'll recognize uh Representative I'm happy to take up, no worries. members, I believe you're getting a fiscal impact on this. Amendment, sorry, OK. Representative Richardson, uh, so I guess that she would have meant what I said and so you're recognized to present your amendment, please. Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Chairman and committee for hearing that this bill this morning. Excuse me, um, uh, first up, you have your, uh, an amendment in all of our due diligence and back and forth and uh revisiting and revisiting. We managed to overlook that, uh, the, uh, initial. Statement said for this to take effect in the school year 2425 instead of 25, 26. So we're amending that to uh to take effect next year, next school year instead of this school year, uh, and I'd appreciate a good vote on that. Maybes or questions on the amendment. What's the will of the committee? Have a motion. Uh, from Representative Painter do pass the uh the amendments. All in favor say aye. All opposed. All right, Representative Richardson, you remember his past, you're recognized now to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair and committee. uh, House Bill 1060 this morning, uh, before you is uh a bit of a remake from a bill that we, uh, ran, uh, in the previous session that this committee overwhelmingly passed out and also the House overwhelmingly passed out unfortunately, our friends on the Senate end ran out of time and we were not able to take up this matter and so it died on the, on that end, uh, but, uh, obviously it's still relevant and still important and felt like that we should bring it back and uh try to make another run at it, uh, so I would appreciate, um, any questions, concerns that the committee has just as a brief um overview, essentially this bill, um, I, uh, the very similar to the previous bill in that it approaches the instruction of autocratic and communist style uh governments and approaches them from a let's see what history has taught us about this and that they are very challenging uh to have uh they have failed under. So many different environments, uh, and, and they are, they have created uh a very anti-people. kind of approach killing millions of hundreds of millions of their own citizens throughout history, um, and, and this is important that we obviously that we that we teach the historical approach, but this bill goes a little bit further and also approaches the positivity of what we have in the United States, which is a constitutional republic. I spent quite a bit of time uh looking through our online curriculum for the Department of Ed's website and I was unable to find a single reference. to constitutional republic. I find many references to um our our democratic approach or democrat ideas, but I found no real reference uh to constitutional republic. It's entirely possible that I overlooked them, or that I missed them, but the prevalence of the uh of the democratic approaches to our um to our government style were there, but yet I didn't see the the Constitutional republic, and I think it's extremely critical that we provide the opportunity to understand the differences in democracy, true democracy, and the constitutional republic and the resiliency of the constitutional republic to adapt to the people's will. That's the big difference that we miss and I hate to get on my civics lesson, but um that's the big that's the big miss in this opportunity is that there are democrat ideas, democratic ideas. Like poles and going and voting that are critical to our constitutional republic, but the restrictions Imposesed by the Constitution on the government makes the people the leader as opposed to all other forms of government where we see the government in charge of the people and so I think that's uh the the critical component and adding that uh additional piece of this instruction to this bill was was really a good get in my opinion, maybe a little disappointed we didn't get it through the last time, but being able to add that value to this bill, this round, I think was uh was uh extremely. important. So, um, the other piece of this we also uh want to uh reinforce the idea which I was unable to find as well, uh, the idea that our republic is only as strong as the people, um, the, the critical component here is an inactive population, um, it it's, it's not helpful to a constitutional republic, so making sure we're instructing our, our students at an early age that they need to be active and they need to be participants in our uh in our constitutional rep. Uh, and so that's one of the reasons why I've asked for this to be grades 7 through 12 because also because you have age appropriateness, but also to be sure we reinforce uh the overall concept. And with that, um, I'm happy to take any questions from the committee. Represent makes you recognize for a question. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I'm with you in spirit here on what you're trying to do, uh, question that I have is on the 2nd page in line number 5. It says the natural deterioration of democracies into autocracies over the last 25 years, including Afghanistan so far. I guess my question is, should this pass, uh, you know, 20 years from now, that 25 year time frame is no longer going to be valid, but the law will still state that, uh, they can only include stuff over the last 25 years and uh I, I get where you're going with that as far as making sure that we have appropriate examples, um, but I'm wondering if there might be a better way to, uh, toward that to, uh, make sure that, uh, as we go forward, you know, in 25 years from now, that line would no longer be valid, but yet it would still be within our code. Is that, that makes sense? That's kind of what I'm after there. I appreciate that, um, the, the value of having uh stipulated examples doesn't limit, obviously the ability for the Department of Ed in their rulemaking and their capabilities to come up with additional curriculum associated with any of those additional democracies that have deteriorated into the autocratic um environments. This only gives you a starting point. So I feel like, uh, that, that providing at least some framework on the starting point is, is good. But this is not a limiting factor by any stretch and 25 years I guess could be interpreted to. What's today? What's the last 25 years, right? OK, what's today? What's the last 25 years, and, and then teaching those most relevant to to the environment. So I, this is not limiting this language should not be limiting in any shape or form to, to the curriculum developed at the end of the day by the Department of Education. OK, and then I'll have questions for the department once uh we get to that point. Reson maybury you're recognized. Thank you. I, I was debating maybe asking this question when the amendment came up because it really it deals with that school year, um, putting in 25, 26, that's really quick. And I don't know, and maybe the department can answer this, um, if instead it should be 26, 27 school year because it just takes a while. I, I, I don't know how they could. Move along that quickly and get that communication and into standards and everything by this next school year, so I'm wondering if you would even be willing to change that, that time frame and maybe if the Department of Aid comes up and can see if it's even possible to get it out that quickly. Does that, does that make sense I'm open to that consideration. I, I, from my perspective, whatever that's worth, um, I feel like that, uh, that the 25, 26. School year would be attainable because we're not talking about a significant shift in ideology. These things are already, uh, there's already, uh, available resources to teach the materials, um, and it's, it's not a huge amount of stuff that we're requesting, uh, that the department um present um and they update curriculum every year anyway, so adding in an additional small components like this. I, I in, in existing framework I'm sorry. the emergency clause or anything, it really doesn't even go into effect until August and uh. Just curious, you know, I'm open to that if that's if that is what really works. Absolutely. That's a constraint Richardson, I'm gonna ask if there's someone from the department who'd like to come and maybe provide some clarity. I see some folks in the corner who may be trying to hide, but, uh, see if you can perhaps provide some clarity on because there are a couple other additional member questions relative to the department. If you would please, Mr. Secretary, recognize yourself for the record. Good morning, Jacob Oli Secretary of Education, and um. First, I just want to say thank you for always trying to find ways to improve the outcomes of students, whether that's through curriculum or standards revisions that engaging in a cycle of continuous improvement is something that we, we really appreciate. So being able to have a civic discussion is uh something that is welcomed. Uh, first, I'd say I, I think Representative I was talking about timeline. We, we, we're gonna make whatever timelines still legislative delegation decides work and uh historically agencies like the Department of Education don't typically write curriculum. Now, if that's the will of this delegation, we're we're gonna take our marching orders. We typically write standards and then we put out calls for publishers or textbooks or primary instructional tools to write the lessons and curriculum or the local districts oftentimes write their own local curriculum to implement. the standards so if I was to, to provide feedback or solicit feedback, I would encourage us to move towards requiring like required instruction in history standards where we do an update to our standards and then we work with districts, educational cooperative, textbook companies, there, there's a lot of people in the space that could produce high quality curriculum. I don't know what their turnaround time is, um, but that's typically in, and I'll even stay, um. You know, over the last two years, we've done a lot of work with updating standards um in the state of Arkansas, typically you want to as a state review standards, probably every 7 to 10 years. You don't want to keep changing the mark and and going through your fresh development uh of what you're doing in the instructional tools and then how we measure students our our mastering those standards. So when we talk about standards, I wanna make sure we have a common understanding that the standard is just explicitly outlining what we expect students to know and. learn in each subject at each grade level. So in 23, we did a big rewrite of our ELA and math standards and then we've been spending a lot of time working with districts for the implementation of those standards and then we just administered the new Atlas assessment, Erica like teaching, learning assessment system based on those ELA and math standards. So we didn't pick purposefully this past