March 11, 2026 · Education · 12,041 words · 5 speakers · 164 segments
Thank you.
Madam Chair.
Here. Okay.
Our first bill sponsor is here. We are starting with House Bill 1259. Rep Sirota, please tell us about your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Today I bring you House Bill 1259, which is a cleanup bill for the Department of Early Childhood. In 2022, I sponsored House Bill 22-1295, which implemented the universal pre-K program and established the Department of Early Childhood in that endeavor. In addition to starting those two new things, we also moved hundreds of pages of statute. And so within that time and since that bill has been implemented, the departments had the opportunity to identify a number of places in statute that need a little cleanup and improvements to enable better service. So that is what this bill is doing. Within the CCAP program, we are making just a few clarifications, not really changing any policy. Within the sections that address the universal preschool program, we are ensuring existing licensing data, privacy protections extend across all children and providers, clarifying some timing around payments. And with regard to school districts providing preschool to three-year-olds, what is in there is really just updating and codifying what is current practice and what is already laid out in statute. We are not changing the three-year-old provisions in UPK. And then we are also clarifying the annual inflationary increase and putting back language that had been in the original House Bill 1295 bill that was removed for a different purpose through a JBC bill actually a couple years ago. So we're just going back to original statute there. We are making some changes within child care licensing to codify some best practices on reporting, clarifying some exceptions to data privacy requirements for court-issued subpoenas, and we are also extending the existing license exemption for family, friend, and neighbor providers. And definitely that would sunset this year in September. And so we are ensuring that those license-exempt providers are able to continue providing the important care that they provide in our child care ecosystem. We are making some changes in the community and family services statutes to just broaden the pool of vendors that are eligible for some of the grants that the department provides. And then we making some updates to the ECLC and the Rules Advisory Council to address create some efficiencies in membership and in the case of the ECLC add the BHA as a member And I happy to answer any questions you might have
Questions for Rep. Sirota? Rep. Flannell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So essentially, I just want to confirm, because I just had a chance to read over the bill this morning. So this bill takes funding out of the general fund. It was at the general fund and I think it was the educational fund and puts it into this program. Is that correct?
Rep. Srotta.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Flannell, for the question. So when we were creating the new universal pre-K program, there was the old existing Colorado preschool program that existed. And that program received our general fund or state ed fund, it's basically all general fund investment, and grew with inflation every year as the rest of the K-12 budget is required to do. And so when we moved the state's investment of that program into one new Colorado preschool program that covers UPK, we were grandfathering in some of the threes who were served through that program. But essentially what we wrote into statute was that that should continue to have the state's historic general fund investment and that it should be adjusted for inflation every year as it had been in order to ensure that the state was not reducing its continued support of Colorado preschool. And so in that original legislation in 1295, it was written that that inflationary increase should come from either the general fund or the state ed fund. And then what happened in the year following that at the budget committee, we had some discussions because what had been written into the original bill was that it should be a transfer, and our analysts recommended it should be an appropriation instead of a transfer. So we made that change, but the reasons for the change were to make that an appropriation instead of a transfer and to also create a reserve and to make the appropriation to CDEC instead of the preschool cash fund. So those were the reasons listed out for the bill that we passed that year via the JBC. I was a sponsor of the bill. But in the course of that, we removed that requirement that the inflationary increase come from the general fund or the state ed fund. And the consequence of that is then that if it doesn't come from there and it only comes from the preschool cash fund, then we are underinvesting and we are reducing the amount of historic funding that the state was giving. So we're just going back to that original text of the bill that was never contemplated as a reason for its removal in the subsequent bill that the JBC passed. I hope that's clear. It's kind of the historic rationale for why you see this language back here.
And noting for the record that A Bacon is here Rep Garcia Sander Thank you Madam Chair I am curious about I don see anywhere and maybe you can clear it up for me
Is the UPK cash fund the same as the Prop II fund? Is that – the Prop II money that voters passed in 2023, I think it was, is that going into the UPK cash fund?
That's Rhoda.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So Prop EE is the original legislation that increased taxes on tobacco products and taxed the, you know, the nicotine products like vaping products and things. And so that is the source of the revenue that is going into the preschool cash fund. And then Prop I, I was the measure that later voters had to vote on in order to keep the additional revenue that had to, that came in above the blue book analysis. So, yes, that money did go into the preschool cash fund, too. But it's EE revenue largely that is coming in. And the II was just that one-year increase.
Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like you to expand on the one-year increase. And I'm just trying to figure out, like, how much money is coming from where to go into the UPK fund for our state. So we are getting Prop IE money. Prop II money was just one year. And then we're also looking for general fund money. plus I think last year there was the Kids Matter Fund that went into the general ed fund, or I'm sorry, the education fund, and so is that money going to be shifted to UPK also?
Rep Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep Garcia-Sander, so TABOR requires that if we put a tax revenue forward on the ballot, But there is a blue book estimate for how much that that measure would bring in. If in the first year of that new tax or revenue source, the amount that comes in exceeds the Blue Book estimate, then we are required to go to the voters to ask if we can retain the amount over the estimate in that first year. or should we have to refund it to, well, whomever? It depends. The question depends on where the revenue came from. So in the case of II, what was put to the voters was, can we keep, I can't remember, it was somewhere in the ballpark of 20 million plus or minus. Can we keep this money for preschool or should we refund it to tobacco wholesalers? sailors. And the voters said, you can keep it. But it only has to do with revenue in that one year. If they said no, then we would have to lower the nicotine tax rates. That would have been the consequence. But they said yes. So that's what I mean by one year. It was just that one year. And then you asked a question. Oh, the Kids Matter account is for K-12 funding. That's not going into the preschool cash fund. So the preschool cash fund takes in some general fund and largely the
dollars. Thank you, Madam Chair. What specific safeguards ensure that taxpayers are not funding
care for individuals who ultimately prove ineligible And how often will the department to audit those payments Thank you Madam Chair That is not particularly contemplated in the confines of the bill but there will be someone from the department you can, I suppose, ask. They have processes to determine CCAP eligibility. This happens at the county level. And then, you know, they work through the processes that are defined in law. And I don't know what else the department is doing sort of at the state level. But you're welcome to inquire with them.
