House Education Committee
January 23, 2025
Representative Keith Brooks [00:00:26] Members and guests, welcome to House Ed. If you are wishing to speak for or against the bill, please make sure you sign up in the lobby and we'll have that presented here shortly. Members, we are going to hear two bills this morning. HB 1005 from Representative Ray and HB 1060 by Representative Richardson. We're passing over 1085 from Representative Brown pending some additional conversations with the FDA. So Representative Ray, you're recognized to present HB 1005.
Representative David Ray [00:01:09] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, committee members. House Bill 1005. This bill updates the National Guard tuition waiver program 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. 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 or served with. And that was actually replaced by a program called GTIP, the Guard Tuition Incentive Program. But it was created essentially as an employee benefit.
A lot of surrounding states had similar programs. And obviously all of the armed forces, one of their primary challenges is recruitment and retention. And obviously, active duty military has the GI Bill. And so this was created really as a retention and recruitment tool. It's been very successful since that time.
Each year, approximately 400 to 500 Guardsmen participate in the tuition waiver program. 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 help with workforce development, skills development, help move people into a profession where they want to be, where they're earning more money than before and help them provide for their families.
So just some examples of programs that have those types of certificates that are not necessarily degree seeking are things like HVAC, EMT, welding, elements of manufacturing like Machining, C and C, Quality control, Auto Mechanic Certificate, diesel technician, collision repair specialist, high voltage lineman. There's a long list. You can probably go to your two year college's website and find a lengthy list there.
Just two points I would make about this idea. Number one, I see this as a step forward in terms of workforce development. And I think by this point we've all come around to 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 continuum of credentials, whether it's a certificate or certification or an associate's degree or undergraduate masters, etc.
But secondly, you know, our Guardsmen, we do this program for them because they are some of our finest Arkansans. These are folks who are in prime position to take advantage of this benefit because they're service minded. They're trained to pay attention to detail and they don't mind hard work. And they are here for us when we have storms and tornadoes and ice storms. They are at the southern border when they're asked to be there. They do all sorts of things. And this is a very successful program that I think we can make even better for them.
And I just wanted to kind of give you the backstory on where this idea came from. I was touring Pulaski Tech about three years ago, and at the time, 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 okay. And that was a little bit of a red flag. Okay is not not 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 this was what she described to me, that there was a lot of things that folks were potentially missing out on.
And so that's what formed this idea. And I've had a lot of great conversations with folks both at Pulaski Tech and in the two year college community. Also with the National Guard, I've discussed this at length with Adjutant General Chad Bridges. And 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 the National Guard and Higher Ed as well that can help answer questions.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:05:54] Thank you, Representative Ray. Representative Meeks, you are recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:05:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, what's the funding source for this?
Representative David Ray [00:06:05] Okay, good question. All right. So the funding source, it's appropriated from the Higher Education Grants Fund account that's with the Department of Education's Division of Higher Ed. There is an appropriation each year. There's, I believe it's a line item in the RSA of 1.4 million that's set aside for the program. And some years they've spent less than that and some years they've spent a little bit more. 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 million to the program to be added to Higher Ed. And so they can speak to that if they want. But there's adequate money there to cover it.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:07:03] Alright. Thank you.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:07:07] Representative, is there a cap on the grants? I know you said the governor's letter relative to 3 million, but on this, should it continue to exceed and this be more successful than just okay, is there a cap on the grants at all?
Representative David Ray [00:07:22] There's a cap on how much each individual Guardsman can utilize. Once you've earned--
Representative Keith Brooks [00:07:29] Total grants, I should clarify.
Representative David Ray [00:07:30] I don't think so. But there is a limit on how much of the benefit that's allotted to each individual Guardsman. And some obviously choose not to avail themselves of it.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:07:44] Representative Nazarenko, you're recognized.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:07:47] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question, when I was reading through it, I saw that one cap that was kind of mentioned was the bachelor's. So if they've got a bachelors or above, then they are not eligible to utilize this, is that true?