school year, uh, any subject or content areas for standards revision because we knew we had a lot of work around ELA and math that we want to get right. So if, even if this delegation decides to go further beyond in asking us to do a review of civics in US history standards that could be appropriate as kind of the next subject that we would want to look into. Now, if we were gonna do a kind of a lands and put together work groups and, and teacher leaders and experts from across the state like we did with the LAM math, that process is gonna take us about a year to go through and do a deep dive. So if we wanna do something simple and quick, I think we can do that. Um, our folks stand ready and able if we get tasked with doing a more robust comprehensive snapshot and overlook of standards that that that review takes at least a calendar year to to if we're. gonna do it right. We, we have to do it right, and it would take us about. He was the secretary Representative Garner, you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um actually, Secretary Oliva kind of brought up, um, my question, and that is, um, first of all, where did you get the definition between communism of, of communism and autocracy. Those are obviously two different things. Are you focused on communism or are you focused on autocracy or both? OK, and then this. So The definitions were provided by BLR. OK So my second question is, um, for you maybe, um, are there any other? Social studies Subjects that we teach every year from 7 to 12. Do we teach Arkansas history? Do we teach civics? Do we teach any of those things, which I think are extremely important from 7. All the way through from 7 to 12. Yeah, so, well, it actually starts in kindergarten, so we, we have civics in history topics, world history, many different lenses that start all the way from kindergarten through 12th grade and then some students even go above and beyond if they start taking college level coursework or advanced coursework as well. So Logistically then, how would this, so this is not a course. So logistically how would this work? So I, I don't, do you want to answer that or what what your thoughts are on, I can apply my thoughts. I think that the idea here is to give latitude to the Department of Education and the schools and how they work this in, um, I had, uh, several teachers reach out and say this is a great bill and would work wonderfully during what's called celebration Freedom Week, which I'm, I'm not even, I, I wasn't familiar with that, but I, I said I want to get involved in that because I think that's a great thing, but they said this would, this would work great during that. So what we're looking for is the reinforcement of the ideology through our standard teaching mechanisms. We're not looking to create a brand new coursework, um, with a whole bunch of new text and um go through that. We're just taking these basic concepts that we've outlined here in the bill and we're saying we need to reinforce these. These need to be These are important enough that we need to reinforce them throughout the school from grade 7 through 12 because this is when these students were really forming their opinions about how government should work. The reality is. In my opinion To answer your question, that the, the, the end result is that we come out with a group of students who are very educated and, and what has happened in the past, the failures of the past, um, and, and, and the good things, um, I, I, I would love to say that our constitutional republic has gotten everything right in all the cases. It hasn't. We've been messy sometimes, but we continue to adapt. We've been very resilient, and the idea is to come out and say, hey, we're not perfect, but This is a way we can make things better and maybe there's someone there that does come up with additions in our government that actually work better, so that the, the concept is not to. Isolate a course that students are forced into for 7th, 8th, 9th, and take away from other things, it's just let's integrate this training. With the existing trains Representative McCulum, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Uh, my question is regarding just some of the countries that are listed, um, this is for either one of you. The way the bill is written, I guess I'd like an opinion on, does that In any way, um. Are there concerns on implementing That type of language considering countries and who is in charge of countries and what Forms of governments are happening in those countries at different times. That changes over time. It's similar thinking on that 25 year. Language, I guess I'm having a hard time of understanding the implementing. That type of teaching. I, I guess from a historical perspective, my thought process is, We not have changed what happened in the past in these particular elements. These have are good examples of the failures associated with these types of government, um. There there may be new and emerging ones that and all of us hope that there aren't because the general failure of these usually cost Thousands of lives, if not millions of lives, so there may be new ones that emerge that need to be added in the in the teaching and this by no means restricts the addition of those, but these are just a starting point of well documented historical references of failures of these types of government, so your intent is to your point at the very least, you want to make sure these countries, these examples are