Yeah, I guess I'm just. Sorry, thank you. Looking on page nine. So from line four to 12, it just, I get that impression that that is what's happening. And perhaps I don't know, I guess.
Ah, rips Rota.
So this has to do with, I think, codifying the ways in which federal rules work and your ability to access CCAP. You can access it in a couple of different ways, whether it's TANF or child welfare. And so I think what they're doing here is to codify about the recovery money paid. This is saying that if someone has been pre-approved for eligibility, they started receiving services and then were deemed ineligible, what can't be recovered are payments to providers that have already been paid.
Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious if you had consulted child care providers or early childhood professionals, especially in the private realm, in considering these cleanup changes.
Rep. Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the, I've had some conversations with providers, but again, these are largely just, they're cleanup measures. They're not making any sort of sweeping changes to what's actually already being done. So I don't know. You can ask, again, the department if they've heard from any other providers. I will say the family child care home providers do have anxiety about continuation of the family, friend, and neighbor care. care. But through our conversations, I think I've committed to ongoing discussion. What they're concerned, what they've expressed concern about is, you know, illegal care being provided, people caring for, you know, 10 or 20 kids unlicensed in a home, which is illegal. And that is not what is covered under the license exempt care for family, friends and neighbors. And so I've committed to ongoing conversations about how the department is working to address any of that illegal care that is taking place.
Rep Hamrick.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Just a question about the appropriation to UPK from the State Education Fund. Has the fiscal analyst done like a run on the numbers to ensure that it will keep the State Education Fund sustainable?
Rep Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the sustainability of the state ed fund is in serious question, but not due to UPK and an inflationary increase, but rather due to our ability to continue funding the new formula.
Rep Hamrick?
So there's been runs done. Yes.
Rep Serrata.
Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, I'm happy to provide you with the analysis we get from our JBC staff on the sustainability of the state ed fund.
Let's transition to – oh, Rhett Partsuk, I didn't see your hand.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for bringing the bill. A couple of questions. We've got nine bullets in the fiscal note where things are requiring, modifying, increasing. In the summary, we've got increasing the number of people, lowering age limits, adding folks to it. If there's zero fiscal note, we're looking at the budgeting. I mean, lots of issues. Where is the funding allocated? Because there's a lot of these things are talking about impacts to programs that have a funding line. How are we going to do that?
Rep Sarota.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep Hartzok, like I have said, there's nothing – we're not contemplating any larger sweeping changes in the bill. So, you know, we're talking about – you mentioned age limits. So bringing in line the Early Childhood Mental Health Consultant Program, that's an existing ongoing program, and just saying that that program should serve children up to age six instead of age eight. Some of these, again, it's very slight tweaks and changes, if not largely codification of existing practice. So you are welcome to ask the department as well. But there's, as the fiscal note shows, nothing in here that is requiring additional investment from the state. Just clean up to statute.
Okay, let's transition to our witness. I will call up Tim DeRoker from the Department of Early Childhood. Hi, welcome to the Education Committee. You'll have three minutes. please start by stating your name and who you represent.
Hi, good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tim DeRocher. I am the policy, legislative, and legal advisor for the department. So on behalf of the department, I am happy to testify in support of this bill and would like to thank the sponsors as well for bringing it. So this bill makes various technical cleanups to Title 26.5, which is the statute that governs the department. And essentially what this does is it fixes some ambiguities and tension that exists in some of our statute, as well as helping make it more efficient so that we can continue to be effective in how we promote safety, quality access for children and families across the state. Some quick areas I like to highlight is with the CCAP changes these are aligning portions of our state law to existing state law as well as federal rules and they do simply codify existing practice This includes the eligibility of families transitioning off of Colorado Works as well as the clarifications regarding presumptive eligibility. For the universal preschool program, this ensures that data privacy protections apply equitably across the board regardless of whether or not a provider is subject to FERPA. And it also clarifies some inconsistencies in the funding language. For licensing, I think the big thing to highlight is that this fixes an inconsistency in the definition of institutional abuse between the definition versus the substantive portion of that bill. And then for our community and family services, what I wanted to highlight is that it broadens the pool of vendors that are eligible for our social emotional learning program. But yeah, in sum, the changes in this bill are technical. They do not impact the services that children and families receive. And really all it is about is to ensure that latent ambiguities and any tension or conflicts in state law are resolved so that it's unequivocally clear what it calls for. But I appreciate the time. I'm happy to take any questions. And if it pleases the committee, I could start with the questions around the presumptive eligibility portion.
Perfect. Yeah, we can go into the questions on the presumptive eligibility and I'll start adding folks' names to the list. Go ahead, Mr. DeRocher.
Yes. So with that section, I know it says recover, but what that is referring to is what we refer to as presumptive eligibility, which is actually a county optional policy that as of right now, no counties actually engage in. So right now it's not even occurring, but point being, from a substantive perspective, those provisions in state law regarding presumptive eligibility go back to old federal rules that are over 10 years old at this point. And so there's other portions of state statute that talk about ensuring that the program is in alignment with federal regulations. And so the changes in CCAP to the presumptive eligibility part are exclusively around making sure that the current state law mirrors what is required under federal regulation. And again, it's only in the space of presumptive eligibility, and the recover in that instance is referring to recovering from a family if during presumptive eligibility they are then subsequently found to not be eligible, and it's the federal rule that you cannot require in such an instance. But again, it doesn't change any existing practice, and it's a county optional policy that's not currently being enacted. Separately and distinct from that and outside the scope of the bill would be all of the different fraud processes and policies that the department and counties engage in. We actually go above and beyond what CCDF requires when it comes to fraud prevention and if there are more specific questions about that, we're happy to provide resources and answers on that.
Okay. We will move into additional questions from the committee. Rep. Garcia-Sander.
Thank you Madam Chair I have a couple questions for Mr DeRocher Did I say that right Yeah DeRocher Well whatever Okay Okay Is it De Rocher or De Rocher De Rocher is fine Mr De Rocher But what is correct
Mr. D. What is correct? De Rocher. Okay. Okay, Mr. De Rocher.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So a couple of questions. One is that it appears on page four of the bill, it appears that the commission, the makeup, the explicit makeup has been changed. And it takes out one representing business interests, one representing private nonprofit entities, and one representing public entities and replaces that with a wide range of expertise, affiliations or backgrounds. I'm just curious about why that is. I'm hearing from some people in my district that they'd like to have that explicit representation instead of just a wide range of expertise because that can be open to interpretation.