Representative David Ray [00:08:08] That's right. I don't know what happened to my mic there. But in the original bill in 2017, it laid out all of the qualifications that you have to meet. And that portion is actually in this bill, in the existing language you can see there. But yes, one of the qualifications is that they cannot have already earned an undergraduate degree in order to be eligible for the program.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:08:36] That's how I was understanding it, too. And I think my only concern with that, or my only thought process was if that Guardsman had a bachelors already and then something happened, a 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 plumbing or whatever certification program, and this would kind of not allow them. Is that a correct statement?
Representative David Ray [00:09:02] Well, you're correct in describing how it works. I'm not changing any of the eligibility for the program that was already in the 2017 law. But I think going forward, that's something to consider because of kind of the hypothetical circumstance you described.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:09:20] And I do know that some of them, some of the Guardsmen, reservists, veterans, they do have life altering events that happen. And then that degree that they have, 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 bill. Great, great ideas. And I think would make some good positive impacts.
Representative David Ray [00:09:37] Thank you for that.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:09:38] Thank you.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:09:41] Other additional members' questions? Vice Chair.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:09:45] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ray, I want to begin by commending you for bringing this bill. Is it your belief or the National Guard's belief or workforce at Commerce or anyone at AD that this is actually a force multiplier? I mean, if we get the Guardsmen into a certification or some kind of a credential, it could also lead them down the path of achieving that two year associates, that four year or that terminal degree?
Representative David Ray [00:10:08] 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, 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 after a year. And then you can keep working toward an associate's degree and so forth.
So this is pretty similar 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 session. And then the voters approved that with 90%, almost 90% at the ballot in November. So I think there's wide recognition that these sorts of workforce credentials bring a lot of value.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:11:05] Very good. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for this bill.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:11:10] Representative Ray has explained his bill. Are there additional questions? Sorry, Representative Barnett, you're recognized.
Representative Lincoln Barnett [00:11:15] 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, is there a particular reason why you would not make this eligible for people that want to get advanced degrees beyond a bachelor's?
Representative David Ray [00:11:32] You know, I was not in the legislature in 2017 when it was set up that way. If I had to hazard a guess as to why they set it up that way, it was probably due to funding concerns because, Representative Vaught and Meeks and back, I'm looking at some of the folks that would have been here around that time. The budgets were quite a bit tighter back then. 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. But you raise a good point, similar to the one that Representative Nazarenko raised about maybe we should have a discussion about what all this could apply to in the future.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:12:25] Representative Vaught, you're recognized.
Representative DeAnn Vaught [00:12:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think in previous legislation, there are some probably restrictions. So I want to know, are we going to restrict on what the certificates could be? Or is cake decorating going to be a certificate that they can get or 101 in the kitchen or whatever it might be? Or is it going to be restricted to workforce development type things?
Representative David Ray [00:12:58] So yeah, I have not drafted this in a way to basically micromanage which certificates and which coursework they can complete. I think this is a population of folks that's on the whole extremely responsible and I trust our Guardsmen that enroll to have a good sense of what brings economic value for them and their family. There are some certificates in culinary arts, for example, things of that nature. You can get a certificate in food safety and dietary management, things of that nature. But I think those bring economic value as well.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:13:46] I will recognize you at that time. Members, thank you for the questions. We have one person signed up to speak for the bill. Madam Chancellor, do you still want to speak on the bill?
Representative David Ray [00:13:59] Up to you.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:14:02] You're recognized. If you would, please introduce yourself and then proceed.
Summer DeProw [00:14:11] Thank you so much. I just want to share one experience I've had recently, as many of you--
Representative Keith Brooks [00:14:17] If you would-- sorry to interrupt-- if you would, please recognize yourself.
Summer DeProw [00:14:19] I apologize. Summer DeProw, Chancellor, University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College. I've had some good experiences recently with the higher 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 Dassault Falcon Jet, MISO, 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 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 fiscal impact, but there is money in the account. But it is relatively small because of this as a last stack, as we call it in 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 Guardsmen and women who have not pursued Higher Education. So thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the bill.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:15:36] Thank you, Chancellor DeProw. Are there any questions for the Chancellor? Seeing none, Representative Ray, would you like to close for your bill?