referenced in whatever the teaching is and um. For whatever reason. That needs to be a focus is what you're saying. As great examples of the failures of these particular elements of government. stats represent in Nazarenko. nice. Thank you, Mr. Chair Uh, and thank you, uh, I appreciate you all being here and uh presenting us with this. My question, and it's for, um, I think just for clarification, so on page 2, line 23 starts talking about the state Board of Education and consultation with local and how the curriculum is going to be developed. That's, that's kind of what it talks about there, um, but then in the fiscal impact, it talks uh assumptions that the district would incur the cost for purchase and adoption of the curricula. So I just, just for clarification. is the the cost shouldered at the district level or is it at the state level? For the development of the curriculum and then kind of implementation. So typically, The process would be We would work with the national groups, the state folks and put them together through the dollars that are allocated from the state for kind of running our agency under the Department of Education. This is part of what we do. We, we, we work, we work by supporting districts for implementation of new laws, we would put those experts together, we would have the the means to do that. If there are resources that need to be purchased typically that's procured in picked in um chosen at the local level through the state for their local school board. OK, so it could be. Kind of on that note, then each district could end up with different curricula. Is that, is that a true statement? It would be up to their choice, sure. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it. Representative Painter, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I agree with it, this bill in, in principle, but I, I, I don't wanna harp beat a dead horse, but that 25 year kind of really bothers me a little bit because if we're gonna talk about the People's Republic of China, then we got to go back longer than that. If we're going to talk about, you know, what happened in Haiti or Somalia. We got to go back, you know, especially in the 90s and the 80s. So, limiting it to the last 25 years, kind of concerns me because I think, don't you agree? We need to know how those governments form. You know, previous past 25 years to understand, hey, this form and here's why this is why we don't want this to happen. Does that make sense? I, I completely agree with, with kind of the idea of where you're going. I read the the text differently in that, and I know I've we've continued to circle around this idea. I read the text as these are examples and particularly I, I, I feel it's, it's relevant to keep those examples more near term than way historic if we go way historical, this list would be. I think I looked at it at roughly 100 different countries that have started out as a true democracy, but deteriorated into an autocratic environment and that, that to me seems like it's overwhelming, right? So this list is not a comprehensive list by any stretch and shouldn't be expected to be and isn't, as I read the, the, the language of the bill isn't expected to be an inclusive or exclusive list. It is just a example list, but if you will. you agree that when we teach our students about our constitution and our form of government that we got to go back all the way to how that started and so I, that's why I think we should, and maybe the department can answer this having the flexibility of going past that 25 years to really understand that form of government and the way it is now to say, hey, we, you don't want this. It's, you know, growing up in our country, so it, it, if, if I may, I think it's important to note that there's nothing that would preclude you from doing that. So if we already look at our current standards and expectations, just say for world history, it does. We, we start back in mesopotamia. We, we go all the way back through the origin of Time, I think with the spirit of this bill is, is to look at different forms of government as they exist today in current event time, so like if our if our world history, you know, timelines and we stop at World War II, there's a lot of stuff still going on, right? So we want to make sure, I think the spirit is is the. These forms of government have been around for hundreds of years. But in our current lives, in our current state of the state, and our current um lifetime of our students, there's actions that are happening as form of government, and this is just an example, so this is why I go back to writing the standards that we would write standards that say um students will be able to identify and understand the different roles of failure governments and communism and autocratic. Um, leadership. Here's some examples that a teacher would use to support the understanding of. Um The impact of those different roles and through society, so whether it it goes back historically, I think that what you're trying to say is we also want to make sure current examples are happening in the classroom is the way I read that. Thank you, Mr. Versus back you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, when I read this last night, I, I, I, I truly agree with the intent of what we're going for here and maybe I'm just being oversensitive to this, but. It just seems like it's, it's almost like. They're bad, we're good type of deal, as opposed to I love the way that Secretary