Mr. DeRocher?
Yes. That change doesn't actually change the composition of the ECLC. All that subsection four refers to is the co-chairs. You can see that actually in line two of page four, that's the part that talks about the required membership of the ECLC versus the co-chairs that are chosen among the members. So we have not removed any required constituency groups from the ECLC membership. All the subsection four does is open up who can be selected as a co-chair of the commission. And so currently that language is kind of very limiting in terms of who the ECLC can select as a co-chair within themselves. Additionally, we did a survey of other state advisory councils. So the ECLC is our state advisory council, which is required under the Head Start Act. But we did a survey of other state advisory councils, and we noticed that we were a little bit unique in how narrow and limiting our language around who can be a co-chair specifically is. And so that's what that subsection for it gets at is just the co-chairs.
Thank you.
Rep. Garcia-Sander. Okay. Thank you. My second question has to do with the three-year-old funding. funding. So it seems like the way this is written, it's the three-year-old preschool funding is going to be reserved for students on IEPs, with IEPs. And I guess when we think about UPK and the limit, I know in our school districts, there's only so many slots of UPK preschool slots for three-year-olds, especially with IEPs when we have center programs. I am curious, will private businesses also be eligible to the three-year-olds with IEPs? And if not, is there a reason why we excluded private businesses on that?
Mr. DeRocher?
Yes. So I'll unpack this. It's an obviously complex issue. But to start, the changes in the bill don't change what's happening on the ground right now. They just, again, codify what's occurring. But for children who have an IEP, whether they're three or four, we are just the funders. We defer to CDE. They are the state education agency. And in terms of the placement of students with IEPs we do not do that We defer to the administrative units or AUs as they referred to AUs they are the local entities who under special education law are given the authority and duty to find specific placements and locations for students with disabilities. So that's what we defer to entirely. We don't dictate where a student with an IEP goes. We just see where the AU directs them, and we provide funding, and that's it. We are a pass-through of funding for students with IEPs. In terms of non-IEP three-year-olds, the current law and how it has been since it was passed in 2022 is that the three-year-old component is limited, finite, and capped. It is not, quote, universal the way the four-year-old program is. And currently, the requirement that the department distribute non-IEP three-year-old money exclusively to school districts is already in law. That's already part of the statute. School districts, in their discretion, can subcontract with community-based providers to provide the services. And so, again, we're not changing anything with how IEP is done. We're not changing how we currently do the distribution of non-IEP three-year-old. We're just kind of putting in and making clear, because that was something that I think no one was quite sure how it was going to look like in practice, since it's not as spoken to and built out as the four-year-old program. And now that we have almost three years of the program, you know, we know that we just simply don't have the funding and infrastructure to operationalize the three-year-old program the same way we do the four-year-old program. And so this bill just codifies and makes clear that that non-IEP three-year-old portion is to be administered by the school district in conformity with the rest of state law and regulation.
Rep Johnson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, sir, for answering all these questions. My question is on the safety clause. This bill is number 1259, so it's later in the process, meaning it's been kind of delayed, not up front. And I keep hearing this is just to amend codified language. This doesn't fix anything. Boots on the ground. So my curiosity is why the safety clause then? Are we not wanting people to be able to petition if they have questions like private providers? I don't see the urgency in this. Can you explain why?
Is that a question for the bill sponsor or for Mr. DeRocher? Mr. DeRocher, would you like to answer that question or would you like to defer to the bill sponsor?
I can defer to the bill sponsor. Okay.
At this point, I don't see any other questions for Mr. DeRocher, so thank you so much for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify? Seeing none, the testimony phase is closed. Rep. Sirota, do you have any amendments?
Are there any amendments from the committee?
Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Closing comments, Reps Rhoda.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Appreciate the discussion, all of the questions. As has been said, it is really a simple technical cleanup bill. To Rep Johnson's question of the safety clause, I know that I had a conversation about this with the department and the bill drafter, and we landed on a safety clause, but it actually is escaping me the particular part of the bill that that did require it So I'll go back and have conversations and if we don't need it, I'm happy to in a petition clause.
Closing comments from the committee.
Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Sirota. I just wanted to thank you for how thoroughly you've gone over the bill with myself and the committee, and thank you for your efforts in this.
Okay. Our vice chair is not here, so I need a motion to send this bill to the cow.
Rep Stewart.
What's the bill number? 1259.
I move House Bill 1259 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Second.
Seconded by Rep Gilchrist.
Any closing comments from the committee? Oh, I already did that. Okay. Mr. Beck, please call the vote. Representatives Bacon?
Excuse. Bradfield? Pass. Blanell?
Respectfully no.
Garcia Sander?
Yes.
Gilchrist?
Yes.
Hamrick?
Yes.
Artsuk?
No.
Johnson?
No for today. Phillips?
Yes.
Stuart Kay?
Yes.
Story?
Yes.
Martinez?
Excuse.
Bradfield? No for today.
And Madam Chair? Yes. This passes 7-4. Congrats. House Bill 1259 passes 7 to 4. Yes. And you're on your way to the committee of the whole. Thank you, committee. We will now transition to House Bill 1299. All right. We have our bill sponsors at the table. we will begin with house bill 1299
and we have first picture
Madam Chair up.