Representative David Ray [00:15:45] I'm closed for the Bill and thank you for all the questions and your attention this morning.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:15:51] Representative Ray is closed for his bill. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, Representative Ray, your bill is passed.
Representative David Ray [00:15:59] Thank you. Committee.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:16:02] Members. Moving on. Next, we'll recognize Representative Scott Richardson for HB 1060. Representative Richardson. Members, I believe you're getting a fiscal impact on this amendment. Sorry. Okay. Representative Richardso,. I guess that you would amend what I said and so you're recognized to present your amendment, please.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:16:51] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and committee, for hearing this bill this morning. Excuse me. First up, you have an amendment. In all of our due diligence and back and forth and revisiting and revisiting, we managed to overlook that the initial statement said for this to take effect in school year 24-25 instead of 25-26. So we're amending that to take effect next year, next school year instead of this school year. And I appreciate a good vote on that.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:17:28] Members, are there questions on the amendment? What's the will of the committee? Have a motion from Representative Painter do pass the amendment. All in favor, say aye. All Opposed. Representative Richardson, your amendment is passed. You are recognized now to present your bill as amended.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:17:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. House Bill 1060 this morning before you is a bit of a remake from a bill that we ran 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 were not able to take up this matter. And so it died on that end. But obviously, it's still relevant and still important and felt like that we should bring it back and try to make another run at it. So I would appreciate any questions, concerns that the committee has.
Just as a brief overview. Essentially, this bill is very similar to the previous bill in that it approaches the instruction of autocratic and communist style governments and approaches them from a, let's see what history has taught us about these and that they are very challenging to have. They have failed under so many different environments and they have created a very anti people kind of approach and killing hundreds of millions of their own citizens throughout history.
And this is important that we teach the historic 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 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 our Democratic approach or Democratic ideas, but I found no real reference to Constitutional Republic. It's entirely possible that I overlooked them or that I missed them.
But the prevalence of the democratic approaches to our government style were there. But yet I didn't see 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 that's the big miss in this opportunity is that there are Democratic ideas like polls and going and voting that are critical to our constitutional republic. But the restrictions imposed 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 the critical component. And adding that additional piece of this instruction to this bill 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 extremely important. So the other piece of this, we also want to reinforce the idea, which I was unable to find as well, the idea that our republic is only as strong as the people.
The critical component here is an inactive population is not helpful to a constitutional republic. So making sure we're instructing our students at an early age that they need to be active and they need to be participants in our constitutional republic. And so that's one of the reasons why I've asked for this to be grades 7 through 12, also because you have age appropriateness, but also to be sure we reinforce the overall concept. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions from the committee.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:21:58] Representative Meeks, you are recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:22:03] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm with you in spirit here on what you're trying to do. The question that I have is on the second page, in line number five, it says, The natural deterioration of democracies into autocracies over the last 25 years, including Afghanistan, so forth. I guess my question is, should this pass, 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 they can only include stuff over the last 25 years.
And I get where you're going with that as far as making sure that we have appropriate examples. But I'm wondering if there might be a better way to word that to make sure that as we go forward in 25 years from now, that line would no longer be valid, but yet it would still be within our code. Does that make sense, kind of what I'm after there?
Representative Scott Richardson [00:23:02] And I appreciate that. The value of having 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 environments. This gives you a starting point.
So I feel like that providing at least some framework on the starting point 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. Okay. What's today and what's the last 25 years? And then teaching those most relevant to the environment. So this is not limiting. This language should not be limiting in any shape or form to the curriculum developed at the end of the day by the Department of Education.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:23:56] Okay. And then I'll have questions for the department once we get to that point.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:24:02] Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:24:07] Thank you. I was debating maybe asking this question when the amendment came up because it really deals with that school year, putting in 25-26. That's really quick. And I don't know, and maybe the department can answer this, if instead it should be 26-27 school year because it just takes a while.
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 time frame. And maybe if the Department of Ed comes up and can see if it's even possible to get it out that quickly. Does that make sense?
