Arkansas lawmakers conducted senior legislation on Monday that would overhaul the state’s higher education system by changing its funding model, scholarships, course credits and admissions process.
The Joint Education Commission debated Arkansas visits for more than five hours Monday. The legislation filed two identical bills in the House and Senate last month.
While lawmakers have expressed support for initiatives such as the Arkansas First-year Academic Challenge Award, increasing from $1,000 to $2,000, the bipartisan driving force for other provisions, most notably the prohibition of absences in defenses of public school students participating in political protests or attempting to influence legislation or other government politics or other government policymaking.
Committee members said they were concerned that it would deprive local control and educational opportunities. Rep. Deann Vaught of R-Horatio said she was worried that it would prevent students, such as helping her propose Holocaust-related bills on the committee in 2021, and could also participate in the legislative process.
Senate sponsor Sen. Jonathan Dangan (R-Searcy) said the students did not attend such events, which was simply considered innocent of absence. This could negatively affect their education, Walter said, because students are not usually allowed to make up for the job they missed without being absent.
Matthew Shepherd, R-El Dorado’s House sponsor, said student protests have been a problem nationwide, and the rule will focus on going to school.
“They were educated there, and they weren’t there for teachers to push them into some type of advocacy or political protests, or in some type of attempt to influence legislation,” Shepherd said. “Again, the worry is who decides whether the student is suitable for advocacy? I think we’re helping the district because students are learning there.”
Little Rock Central High School student Ava Kate White said she chose to miss the school to testify against Arkansas’ visit because it might be her last chance to do so, rather than being labeled as truant.
“Ambitional journalists” argued that the 123-page bill “further suppresses youth voices” and paves the way for more harmful laws. She urged lawmakers to look at the Capitol Nine statue on the Capitol statue as they considered the impact of the proposed legislation.
“They are not making history by keeping themselves silent,” White said. “When they are disenfranchised, they have no lasting impact on the world. These nine brave individuals have changed society before voting age.”
When the committee’s meeting resumed Monday afternoon after lunch break, sponsors of the bill introduced an amendment that still prohibits forgiven political protests but allows public schools to allow for forgiven social or public policy advocacy or written consent to attempt to influence legislation or other government government strategies.
The school district will be required to provide an annual report to the education department by June 30, which includes the requested and awarded absences and the purpose of absences.
The Joint Education Commission passed the amendment, which the public noted that the amendment did not modify the legislative section, which would still prohibit the forgiving absences among college students at state-supported higher education institutions.
The committee has also adopted another amendment that will allow a new scholarship program to apply for virtual courses at the same time. Republican lawmakers expressed concern that the initial proposal to limit funds to face-to-face instruction would have a negative impact on rural schools that often rely on virtual instruction.
Zhang said he shared the concerns but said the Covid-19-pandemic stressed the importance of in-person learning. Bill’s sponsors said the issue caught their attention over the weekend, which is why they prepared the amendment Monday morning.
Voices of stakeholders
Arkansas visit will also change the composition and size of various boards and committees. When answering the legislator’s question, why groups like the Arkansas Education Association and the Rural ED Association were removed from positions on various boards, but the bill says the bill eliminates “no bias” entities that were not legally created. He said the bill allows the appointment of other stakeholders not clearly identified in the legislation, so those groups could be added.
D-Marianna Senator Reginald Murdock said the visit to Arkansas was “a real-life example” that illustrates why inclusion and diversity are necessary in conversations.
“As a lawmaker, I have discussed with many people, mainly related to higher education [with] Different backgrounds. “I don’t know what their political affiliation might be.” You may not like the answer…”
“No, no, you’re playing with me, [Rep.] Shepherd,” Murdoch said. “It’s not right, what you’re doing right now. No, we won’t do that. ”
Committee Chairman Rep. Keith Brooks (Rittle Rock) said it could not continue.
Most Republicans may not see the bill until last month’s lawsuit was filed, but since then, the conversation has continued and demanded input.
“Then we came back and we revised it,” he said. “You might not like the answer, you might not like the answer, but the truth is we spend a lot of time and effort. You might not like what is in the bill, but don’t devalue the process, and don’t devalue our work.”
Part of the bill that some people raised concerns is part of the focus, focusing on “rejecting discrimination and indoctrination in post-school education.” Daisy Onoriobe, a student at Philander Smith University, attended a press conference against a visit to the Arkansas Building, saying it was “very unclear” how the bill’s provisions would affect Arkansas College.
“How does this affect student organizations, scholarships and support centers,” asked Onoriobe. “Can employees tell students to stop making racist comments? How does this affect the diversity contacts hiring colleges? Diversity, equity, and inclusion work is not a problem. They are good for Arkansas.”
Inside the committee room, Rep. Diana Gonzales Worthen, D-Springdale, said she heard concerns from senior ED staff who were also concerned about the DEI language of the bill.
“I think it’s unintentional, but I think it has a shocking effect,” she said.
The Shepherd said he did not think the bill would have such an effect, noting that the bill’s specific reference to DEI involves the certification process, and Shepherd said the section had been modified as required by the agency.
“We are not trying to relax discussions on legitimate topics in the class course,” he said. “…we are trying to provide these protections, and we are also trying to think a lot to ensure that the language is fully applicable, regardless of the viewpoint of the day, or the political whimsical at the time.”
Both bills were voted separately by members of the House and Senate, and passed by split voice votes.
Journalist Tess Vrbin contributed to the story.
Arkansas Advocates are part of the state newsroom, a network of news organizations composed of the Alliance of Grants and Donors as a 501C(3) public charity. Arkansas advocates maintain editorial independence. This article is published under the permission of Arkansas Advocate. Related questions: [email protected]. Follow Arkansas Advocates on Facebook, twitter.