House Education [May 06, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Mr. Beck, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon?

Bradfield?

Flannell?

Garcia-Sander?

Gilchrist?

Amrick?

Hartzell?

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kay?

Story?

Martinez? Madam Chair. Okay, we are hearing four bills in the House Education Committee today. Because we are starting so late, all testimony will be limited to two minutes per person. And we will start with Senate Bill 166. Our bill sponsor is here. Rep. Goldstein, please tell us about your bill.

Okay, according to staff, I'd like the record to reflect that I am here.

Anybody want to guess?

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Thank you for your opening. I do want to ask now questions if members have any questions for you. We'll go to Representative Hamrick, then Representative Villa.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Hammer, for that question. So the short answer is no. The Colorado Department of Education can review convictions on a case-by-case basis, but violent felony convictions such as those listed in the bill would prohibit someone from working in a school.

and Rep Bacon, I have like three questions. Is it okay?

You know, when I'm hearing about some of these offenses, I guess my first question is, wouldn't somebody be incarcerated already for some of the offenses that are listed?

for if you're teaching in a school district, working in a school district. But is it true that school members are, in fact, not school district employees generally?

Okay. So then they wouldn't be held to the same licensure standards or some of the other things that you're talking about.

Okay. And then what about a deferment? So like in the cases that I do, and I know I've already talked to you about the discrimination that I see in my cases. And so if somebody's on a deferment, would they be able to run for school board?

So on a deferment, it means that they go to court and then it's like, hey, if you don't get in trouble for the next year, we're going to go ahead and drop these charges.

Even after a guilty plea?

Okay, well, it doesn't really work like that, but okay. I'm going to mark that as an understanding that on a deferment you could still run for school board according to this bill, but maybe there's somebody else that can clarify the question. And then I think my last question is, I think I'll save.

Yes.

Yes, we can.

Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for working on this bill. I appreciate it. And, you know, I think at first blush, it seems like a reasonable thing. Um, generally our school board members, um, you know, are not technically working with children. You know, they, they are representing, um, they, they have been elected to be in place to provide guidance to a school district and they have one employee, their superintendent. Um, I'm concerned about, you know, both of the elements, the felony drug offense and the crime of violence. For the drug offense one, when the fentanyl bill, I don't remember the number, fentanyl bill was running through the process, you know, and it was about possession, manufacturing, et cetera, there was a hang up because in the medical world, they do use fentanyl, you know, in medical circumstances. And so the way the bill was drafted, it could mean that medical professionals that are utilizing a medication that has an element of fentanyl in it in order to control the medical situation, they would be, it would be criminal for them to be utilizing that. And so I'm concerned about that because it would bring in a whole lot more people into the realm that are violating an offense or having an offense that's a violation. And maybe we don't want that, you know, relative to, you know, elected school board members or candidates. And then also the crime of violence, you know, a felony relative to that, felony murder is a felony, but felony murder is that you were in the room when somebody used a gun and killed somebody and you and even if you had nothing to do with the planning of it the carrying out of it whatever you can be charged with felony murder And I know of people that were charged and sentenced in separate instances and the one that had nothing to do with it got a steeper sentence and the one who actually committed the crime, their sentencing was lower. Anyway, there's a lot more, I think, to consider in this place, and I do also. So my question is, are there ways that the bill can be amended to address those things? because I think a lot more people could fall into this description and not be eligible to be elected officials.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Story, for that question. Well, first of all, if they were convicted of a, I mean, the bottom line here is if they're convicted of a felony, they do their sentence, and then if we amend this to seven years, after seven years they could run for school board. I guess my question is to you. Can I ask a question?

I have a wonder how many school board candidates would apply to this specific situation.

Thank you, ma'am.

You know, I don't know. It's just that I think that the definition is so broad that, you know, it could capture many more people into it than is necessary. And I guess while I have the mic for a moment, I also believe in rehabilitation and turning your life around and being able to move out of being an offender in prison, serving your time, and getting back out into the world and being a productive taxpayer citizen, paying citizen. And, you know, we have moved to a place where we allow previous or people who have been committed and charged and committed with the felony to vote once they get out, you know, and be a citizen. And I have, with work I do under the Golden Dome with the Capital Development Committee, I have met and visited with lots of offenders that did even heinous, very heinous crimes when they were young, not just when they were minors, that have spent 30 or 40 years in prison. and they are not the young person that they were, you know. And so just because, you know, this happened, you could get out when you're 50, but why should you have to wait till you're 60 or 65 or something to run for something where you believe you could, you know, participate and contribute to society? I mean, I just, anyway, I have grave concerns, I think, about this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I only have two questions for the sponsor. Reading through the bill, which I appreciate it's only four pages, how does this act for those currently serving? Let's say your bill passes, does that mean they have to then resign, be fired, leave vacancy in committees, not committees, yeah, in spots. Like, how does this work?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Johnson. I believe it says moving forward in the bill.