Representative Scott Richardson [00:24:50] I'm open to that consideration. From my perspective, whatever that's worth, I feel like that 25-26 school year would be attainable because we're not talking about a significant shift in ideology. There's already available resources to teach the materials. And it's not a huge amount of stuff that we're requesting that the department present and they update curriculum every year anyway. So adding in an additional small components like this--
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:25:32] I'm sorry. Without the emergency clause or anything it really doesn't even go into effect until August. And I'm just curious.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:25:40] I'm open to that if that's--
Representative Julie Mayberry [00:25:41] Interested in what date really works best.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:25:44] Absolutely. If that's a constraint, we can talk about it.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:25:46] Representative Richardson, I'm going to ask if there's someone from the department who'd like to come in and maybe provide some clarity. I see some folks in the corner who may be trying to hide, but see if you can perhaps provide some clarity because there are a couple of other additional member questions relative to the department. If you would, please, Mr. Secretary, recognize yourself for the record. All right.
Jacob Oliva [00:26:08] Good morning. Jacob Oliva, secretary of education. And 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. Engaging in a cycle of continuous improvement is something that we really appreciate. Being able to have a civic discussion is something that is welcomed.
First, I'd say I think Representative Vaught was talking about timeline. We're going to make whatever timeline this legislature decides to work. And historically, agencies like the Department of Education don't typically write curriculum. If that's the will of this delegation, we're going to 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 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, education, cooperative textbook companies. There's a lot of people in this space that could produce high quality curriculum. I don't know what their turnaround time is, but that's typically-- and I'll even state, you know, over the last two years, we've done a lot of work with updating standards 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 going through refreshing development of what you're doing in the instructional tools and then how we measure students are mastering those standards. So when we talk about standards, I want to make sure we have a common understanding that the standard is just explicitly outlining what we expect students to know and learn in any 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 and Teaching Learning Assessment System based on those standards. So we didn't pick purposefully this past school year any subject or content areas for standards revision because we knew we had a lot of work around ELA Math that we wanted to get right.
So even if this delegation decides to go further beyond and 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 going to do a kind of a re-lens and put together work groups and teacher leaders and experts from across the state like we did with ELA and math, that process is going to take us about a year to go through and do a deep dive.
So if we want to do something simple and quick, I think we can do that. Our folks stand ready and able. If we get tasked with doing a more robust, comprehensive snapshot and overlook of standards, that review takes at least a calendar year or two. If we're going to do it right, we have to do it right. And it would take us about a year to do.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:29:21] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Representative Garner, you are recognized for a question.
Representative Denise Garner [00:29:25] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, Secretary Oliver kind of brought up my question, and that is, first of all, where did you get the definition of communism and autocracy? Those are obviously two different things. Are you focused on communism or are you focused on autocracy?
Representative Scott Richardson [00:29:44] Both. The definitions were provided by BLR.
Representative Denise Garner [00:29:50] Okay. So my second question is for you maybe. 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?
Jacob Oliva [00:30:16] So, well, it actually starts in kindergarten. So we have civics and history topics, world history, many different lenses that started all the way from kindergarten through 12th grade. And some students even go above and beyond if they start taking college coursework or advanced coursework as well.
Representative Denise Garner [00:30:34] So logistically, then how would this-- so this is not a course. So logistically, how would this work?
Representative Scott Richardson [00:30:48] I can apply my thoughts. I think that the idea here is to give latitude to the Department of Education and the schools in how they work this in. I had several teachers reach out and say, this is a great bill and would work wonderfully during what's called Celebration Freedom Week, which I wasn't familiar with that. But I said, I want to get involved in that because I think that's a great thing. But they said, 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 with a whole bunch of new text and 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 are important enough that we need to reinforce them throughout the school from grades 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 end result is that we come out with a group of students who are very educated in what has happened in the past, the failures of the past and the good things. 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, okay, 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 the concept is not to isolate a course that students are forced into 7th, 8th, 9th and take away from other things. It's just let's integrate this training with the existing training that's already being taught. Hopefully that makes sense.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:32:44] Representative McCollum, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Austin McCollum [00:32:50] Thank you. My question is regarding just some of the countries that are listed. 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, 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 implementation of that type of teaching.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:33:33] I guess from a historical perspective, my thought process is, we're not to change what happened in the past in these particular elements. These are good examples of the failures associated with these types of government. There may be new and emerging ones.