Representative, we've got to see you, Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll go ahead and start. Thank you, committee, for hearing HB 1299, Reducing Regulatory Burden on Education Providers. I will describe this as Administrative Relief 2.0. If you recall last year, the League and Rural Alliance teamed up to provide some additional regulatory relief on schools and directed a data audit of all the reporting we must do as schools to hopefully streamline, align, or eliminate reporting requirements. Sadly, we had to remove the data audit, but the bill made steps forward on unified improvement plans. This bill is another attempt to take baby steps toward administrative relief burdens. We built last year bill from the 2017 Education Data Advisory Committee or EDAC Data Burden Survey The report acknowledged the benefit of data to support students and their success and for transparency to the public but the report also acknowledged that the data burden is real for school districts and that data collection pushes the limits of the available resources in small and rural districts. This bill takes several small steps forward to relieving the administrative burdens from our schools. This bill has five main components. Section 2 of the bill attempts to modernize the missing children reporting process. Currently, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, or CBI, mails a snail mail physical letter with a printed list of missing children to each district superintendent and the Charter School Institute, or CSI. Once received, districts or CSI must manually verify the list against student records. Assuming the letter isn't lost or overlooked, staff typically manually enter the name into a spreadsheet and compare against their local student information system, or SIS, or they visually scan student rosters for possible matches. This process meets the current letter of the law, but the manual process lends itself to problems such as delayed action, human error, and inequitable impact to districts with larger staff capacity. This section authorizes CBI to transmit the missing children lists directly to CDE for automated cross-referencing through the statewide data pipeline. This is the same secure system districts and CSI already use for required student demographic and student school association submissions. Section 3 of the bill repeals the statutory requirements for districts to adopt policies related to paper and pencil assessments. HB 25-1278 changed statute with regard to paper and pencil assessments. Since another statute still requires a local education provider to have a policy on the use of paper and pencil state assessments, this requirement for a policy can be repealed as it's no longer necessary. This alleviates the admin of needing to do a policy for an outdated process. Section 4 aligns state statute with State Board of Education rule on unified improvement plan flexibility. Current statute allows a school district with 1,000 students or fewer to submit one plan to satisfy the school district and the school plan requirements. 116 school districts out of 178 are eligible for this flexibility. SBE rule has allowed school districts for up to 1,200 students to submit one plan, increasing this flexibility to 122 school districts. This simply aligns statute with SBE rule, allowing more schools to take advantage of this flexibility. Section 5 allows school districts and CSI to waive out of staff evaluation ratings. Current law says that school districts and CSI must annually report the final evaluation ratings for licensed personnel. The intent of this collection is to capture statewide information on teacher and principal effectiveness. In practice, however, many charter schools, innovation schools, and some districts are waived from the underlying educator evaluation statute, making this collection duplicative and administratively burdensome. This section allows schools that have received a waiver for an underlying requirement to complete a final performance rating for licensed personnel to not complete the report for licensed personnel evaluations, saving valuable staff time. We will have an amendment later to remove this section of the bill, and I'm happy to explain the reasons for that during the amendment phase. Finally, Section 6 attempts to clarify reports being mandatory or voluntary. As we know, districts are subject to significant reporting requirements. This language ensures that CDE does not require reports when they are only voluntary collections. Anecdotally two days ago I got an email from one of my teachers saying I need to get this information regarding access students the students who took the state language assessment in January and February And I said is this for CDE
She said, yes. And I said, they already have this information. They already have access to this information. But she is completing a report for CDE that asked for this information. So even though CDE already has access to this information, she needed to contact me to get the numbers to report to her to go back to CDE. So it can be really frustrating knowing that CD already has access, but they're asking us to verify the numbers. So that said, I'd like to hand it over to my co-prime and allow her to share her reasons for sponsoring the bill.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members of the Education Committee. Today we bring before you House Bill 1299, and I wanted to say thank you to my co-prime sponsor for that great explanation of what our bill does. I am sponsoring this bill because, as you all do as well, we all hear from our superintendents all the time, and they are not shy about sharing their perspectives. One of the things that I hear from them is the constant request to do more with less. I know data is important and valuable, particularly as we make important public policy decisions. But there is a balance that needs to happen between the need and desire for data and the real burden this places on our schools. We must guard against data and reports for data and reporting sake. And while these are small steps to take, they are nevertheless steps in the right direction to alleviate burdens from our schools so they can focus more of their time on what matters the most, educating our youth. I know that this committee always has a lot of questions. And so in an effort to, I know, brand new information, in an effort to answer questions ahead of time, I have touched base with a few of you to answer some questions. And I figured I'd just jump right into questions, if I may, Mr. Chair. One of the questions was in regards to the statutory requirement for districts to adopt policies relating to paper and pencil assessments. The question was in regards to how this impacts students with disabilities. The students that need to access an assessment using a paper and pencil assessment can still do so under the context of the bill. This just removes the requirement for a policy. But if a student's IEP says that they need to take an assessment using a pencil, then that is certainly what the school district must adhere to. Another question was in clarification to something that is on the fact sheet. Just to clarify, when it comes to minimizing UIP plan requirements for small systems, we are talking about school districts in the context of this section with 1,200 or fewer students. And then the last question was in regards to what is a charter collaboration? This is a group of very small charters that can collaborate together because they may need shared services. And so that is a collaboration between small charters. So that was an answer to some of the questions that we have gotten. I look forward to your additional questions, and we will ultimately be asking for a yes vote on House Bill 1299 as amended, hoping that we take the amendment.
Any questions for the bill sponsors?
Representative Hartzik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors. And I'm going to assume that's directed at my colleague and I sitting here. No we not Sorry I mean you got I think you covered it You got the metrics You got the ROI You looking at a couple of key things here I guess the only thing on the missing person, if you can, when you're talking about the more direct to the CBI and moving up the CDE level, direct coordination, what is that anticipated? Is that just expediting the process or you could talk about referencing what their numbers are. How do you see, do you have the data? Where is that coming from? Just driving that, please.
Madam Chair.
So this reform would leverage the infrastructure that is already in place. And so that is where that data would be coming from.
Representative Hartzik.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Schert. Yeah, that wasn't the, I guess, so what is driving that? What are we looking to solve? Is CBI, do they expect that there will be more identification? Is that what we're trying to reach to, is what is that metric that we're looking at trying to solve and get an answer on? I mean, I think it's a great idea, but I'm looking at what are we trying to solve and how do we expect to solve it.
Representative Garcia, Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of this is to expedite the process. So right now it's a snail mail paper letter that could get lost. You know, when it lands in the district mailbox, it might get shuffled to the right person. Maybe it won't. I don't know. But timeliness is important. And so, you know, if this information is already in our current data pipeline system, then it just expedites the process that CBI can cross-reference with CDE, removing the middleman of a district personnel. AML Bacon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I dialogue? I'll have one question. And I'm going to put it on the record.
We'll allow it.