Lee put it where he, he's talking about comparing their system of government and, and what happened to their system of government and where it failed its people and a lot of things that you mentioned, excuse me, a lot of things that you mentioned in this bill are, are those failures, but instead of telling those failures, I would like to, I think a better way to do it is to look at a comparison of our system of government to that system of government. And, and really what the weaknesses were in that part of their government and, and, and, and actually capitalized at the same time the strengths in our government that would prevent that from happening. But this, it, it, it just seems like it's, it's a little bit like they're bad and we're good, type of deal, but I wanna, I want the student to know why they're bad and why we're good. And what makes us, what protects us from this type and, and they're raw. I love what when, when you say I loved when you said that, that hey, their participation in governments, it's got to be there or it's not gonna happen. are tight, and maybe that's gonna be included in this, and if it is, I, I can certainly support that, but I, I would, I would like to see more of that type of statements in here. I'll jump in here and then Secretary Lebo may have some additional thoughts on it, but if you look in in the bill on page 2 line 13. We approach that reinforcement of the positivity associated with the resiliency of our constitutional republic as a comparison of government, it's not just about these are challenges and failures, but also, here are the good things and where we've been able to, um, surpass some of the challenges that were in these other types of governments. This is why we've been able to do that and, and reinforce that knowledge through this mechanism, so it's important, you know, that you're right, you're exactly right. This isn't about saying you're you guys are all bad and we're all great. This is about here are different types of governments and these are the challenges we've seen with those and here is. The good that we've seen with that. The reality is, and, and, and, and we can look back there are ideas and concepts from a lot of different governmental styles that are good. And there are ideas and concepts from governmental styles that are extremely bad. It is incredibly important that we provide that level across the board. My concern and the reason I brought this, was that I, I don't see us presenting uh in that format and so I wanted to make sure that we won definitely presented the, the, the bad associated with an autocratic government, the, the failure to their own people and uh mass murder of their own people that we've. seen from these governments, but I also wanted to present what we've done positively in in the constitutional republic and why it's been so resilient, not always perfect, not not always perfect, but we have been able to um overcome so much um and continue to reform our government to fit the people's need, and that's the reason for um the, the, the current need uh of a constitutional republic. It doesn't mean we can't take elements and our constitutional republic has taken a lot of elements from different kinds of government and enacted them, um, uh, from a historical perspective, and they've done a lot of good. And maybe some bads depends on who you talk to, but they have overwhelmingly had some good stuff. We want to teach that. We wanna make sure that we're presenting that and we're reinforcing that and hopefully that so we do address the posit positivity associated with the constitutional republic in this bill, uh, starting on line 13. There we go. I was like you cut me off. Um, and if I was to add to that, I, I think that's why I go back to standards matter. Standards clearly define what we want students to know, learn and do at each grade level and each subject. So if if this was to move forward, our agency would put out a call to what I think are some of the greatest teachers in the state to say, we, we want you to come and work with us to write those standards to do just that so that we're promoting curriculal thinking, we're comparing and contrasting, we're understanding that there's different forms of government. Why are some successful? Why do some fail? And then to support the teaching of those standards would be that curriculum, whether it's a primary instructional tool or something that's supplemental that's developed whether it's developed at the state level through this or whether the local districts have the autonomy to level something that works best for them, they would want to make sure that they use these as examples. Heim Gonzalez rather than you recognize. Yes, thank you for bringing the bill forward and also Secretary Lever, your comments on the standards. My question was. Based on I guess how did you know? what evidence did you have that that these topics were not being covered by all, all teachers in Arkansas, number one. And then second, um. Other, it seems that the That the spirit of the of the bill is to just ensure that that is being taught. So I guess for one what evidence and then the spirit of the bill. Thank you so much for the question. I, and, and I think that's um I think it's very relevant so where these bills come from, oftentimes, you know, we come up with them where uh we see gaps or potential opportunities. This started two years ago. I received an email from a constituent who's a civics teacher that