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 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.
Representative Austin McCollum [00:34:16] 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 for whatever reason. That needs to be a focus is what you're saying.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:34:30] As great examples of the failures of these particular elements of government.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:34:39] Representative Nazarenko, you're recognized.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:34:46] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you. I appreciate you all being here and presenting us with this. My question and it's for, I think, just for clarification. So on page two, line 23, it starts talking about the State Board of Education in consultation with local and how the curriculum is going to be developed. That's kind of what it talks about there.
But then in the fiscal impact, it talks assumptions that the district would incur the cost for purchase and adoption of the curricula. So just for clarification, is 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?
Jacob Oliva [00:35:26] 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 work by supporting districts for implementation with new laws. Would put those experts together. We would have the means to do that. If there are resources that need to be purchased, typically that's procured and picked and chosen at the local level through their local school board.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:36:02] Okay. So it could be, kind of on that note, then each district could end up with different curricula. Is that a true statement?
Jacob Oliva [00:36:10] It would be their choice.
Representative Jason Nazarenko [00:36:12] Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:36:17] Representative Painter, you're recognized.
Representative Stetson Painter [00:36:22] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with this bill in principle, and I don't want to beat a dead horse. But that 25 year kind of really bothers me a little bit because if we're going to talk about the People's Republic of China, then we've got to go back longer than that. If we're going to talk about what happened in Haiti or Somalia, we got to go back, especially in the 90's and the 80's.
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 formed in the previous, past 25 years to understand, hey, this formed and here's why. This is why we don't want this to happen. Does that make sense?
Representative Scott Richardson [00:37:02] I completely agree with kind of the idea of where you're going. I read the text differently in that. And I know we continue to circle around this idea. I read the text as these are examples, and particularly I feel like it's relevant to keep those examples more near term than way history. If we go way historical, this list would be-- I think I looked at roughly 100 different countries that have started out as a true democracy but deteriorated into an autocratic environment. And that to me seems like it's overwhelming. 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 language of the bill, isn't expected to be an inclusive or exclusive list. It is just an example list, if you will.
Representative Stetson Painter [00:37:55] But wouldn't 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 that's why I think we should, and maybe the department can answer this, have the flexibility of going past that 25 years to really understand that form of government and the way it is now to say, hey, you don't want this growing up in our country.
Jacob Oliva [00:38:19] Right. So if I may, I think it's important to note that there's nothing that would preclude you from doing that. So we already look at our current standards and expectations. Just say for world history, it does. We start back in Mesopotamia. We go all the way back through the origin times.
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 I give our world history, you know, timelines, if we stop at World War Two, there's a lot of stuff still going on, right? So we want to make sure, I think the spirit is, is these forms of government have been around for hundreds of years. But in our current lives and in our current state of the state and our current lifetime of our students, there's actions that are happening as far as the 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 students will be able to identify and understand the different roles of failure of governments in communism and autocratic leadership. Here's some examples that a teacher would use to support the understanding of the impact of those different roles and through society. So whether it goes back historically, I think that what you're trying to say is we also make sure current examples are happening in the classroom is the way I read that.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:39:44] Representative Beck, you're recognized.
Representative Rick Beck [00:39:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I read this last night, 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 almost like they're bad, we're good type of deal as opposed to-- I love the way that Secretary Oliva put it where he's talking about comparing their system of government and what happened to their system of government and where it failed its people.
And a lot of the things that you mention in this bill are those failures. But instead of sharing those failures, 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 really what the weaknesses were in that part of the government and actually capitalize at the same time to strengthen our government that would prevent that from happening.