Thank you. That was very long. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank your stakeholders for helping me understand, but this is what I wanted to understand and put on the record. Thank you for answering what a collaborative is. so I want to talk about section four in regards to the annual review the accreditation pieces and I'm wondering if anyone on this committee might be able to listen and understand in case because some of us have worked in schools so what I understand under the section this is 2211-208 In this language, we're saying that school districts generally need to submit information for what we presume to be their UIPs. So the Unified Improvement Plans. UIPs exist, and for anyone, maybe a stakeholder, you all, please correct me if I'm wrong, but UIPs exist at two levels. They exist at a district level and they exist for schools, particularly schools that are on the clock, if you will, or have performance issues. So if a school is being monitored or if a school is failing, it will have a UIP. Districts also have UIPs for the same reason. Districts can become unaccredited, discredited, unaccredited. And so when I look at sub D, the section that we are implementing here in the bill. now originally sub d says and this is probably this might also be a question for rural schools a school district with 1 000 students or fewer shall only be required to submit a single plan to satisfy the school district and school plan requirements so that means if it's a small district they only need to have a single plan to satisfy the school district and school plan requirements one UIP for everything. But for a district that's larger than 1,000, say a Denver public schools, the district would need a UIP and all of its schools, at least, and especially the ones on the clock would need a UIP. Now, here's what my question is or challenge is, particularly around the charter network language. So one, it says if a charter school network, and I'll start there, has 1,200 or less students, we want to treat it like a district in that it only needs to submit one plan rather than all the schools and the network submit a plan. And that's what I believe this is trying to say. However, what this also functionally means is the district itself is larger than 1,200 kids if a subnetwork is the same amount. And so for me, my challenge is for a network that also authorizes all of these schools. That means, one, all the data from these schools, even within network, contribute to the district's accreditation. So when I'm thinking about Denver Public Schools, just because we have a few charter networks, it doesn't mean all those kids and all of those authorized schools' data doesn't contribute to Denver Public Schools' accreditation data. But the other thing is, what do we do in the event a network does have multiple schools, albeit maybe they're small, but one of them is failing and one of them is passing. And now the network can only submit one plan instead of there being a plan for each of those schools. That is one I'm checking on if that's what this means, right? And is that the sentiment to which we are trying to accomplish here? Now, my challenge with a collaborative is that collaboratives may differ. Thank you for answering that because I wasn't sure where they've been defined in statute. Collaboratives can be different schools with different models. And so for the fact that a collaborative could submit one plan when it could be a potential for a school within that collaborative to be failing that doesn't have a consistent model, I'm not sure how collaboratives can submit an improvement plan when it's just there for added support, not necessarily to manage the school. Am I making sense so far? And so I want to know if that is your intent to situate a network that is a subentity of a larger district like it is a district. Right. I think I think that's my challenge and question. And that makes sense? Do you want to take that?
Madam, Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. And now you can dialogue for the record. Oh, thank you. So thank you for the question, Amal Bacon. I think we have somebody here with the League of Charter Schools who will testify and be able to kind of talk about why this was part of the request to put in this bill? While we're done logging, thank you. I did talk to them a little bit outside. That's where I was. I apologize. I thought I would, okay. But here's the other thing for consideration.
I going to give you a hypothetical as to why this concerns me I have had in fact it was a storied story where I do have networks when I was on our school board where there one school that really failing and the others are not And I don't believe the strategies are the same. Does that make sense? And then the other question that I have on it is, like, what is it that, and maybe this is for rural schools, when you're talking about a rural district, at least in the collaborative space, I want to understand what we're actually seeing from rural schools, like how many schools are we talking about? Because we have one superintendent, right, who can support all of its schools, and I'm not sure if that's actual parity for collaboratives the same way it might be parity for networks with what's happening there by way of supporting those schools. Does that make sense? Are we still in dialogue? Okay, thank you, I guess I do want to point out that this would be adding only six schools, going from 1,000 to 1,200 students. The difference is 116 school districts that are currently eligible. This would increase the flexibility to 122 school districts. And just speaking from my own experience, my district hovers right around 1,000. And sometimes it's give or take 30 students, depending on the year. And that is one elementary, one middle school, one high school. And that's the vast majority of our school districts in Colorado. And, you know, those are outside of our front range corridor. And so, yeah, just pointing back to this only adds six schools going from 1,000 to 1,200 students. So it's a pretty minimal number.
And I'm going to jump in since we are dialoguing. So the reason for the flexibility for the combined UIP plans is small systems often have challenges with effectively planning with limited access to state-required data metrics or, in some cases, how to write a plan when numbers are too small to be reported publicly. that being said I think I understand what you are getting at which is the concern around this applying to collaborative charter networks as well which certainly happy to keep talking about that and I also think that some of your more detailed parts of your question may be better answered by our folks here to testify Representative Phillips
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is about, now that Rep. Bacon opened the door, my question is about, this doesn't apply, we're just saying strictly charter schools, we're not saying online, right? This is not online charter schools or any online? That's my question.
I would like to take that.
Ms. Agadresia, Sander. Yes, the assumption would be that, yes, charter schools is the umbrella term. So I would infer that, but let's ask our witness who's here to testify regarding that. All right.
Seeing no further questions, we will move into testimony phase. We have two witnesses for this bill. We have Dr. Pratik Duda and Frank Reeves. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify on House Bill 1299? We'll start with our in-person testimony. Dr. Duda, welcome back to education. You have three minutes Thank you Mr Chair members of the committee I appreciate the opportunity to testify today My name is Prateek Detta and I here in my capacity as Vice President of Policy for the Colorado League of Charter Schools
to express my strong support for House Bill 1299. Colorado's educators are committed to helping students succeed. Yet too often, they're buried under a growing web of data reporting requirements, many of which are redundant, overlapping, or outdated. Instead of focusing on teaching and school improvement, school leaders spend hours navigating compliance. House Bill 1299 is a first step to untangle that problem. Whether it strengthens the Education Data Advisory Committee, repeals outdated mandates, or allows smaller districts and charter schools to submit a single unified improvement plan, House Bill 1299 takes practical steps to simplify reporting and reduce unnecessary administrative burden. This bill is not about reducing accountability. It's about using educators' time more wisely. Every hour spent on unnecessary reporting is an hour not spent supporting teachers, improving instruction, or helping students. House Bill 1299 is a practical bipartisan step that respects educators' time and keeps the focus where it belongs, on students. I urge you a yes vote. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We'll now go online to Mr. Reeves. Welcome to education. Please unmute yourself, and you have three minutes.