was concerned that we, that they didn't see the reinforcement of this in in their uh curriculum on a day to day basis on a regular basis, I should say. And so they felt like it should be part of that, um, and so that's kind of the starting since then, um, everything from um professors at the UFA all the way through have uh commented on this and said this is critical and think it's really important that we do it. So I, I, I, I been overwhelmingly it's been positive feedback from across the board, including our teachers and and the the uh instructors at different levels. OK, so if, if The social city standards. We then um. As, as you mentioned, it takes 5 to 7 years, you know, to help revamp those, um, and giving examples for the teachers to follow, then would we have, would this be in line with, um, now we can include that, for example, for Atlas, you know, include these examples that tie into the standards where we would have that evidence that students are or they are not, um. Learning this information. So I just want to clarify, it wouldn't take 5 to 7 years to write the standards. I said typically states review their standards every. And most I would say maybe every 7 to 10 years cause you wanna make sure they're relevant, they wanna make sure they're current, they're in integrating the the latest in pedagogical strategies and with the research and literature tells us, if we were to do a full like, let's just start from kindergarten through 12th grade and look at every civics in US history standard and make sure that it's been refreshed because it's been, I, I wanna say at least 7 years since the state's done that, that's going to take us a year. Right, like I'm, I'm at a, at a minimum, right? Like if we're gonna do it right, like you got, it's, there's a lot of moving parts. You don't wanna rush through setting standards. If we were to look at how do we support districts with the implementation of just this specific topic, that's something I feel pretty strongly that we can get a pretty good representative sample of great teachers in the state and work through and and do that in in probably a couple and I know like timeline people were worried about, uh, is there enough time to get this ready for the 2526 school year. Well, it, it doesn't need to be done on August 10th for 25. I mean, they're, there's still a 25, 20. 6th school year, we would be able to have something to provide for school districts within that next school year. I feel pretty confident about just this little members just a quick note on scheduling we do go into session at 11, so I have 6 more people on the list to ask questions. Obviously it's a pretty passionate topic, uh, so I'm gonna allow one more question, uh, from a member and then we will reconvene after uh session adjourns, um, which I think will be relatively short, uh, so just a note on scheduling that Representative Brown, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, uh, Representative Richardson, I want to commend you for this piece of legislation. I think it's a fairly simple concept to incorporate and it is um. From my observation, it appears that most people in the United States don't really grasp that we are constitutional republic and the strengths that that provides for us and the resiliency it provides for us. Too many people just think of us as a democracy and um. I'll get to my question quickly, um. I mean, we have seen so much unrest. And, uh, confusion, and we see people challenging some of our constitutional foundations such as the electoral college. There are reasons for all of these things and I. Wouldn't you agree that we could resolve some of this angst and uh frustration and maybe have a, I don't know, I, I just feel like there's too many, too much ignorance in our country. that most people don't. That they think we're just a democracy which. As you pointed out in your bill, they deteriorate. Wouldn't you agree? I don't know. I'm trying to phrase this as a question, but I really feel that that this. Incorporating the just the simple fact that we are a constitutional republic, the fact that that is what we are. It's very simple. I mean, a teacher could just say that and, and prompt a child to think more about it. Maybe instruct them to write a paper about it. I mean, it doesn't take a full blown curriculum to get that across, um, what I mean, I would agree. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Brown. We'll take one more question, Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, I'm, I'm gonna start with a real quick comment and then I want to get to my, get to my question. So my comment is this, is, and this goes maybe for some of our freshmen as well. I, I'm always dubious about us putting in statute curriculum, and the reason why is, as you run the risk of that curriculum being dictated by the political wind. So in other words, we could probably pass something through here where we're gonna teach our students that Israel is is a great nation, whereas a future legislature could say no, we're going to pass legislation that says, you know, we're going to teach our kids that that Israel is a, is a bad nation, right? And We, we, we, we need to guard against that. Along that veins, I, I, I think, you know, we all agree here that this is an important topic that does need to be taught, but listening to the comments from the from the secretary, it seems that it might be more appropriate instead of making this a curricula change, making it a