But it just seems like it's a little bit like they're bad and we're good type of deal. But I want the student to know why they're bad and why we're good and what protects us from this type. And they're wrong. I loved when you said that, hey, their participation in government, it's got to be there or it's not going to happen. Those are the type things. And maybe that's going to be included in this. And if it is, I can certainly support that. But I would like to see more of that type of statements in here.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:41:15] I'll jump in here and then Secretary Oliva may have some additional thoughts on it. But if you look in the bill on page two, 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 surpass some of the challenges that were in these other types of governments. This is why we've been able to do that and reinforce that knowledge through this mechanism.
So it's important. You know, you're right. You're exactly right. This isn't about saying 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 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 don't see us presenting in that format, and so I wanted to make sure that we, one, definitely presented the bads associated with an autocratic government, that failure to their own people and 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 the Constitutional Republic and why it's been so resilient. Not always perfect, not always perfect. But we have been able to overcome so much and continue to reform our government to fit the people's needs. And that's the reason for the current need 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 from a historical perspective.
And they've done a lot of good and maybe some bad. It depends on who you talk to, but they have overwhelmingly had some good stuff. We want to teach that. We want to make sure that we're presenting that and we're reinforcing that and hopefully that. So we do address the positivity associated with the Constitutional Republic in this bill starting at line 15.
Jacob Oliva [00:43:55] There we go. I think you cut me off. And if I was to add to that, 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 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 want you to come and work with us to write those standards, to do just that, so that we're promoting critical thinking, we're comparing and contrasting or 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 develop something that works best for them. They would want to make sure that they use these as examples to support the teaching of those standards.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:44:57] Representative Gonzales Worthen, you're recognized.
Representative Gonzales Worthen [00:44:58] Yes. Thank you for bringing the bill forward and also Secretary Oliva for your comments on the standards. My question was based on, I guess, how did you know, what evidence did you have that these topics were not being covered by all teachers in Arkansas, number one? And then second, it seems that the spirit of the bill is to just ensure that is being taught. So I guess for one, what evidence and then the spirit of the bill.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:45:33] Thank you so much for the question. And I think that's very relevant. So where these bills come from, oftentimes, we come up with them where we see gaps or potential opportunities. This started two years ago. I received an email from a constituent who was a civics teacher that was concerned that they didn't see the reinforcement of this in their 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. And so that's kind of the starting since then, everything from professors at the U of A all the way through have commented on this and said this is critical and think it's really important that we do it so. Been overwhelmingly, it's been positive feedback from across the board including our teachers and the instructors at different levels.
Representative Gonzales Worthen [00:46:29] So if the social study standards were then, as you mentioned, it takes 5 to 7 years to help revamp those and giving examples for the teachers to follow, then would this be in line with now we can include that, for example, for Atlas, include these examples that tie into the standards where we would have that evidence that students are or they not learning this information?
Jacob Oliva [00:47:04] So and just want to clarify, it wouldn't take 5 or 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, because you want to make sure they're relevant. They want to make sure they're current and integrating both the latest in pedagogical strategies and what the research literature tells us.
If we were to do a full-- let's just start from kindergarten through 12th grade and look at every civics and US history standard and make sure that it's been refreshed because it has been-- I want to say at least seven years since the state's done that. That's going to take us a year, right? Like at a minimum. Like if we're going to do it right, like there's a lot of moving parts. You don't want to rush through setting standards. I
f 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 do that and in a couple of months so that it would be ready to go.
And I know like timeline, people are worried about is there enough time to get this ready for the 25-26 school year? Well, it doesn't need to be done on August 10th for 25. I mean, there's still a 25-26 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 piece of that section.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:48:32] Members, Just a quick note on scheduling. We do go into session at 11. So I have six more people on the list to ask questions. Obviously, it's a pretty passionate topic. So I'm going to allow one more question from a member and then we will reconvene after session adjourns, which I think will be relatively short. So just a note on scheduling. Representative Brown, you're recognized.