Yes, thank you, Chairman and Committee, for hearing me today. I am Frank Greaves with the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance. We represent 147 districts and over 130,000 students across the state of Colorado. The Alliance is in full support of House Bill 1299. As many of you know, we've been here before discussing relief and the reporting of data burden from the districts. Last year, we brought a relief bill that had a fiscal note. So we've worked very hard this year with our sponsors and with the Charter League and other educational entities to make sure that we can do this without a fiscal note and just start chipping away rather than taking the big data burden. These are fairly small changes, and they really are in steps towards allotting districts more opportunity to focus on our number one goal, which is educating our students. I hear often from our districts, we spend so much time reporting data that we really forget about what we're doing with that data. And so this chips away at that and gives us a chance to look at that. We do realize data is important to collect, but we have to weigh that. We have to weigh the purpose for collecting the data versus the opportunities we may be taking away from kids because of the cost, the time, the effort of that collection. Yeah, and again, this is a small step, and we're proud of our partnership with the League of Charters in doing this. We don't often come together, and so I think this is one area that we see education needs wholeheartedly. So I do ask your support for House Bill 1299, and thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. We'll now move on to questions for this panel of witnesses. Amel Bacon.
Thank you. I guess I just wanted to continue a little bit of the line of questioning that I had for the sponsors for Dr. Dutta. I think my question in regards to networks and collaboratives, one, do you know how many we're talking about between the two of them? And then the second piece was do we believe that a network that is authorized by a district should be on the same footing as an independent district of the same size even though the data that comes from that network contributes to the larger district's data when it comes to the district's accreditation and improvement strategies as well? Dr. Dutta. Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for the question. Let me see if I can answer all of it. And if I don't answer it, please tell me the parts I missed. So let me start at a high level. Many networks that we represent as they're going through the UIP process look at student achievement. And they all came to very similar, because of their philosophy, very similar improvement strategies. It's reading, writing, math, et cetera. And so what they were doing was often copying and pasting the UIP multiple times, submitting them to the CDE. The objective was if, and that is if, districts and networks, excuse me, have a similar student achievement plan to increase achievement. We're saying those that are lower than 1,200, much like the districts, can submit one. To your question, which is a very good question, what if they're networks that are, one's a red school, one's a yellow school, one's a green school. Why would they all submit one plan? I totally agree. The UIP law currently, if you're a red or yellow, is a different UIP than a green school. And so under that consolidated plan, they would have to meet all the requirements of state and federal law. So they won't submit one plan that necessarily waters down. I believe that your intention was to make sure those schools that are underserving or not performing well somehow skate by with a different UIP. They would have to meet that one plan, have to meet all the requirements that that red or yellow school has to go through. So I wanted to clarify that piece, but it looks like you have a question, so I can pause there. And I think your part about whether I think a network should have the same footing as a district. I don't think we are – at least our intention isn't to put the network in the same footing. It is purely what is the most effective way to impact student achievement. That is honestly the objective. To the prior point of just copying and pasting, this doesn't require this network to do that. It just allows those that have the same strategy, those that have the same plan, to submit one, much like a rural school who has the same sort of flexibilities. I'll pause there. Please tell me what parts I didn't answer. AML Bacon. Okay. Okay. So one, I want to give you the hypothetical, and it's kind of like my district. If we have a network that now has 1,150 kids, perhaps that's four schools. That'd be small schools, but we do have small schools, right? If one of those schools is red, the other three are green, are you saying that one, per law, that red school needs to have its own UIP anyway? Dr. Dutta. The law states that that red school has a different UIP. And so the intention is, and I don't believe anything changes it, that that one UIP, combined UIP, would have to meet all the requirements that the red school has to fill out. There is no exemption for a school because that is not only state law. There's also federal identifying factors as well. So then that... Hey, Mel Bacon. I'm sorry, I thought we... May we dialogue? Would you like to dialogue? Yes, I would. Sorry.
I'll allow the dialogue.
So if we have... You'll allow it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if we have a network that has four schools, one school is red and has its own UIP, what then is the point of a district submitting one on behalf of all of its schools? Do you see what I'm saying? if it can't do that in the first place, isn't that the challenge? Because what I'm hearing is, what I think this is saying is, one network has four schools, one is red, three are green. But we're saying the network, because that's what the language in the underlying law says for rural districts, we're saying the network should be able to submit one plan on behalf of itself, which I don't think networks are evaluated that way. That's why I don't think they're similarly situated, but that the network can submit one plan on behalf of itself, on behalf of all of its schools. You see what I'm saying? And so I'm curious then, if a school, one out of the four, is read, if it already has to submit its own plan, then that kind of says you can't submit one plan for all of the schools. Yeah, and maybe this would be a great time as the League of Charter Schools to remind you all we do not have any red schools. So I do want to say that for the last – The League doesn't? Or there's not a charter school in the state that's red? Currently, in the most previous year, academically, there was one red school. And the year before that, there was also one school. We do not have any members that have red schools. So – But it doesn't mean you couldn't. You possibly can't. And so I would say in that one plan, you would have to meet all the requirements. So I think you're right. In that case, this exemption probably wouldn't yield to that much flexibility because they would have to complete – that red school would have to complete its own unique UIP. I think the objective that we were trying to get across here is that schools that are not red or not yellow because they have their own unique set of UIP requirements, they would be the ones that would get the flexibility because that UIP template is very similar for green schools than it is for a red school. I will say I believe CDE is also here for any technique. If I'm not doing a great job answering, you're welcome to – yeah, CDE can come in anytime. I would like them – this is what we're talking about in the hallway. Because I don't think that – like one thing, if you want to point out the data of all the charter schools, I'm like I do have data of a school in my district failing. And quite frankly, they did need a different plan than the other schools in their networks. and God forbid, I don't think, it's not like I'm hoping that any school become red, okay? But it doesn't mean it's not possible. And what the challenge that I have is, it's one thing to say a district, I get this for rural schools, right? Because the rural school and that superintendent is responsible for all of those kids and if they want to make one plan, they can do that. The challenge that I have is that a network is a sub-entity of a district and that district is responsible for all the data, even the kids in the charter schools. And so if we are going to, I just want to be sure about