standards issue, so we're putting it in standards versus in the curricula. And I'm wondering if you might consider pulling the bill down for, for today, uh, taking some of the discussion that we've had here, work with the secretary. and make this a, uh, implementation in the standards versus in the curriculum. I, I guess maybe I'm confused and I don't guess I'm allowed to ask the secretary a question, but I, I believe this is for standards, not curriculum. This is a providing this is providing an overview in the standards, not as a curriculum. The curriculum would be if in my understanding, the standard would be, you need to teach these things. The curriculum would be, this is how you teach these things. So this would be a definition, an additional definition to the standard. And I, I, that's my question for the secretary to answer that, if I'm incorrect in that, then I, I would love to, to adjust and fix to it and that manner, but I believe that's already handled. Thank you. So I, I think maybe some of the confusion comes in. On page 2 in line 23 when it starts directing the state board of education because it says in consultation, um, with local statewide nationalism and communism shall develop and distribute great appropriate curriculum. So I think that's where it's uh maybe the confusion is is. Not ensuring that we have the appropriate standards and then we hold schools accountable for teaching the standards, whether we develop them. Resources or tools or put people together, it wouldn't be in, it wouldn't be our agency to develop the curriculum and then prescribing that to the school, so. Um, I, I go back to standards is what we clearly outlined that we want students to know and learn at each grade in each subject level. If we are directed to make sure that these topics were covered in our standards, which they probably could be more explicit, right? Like I think there's an opportunity to do what representatives trying to accomplish because these examples are probably not deliberate. They're probably not explicit and there's places that we could review our standards to do that and then we would work with. Districts on the training and support while giving local control to develop their own curriculum for the teaching of those standards is, is kind of, I think what we're saying for clarification. So, so my question back to the representative, would you be willing to pull the, pull the bill down at this point. I mean, if you want us to come back and continue deliberating after session. Obviously, that's your call, but, but I'm wondering if at this point based upon our discussions, if you would be, well, it would be amenable to go ahead and pulling the bill down, uh, addressing the, you know, the 25 year concern addressing the curriculums, you know, maybe tighten up some of the language to make sure it's understood that we're trying to do standards and not, you know, dictate curricula down to school level, um. That, yeah, I, I think if, if, if those were implemented, uh, we had a much Better defined build that, uh, I know at least for my, my part, uh, I'd be a lot more comfortable, you know, trying to get this passed and out of here because I, I definitely support what you're trying to do. I just want to make sure we're doing it the right way, and I appreciate the question. I'm, I'm a memorable to any kinds of things that would make us better as a state and better, of course, in this bill, um, just my question still remains, uh, and as I understood the secretary's comments, the the concern is around the board of education. Providing Curriculum and line 23 through 28 and I wanna make sure I understand the will of the committee before I head out and do something you guys didn't want me to do, but it's my understanding that the through your statements or through the statements of the secretary, I should say that the board of education is not going to create that curriculum. They're instead just going to do the standards associated with what's in this bill. So instead in that uh in that section of uh of the bill, the committee rather me and I'm asking this question. I'm not sure I can, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. The committee would rather me see uh rather me change this to say that the Board of Education will develop standards, not curriculum and and just clarify, I don't think that would be the the Board of Education, but I think it would be the Department of Education would develop the standards and not the Board of Education, and the secretary can correct me on that and let me step in again just for the interest of time because we need to get upstairs, uh, so the way that I'm understanding. it based upon the, the feedback and the questions that I'm hearing, I think they are probably just a couple of small changes within the legislation that would make it more um acceptable to the committee that would give you a good bill and, and, and, uh, follow your intent of what we're trying to accomplish, which I think is very important, uh, but I think we probably should address those things. So I, I wouldn't be under the recommendation if I'm allowed uh to, to pull it down and let's work on those things so we can bring them back and get it through the way you want. I would request that of the committee and with the committee's will, I'll, I'll do that. Thank you, Representative Richard C. no further business. The jo ur Where did this call? Are y'all feeling this cold deep freeze underneath it.