Representative Karilyn Brown [00:48:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, 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, from my observation, it appears that most people in the United States don't really grasp that we are a 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 I'll get to my question quickly. I mean, we have seen so much unrest and 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 wouldn't you agree that we could resolve some of this angst and frustration and maybe have, I don't know, I just feel like there's too many, too much ignorance in our country that most people, they think we're just a democracy, which as you pointed out in your bill, they deteriorate. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm trying to phrase this as a question, but I really feel that incorporating just the simple fact that we are a constitutional republic, the fact that that is what we are is very simple. I mean, a teacher could just say that 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.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:50:52] I would agree.
Representative Karilyn Brown [00:50:53] Thank you.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:50:55] Thank you, everyone. And we'll take one more question. Representative Meeks.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:50:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm also starting with a real quick comment and then I want to get to my question. So my comment is this. And this goes maybe for some of our freshmen as well. I'm always dubious about us putting in statute curriculum. And the reason why is, 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 going to teach our students that Israel is a great nation, whereas a future legislature could say, no, we're going to pass legislation that says, we're going to teach our kids that Israel is a bad nation. And we need to guard against that along that vein.
And I think we all agree here that this is an important topic that does need to be taught. But listening to the comments from the secretary, it seems that it might be more appropriate instead of making this a curriculum change, making it a standards issue. So we're putting it in standards versus into curricula.
And I'm wondering if you might consider pulling the bill down for today, taking some of the discussion that we've had here, work with the secretary and make this an implementation in the standards versus in the curriculum.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:52:18] I guess maybe I'm confused. And I don't guess I'm allowed to ask a secretary question, but I believe this is for standards, not curriculum. This is providing standards. 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 an additional definition to the standard.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:52:52] I'll allow a question for the secretary to answer that.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:52:54] If I'm incorrect in that, I would love to adjust and fix to in that manner. But I believe that's already handled.
Jacob Oliva [00:53:05] Thank you. So I think maybe some of that confusion comes in on page two when Line 23 starts directing the State Board of Education because it says in consultation with local, statewide, national, communism, shall develop and distribute grade appropriate curriculum. So I think that's where it's maybe that 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 our agency developing the curriculum and then prescribing that to the school.
So I go back to standards is what we clearly outline 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 representative's trying to accomplish because these examples are probably not deliberate. T
hey'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 the support while giving local control. They develop their own curriculum for the teaching of those standards is kind of, I think, what we're saying.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:54:26] So my question, back to the representative, would you be willing to 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 I'm wondering if, at this point, based upon our discussions, if it would be amenable to going ahead and pulling the bill down, addressing the 25 year concern, addressing the curriculum, maybe tighten up some of the language to make sure it's understood that we're trying to do standards and not dictate curricula down to school level.
I think if those were implemented, we had a much better defined bill that I know, at least for my part, I'd be a lot more comfortable trying to get this passed and out of here because I definitely support what you're trying to do. I just want to make sure we're doing it the right way.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:55:14] And I appreciate the question. I'm amenable to any kinds of things that would make us better as a state and better, of course, in this bill. My question still remains. And as I understood the secretary's comments, the concern is around the Board of Education providing curriculum in line 23 through 28. And I want to make sure I understand the will of committee before I head out and do something you guys didn't want me to do.
But it's my understanding that through your statements or through the statements of 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 section of the bill, the committee would rather me, and I'm asking this question, I'm not sure I can, but I'm going to ask it anyway, the committee would rather rather me change this to say that the Board of Education will develop standards, not curriculum.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:56:22] And just to clarify, I don't think that would be 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.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:56:31] Let me step in again just for the interest of time because we need to get upstairs. So the way that I'm understanding it, based upon the feedback and the questions that I'm hearing, I think there are probably just a couple of small changes within the legislation that would make it more acceptable to the committee that would give you a good bill and follow your intent of what you're trying to accomplish, which I think is very important. But I think we probably should address those things. So I wouldn't be under the recommendation if I'm allowed to pull it down and let's work on those things so we can bring it back and get it through the way you want.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:57:00] And I would request that of the committee and with the committee's will, we will do that.
Representative Keith Brooks [00:57:03] Thank you, Representative Richardson. Seeing no further business, the committee is adjourned.