what we're saying here. Because I would say as a school board member, I don't want to see just one plan for your whole network when there is a school in there that is counting towards my data as a district and they might have something different that they need to do And so that what I want to understand Is there a gray area and a difference between when a UIP is required regardless, you know, districts have to submit UIPs, and so do schools. And I believe there might be a rule, particularly in UIPs, for schools that are on the clock, red, yellow, right? orange and so in the event a school is on a clock regardless and this might impact the rural districts does that school have to have its own plan even if it's in a rural district right I think I need to answer that I need to understand that and so I get what we're trying to do to some extent for the rural schools because they're all managed by the same person but networks are not they might have their own CEOs but they are still part of the district that authorized it. And the same with collaboratives. If the schools, and this was my question with online school, if there are collaboratives of four different schools, now by statute, which could include online, I believe, because they're still authorized, right? If there's a collaborative of four different schools, that by law can create a collaborative for other functions, for support functions. I don't believe the underlying statute I'm looking at says that they're not also responsible for their own data. And I don't know how collaboratives can contribute to school improvement for different models, because at least the networks are the same application over and over again, and you understand their models. But collaboratives could be an art school, could be a STEM school, it could be a whatever school, and to say that they only need one plan for the four different types, one of which that might be, or maybe more than one that might need support. I don't understand how it's the same, especially if it's the same circumstances, that collaborative exists in a district that also is responsible for that data, unlike the small rural districts. I'll try to keep attempting, and if I'm not doing a good job, please let me know if I'm not really answering your question. As far as you started off with a question about one of your schools in your district that was red and how frustrated you would be if that school somehow did not submit a UIP or somehow consolidated amongst a bigger one. I think I want to make it crystal clear. Those schools have unique state law and federal law that they cannot, they need to meet the requirements about what a red school has to go through. I don't think we are trying to in any way sidestep that. I think the question becomes, if you are submitting one plan, how do you make sure all those red, the requirements that red school are submitted? And does it even give you any flexibility then if you have to go? And that's a good point. And so the intention is, I don't think for red schools, orange or yellow, I'll double check yellow. I think red and orange have to be the ones. I don't know if yellow is, but like a red and orange school, those networks that have that school will not get the flexibility. And I'm okay with that, frankly. We are not trying to water down accountability by any stretch of the imagination. We want this idea, the impetus behind this is for green schools who all have the same strategy to not copy and paste. That is honestly the objective. It is not to water down anything, but your questions are valid. The collaborative idea, I hear that. And this was, I think, I will say I'm not trying to sidestep accountability. This might have been a drafting and sort of words that were vetted through other places. Our objective was again similar models trying to that the objective I think the collaborative piece we don have very many by the way across charge I was trying to research this this morning I can actually think of one Global Village used to be one I don't think they are anymore. I don't, please go ahead, yeah.
Oh, but I think it's a good point. Rep Bacon, I do think that some went through some drafting. Our objective wasn't necessarily collaborative. Our objective was for similar networks who are green to get the flexibility. Thank you.
Representative Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Prateek, my question is, Global Village, in my district, it is a collaborative. Okay. So I was wondering just about the language on page 5, lines 17 through 20, because typically we see charter school or CSI, and all of a sudden it's charter school or charter school collaborative. So I guess my question is, I know you're league and not CSI, but so you know what i i'm assuming this would also apply to csi and then doesn't charter school cover collaborative or why why would we say charter school or collaborative knowing that i have a charter school collaborative in my district thank you dr dada thank you so much and rep
phillips i do believe it's not a charge school or collaborative i believe that sentence says a charter school network or collaborative and that was what i think and so that's the question and And just to clarify, I know this is tangential, CSI schools are members of the League of Charter Schools. We are a membership organization. We're not an authorizer. So they are members, and we advocate on behalf of them.
Representative Phillips. Thank you. So then why are we adding Charter School Collaborative? They're not included as Charter School? Why are we saying Charter School? Why are we saying or Charter School Collaborative?
Yeah, fair question, which I believe Rep Bacon was trying to get at. I believe the idea was amongst schools that were having similar services, collaboratives usually come around food or special education, usually, not always, that if they had a shared sort of philosophy, that you would create one plan for the schools working together. I think that's the intention, but I'll readily admit that wasn't necessarily the intention behind. Collaborative wasn't an objective that we were trying to get across, but I think that was the reason why that's in the bill. Any further questions?
Amel Bacon.
Okay. This is what I hope to share about this that maybe CDE or whoever can answer. If we can find the statutory citations of where a red school or a school on the clock needs its own plan regardless of if it's a network or not, I just want to be sure we are not overriding anything with this language. And if that doesn't exist, then can we differentiate or make some sort of cross-reference? Dr. Duda. Red Bacon, I hope you hear me loud and clear, as explicit as I can be. We do not want any sort of watering down of any school on the clock. And if that means they are somehow hidden by a consolidated template, that's not what we want. Our objective is, and I don't even believe that is legal, but yes, CDE can answer that because that red school based on ESSA and the federal law has to be identified. And so I hear you, and I just want to make sure to be as explicit as I can that this is not meant to water down anything. We are just trying to have schools with similar philosophy, similar improvement plans, all submit one rather than waste time copying and pasting. AML Bacon Alright seeing no further questions since I made the last call for witness testimony the testimony phase is closed
Representative Garcia-Sander, I see we have an amendment.
Yes, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-001. There's a motion and a second. Second. Representative Goethe, C.S. Andrew. Thank you. As a reminder, Section 5 attempts to provide relief for educator evaluations. We received some feedback from stakeholders on a couple different points. There's broad consensus that teacher evaluation statutes could use change. The question is how. The problem we were trying to solve for here is to eliminate the requirement that school staff spend valuable time filling out zero value inputs into the teacher evaluation system online, but not having them fill this out essentially made the data set incomplete as those teachers would then not be in the system at all. The easiest way to address this would be to create a simple checkbox that would let the system know that the teacher was waived from this requirement. However, that change would drive a fiscal note. We did not want to sacrifice the whole bill on this piece and think we need some more conversation to make this workable. So we've just removed this provision from the bill, and I ask for an eye on this amendment.
Thank you very much. Is there any questions on Amendment L1?
Representative Hamrick. My question is how many schools right now are waiving out of the accountability system? Representative Garcia-Sander.
That is a really good question. Right now there's 116 school districts out of 178 eligible for this. I don't have the exact number but I can get that to you. Representative Story.
Can you just clarify what that means? 116 districts out of 178 are? Representative Garcia-Sander.
Those are our school districts with a thousand students or fewer right now. Representative Story. I thought the question was how many school districts are waiving out of the evaluation process. I'm sorry. It wasn't clear what you meant. Thank you. Representative Garcia-Sander. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Tear. Thank you, Representative Story, for that question. I got crossed in my thinking for the question, the sections that we were addressing. That is a really good question, and I will find that out. looks like there's five districts right now currently waving out
any further questions on amendment l1 seeing none is there any objection to amendment l1 seeing none amendment l1 passes without objection bill sponsors are there any other amendments no other amendments any other amendments from the committee seen none the amendment phase is closed wrap up representative garcia sander thank you mr chair um i would like to just um go back to aml bacon's questions around um the charter school
collaborative and i just want to kind of point out that in in our bill it says that a school district with 1,200 students or fewer may submit a single plan. And I think that goes on to say a charter school network or charter school collaborative with 1,200 students or fewer and authorized by a single authorized submit a single plan but this is only with CDE permission they still have to petition or request CDE that they that they can it's not just an automatic granted it once you're 12,000 students or once you're 1200 students that you can automatically submit a single plan you still have to ask CDE so my inference is that if CDE says your collaborative has one school that's read we're not going to allow a single plan. So that's again my inference on addressing that but it is permissive and it doesn't automatically grant the permission to submit a single plan. So with that again this is data administration relief 2.0 and we'll probably come back next year with 3.0 looking at ways to reduce the administrative burden, especially for our small and rural schools. And it's just really practical ways to help support our educators that are in the small systems in our state, which is the vast majority of them. And I ask for an aye vote.
Would you like to move the bill?
I would like to move House Bill 1299 to the Committee of the Whole and ask for a favorable recommendation. As amended. Thank you. As amended. Second.
All right. There's a motion and a second. Closing comments from the committee. Amel Bacon.
Okay. So thank you. Thank you to the sponsors and thank you to folks for listening. I am going to support this bill today. I wanted to start getting into a habit of not doing that when there are outstanding questions, because I hope, you know, again, I put on a microphone that we can work things out between now and when they get to the floor. And I did talk to rural schools and say I support the bill and I do want to support the bill I think though that there are two distinct issues This makes sense to me for rural districts and small rural districts and districts that are smaller than 1,200. And what I heard you just say by way of permissive, I suspected, I will talk to CDE because I suspected there is a difference here where the law before this bill said a district of this size shall only be required to submit a single plan. Now we've changed it to May, but I didn't know that that is even permissive, and I'd like to see the rule from CDE that suggests that. Because prior to today, by law, they only had to submit one regardless of a rule. So I would like to see that if that is the case. And then I do question the collaboratives being a part of this, given that they could be functionally different models and have different programming to submit one plan. And I would like to see where in statute that a school, regardless of if it's in a network or district, must have a UIP and for what levels that they are on the clock. I feel like if we do not cross-reference that, that these laws might conflict. And so if we can at least add that to where existing statute, say notwithstanding section whatever, right, I think that matters. And while I want to celebrate the league for not having a school that's red, I have seen when it has been, when there have been. and I don't want to say from now on to perpetuity that in the event that happens that they are exempted from having UIPs for the schools that do actually need support especially when the overarching data again unlike the small rural districts contributes to the authorizing districts accreditation and performance That means the district is also somehow on the hook even though we have contracts for charters the district is also on the hook for those students' performance. And that's why I feel like they should still submit plans and that why they are fundamentally different than a district of being of the same size, if that makes sense. And so I'm going to ask for those things. I'll be a yes for today, given my previous commitments. And I hope, hope, hope that we can get that clarity and that writing. And again, I do want to consider the collaborative piece, if that is the same here, before we get to the floor. So thank you for listening and thank you committee for your grace once again.
Representative Phillips.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's too late to ask questions, and I forgot to ask about online schools. So just after, when we're finished here, you and I can have a conversation regarding how this would impact online schools. And then, yeah, I'll be supporting. I think the intent is right. I agree with a little bit of cleanup. And I know we get into the weeds on, you know, what about online? What about collaborative? What about red? But I'll be supporting. but I think there's a few more steps, a few more questions to be answered. Thank you.
Representative Pamrick.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I join my colleagues in some concerns about the language and about the collaborative situation and also the online schools. I'll be yes for now, but looking forward to working more.
Any further questions? Representative Bradfield.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and Representative Lukens for bringing this bill. I know the one section that you just removed was the one that had a great deal of discussion from just about anybody who came up to me to talk about this bill And so I don blame you for removing it entirely and giving it some time to percolate through other people minds that you don't have to have a formal evaluation every year in education. So I am certainly glad to tell you that I want to vote yes for today. Thank you.
Presentative story.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a good conversation, and I agree. It just feels like things aren't all totally put together yet, and there also doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for it when I look at the list of those supporting or amending or whatever, so that's a little bit concerning as well. so I hope there will be additional changes and amendments to the bill to kind of tighten it up I think and be a little bit more specific and I'll be yes today but yeah I still have concerns too
thank you all right um seeing no further questions going once going twice all right Mr. Beck will you Please call the roll. The bill has been moved and seconded as amended. Mr. Beck, will you please call the roll? Representatives Bacon?
Yes.
Bradfield?
Yes.
Flannell?
Yes.
Garcia-Sander?
Yes.
Gilchrist?
Yes.
Hamrick?
Yes. yes yes yes yes yes excuse me
and mr. chair yes that passes unanimously you're off to the cow with a favorable recommendation seeing no further business before the education committee