I do. Thank you. And thank you because it's that time of session, so that's why I wanted to make sure. My second question is, we've referenced the amendment. Is it okay if you kind of talk about the amendment now? What was the decision from 10 years, 7 years? Why is 7 now the magic number instead of 3 or 0 or 5?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Johnson. So it says in the bill in the original draft, it says 10 years. You have to have completed your restitution 10 years after 10 years. We are lowering it to seven because it kind of brings it in the same standard as other situations where you have to have so many years after you have completed your restitution. And I also want to remind people that you cannot get a job in a public school through CD with these offenses on your record either.

they are that school board members aren't district employees yet they have a lot of interaction with kids can you you were a school board member and also president of the school board can you sort of talk about best practices for a member of a school board and their involvement with students sure thank you matt madam chair i'm sorry representative goldstein thank you madam chair

So, yes, I am still on a school board, and I'm still the president of that school board. There's five of us on our school board. We're all parents of kids in that district, and we all participate in our children's educational opportunities. Plus, we also participate in a lot of other educational opportunities, and we interact with children in all our schools fairly regularly because we're very committed school board members, And I have a sense that maybe in a lot of school districts, school board members tend to be active in their school communities with their schools. So we do interact with children, whether it's reading stories or attending award ceremonies or graduations and such.

Just a reminder that there are some concerns about local control, but school districts being able to make and determine for themselves and just kind of a reminder of why you're bringing this bill forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Hamrick. I fundamentally believe that our schools should be safe places for students. We currently have stringent restrictions on who can work in a school, and we should apply that same framework to those who can influence school district policy. Board members are also not limited to monthly meetings in an administration building. They are present at graduation ceremonies, school plays, ban and choir recitals, and a plethora of other events that children are present at. And all this bill seeks is to create a foundation of restrictions for board member eligibility. And the bill says that if your criminal record makes you ineligible to teach in a school, you should also be ineligible to make policy for an entire school district. And noting for the record that Rep Gilchrist is here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. The first one is just for, you know, I have a strong trauma background, and I know one of the reasons I here is because I always thought hey there no representation for people that come from this background And so knowing that we support second chance programs we oppose mass incarceration and knowing also that the school-to-prison pipeline is completely discriminatory, very well documented. There's no question about that. So while I appreciate an idea that every school board member should never have had any of these offenses, I'm just wondering if that does that actually represent the community knowing that could it not be an asset for you know knowing that in Adams 12 there's a lot of students that their parents have you know had some of the offenses that are listed here and so to me it seems like that would be an asset to you know just in building programs as opposed to having people in the school board that have had no experience with you know with trauma with incarceration and with some of the things that a lot of these kids are doing. experiencing, but then yet the school board has no experience with that, and I see that on the regular basis. And so my two questions are, first of all, does it seem overly punitive? Somebody does their time, and now they're not allowed to participate in the community? Something that's, I'm sure when they're going through parole, that it's likely a requirement. We want people to be engaged and participate in the community. So I guess my question is, if you can respond to why we don't want people to participate in the community and to be elected to a school board. And my last question is, it just seems like, is this targeted at someone who is currently running?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Phillips. First of all, it's not never. It's a certain amount of time after you serve your sentence and you've done your time. So it's not never, and it's not forever. And as far as targeting somebody who's currently running, it was brought forward by a constituent to Senator Benavides in her Senate district, which is Senate District 32, or 21, sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, M.L. Bacon, for that question.

I understand that, but that's why I asked to differentiate. Are you saying then if CDE does not allow them to work around children, then people who have convictions are not safe around children? I'm asking for you to be clear on what that means,

Okay I think you know are you aware that parents volunteer with kids too all the time and they go through background checks and get fingerprinted Is it true that parents who have convictions are able to volunteer in their kids classrooms

We do have parents with kids in our districts who are not allowed to be in schools. But it does not include these convictions, right?

Okay. And then my other question is, you know, you talked about disproportionate nature, and I know the Senate sponsor really well. We've served together. But isn't it true that the original version of this bill didn't have a look-back period at all?

Okay. And are you aware of the demographics in regards to who this would disqualify?

Okay. And then I think my last question for this as well is, you know, trying to understand, do you have a sense of what the sentencing is for crimes of violence and what the definition is of crimes of violence? And when I do see the term like that all financial penalties are paid, do you have a sense of how long restitution can actually go on for after one has been sentenced and even after they have served their time? It's my understanding that some of these crimes would have a rather long sentence.

People aren't in jail for 40 years for crimes of violence, and that's articulated in the statute. But then the other question is when you say by way of financial responsibilities, that means restitution or that can mean fines, and people could be paying that for the rest of their lives. So if they are still paying restitution 30 years after they got out, even after the 10-year, I mean, quite honestly, my point is the clock wouldn't even start because they'd be paying restitution. And so I just wanted to know if you were aware of that and if that was your intent.

I will answer your question. I ran for school board, and I have a criminal record. I was not convicted of a crime, but I have an arrest record. I also went through this with Denver Public Schools. And I do think that there are occasions where people get in trouble when they're 19, may serve 18 months, may live 30 years, and may have learned something and have kids in a school district. The other thing that I know about being an elected official is there is no stone that is unturned when you run for office that people don't understand or see. We are dealing with that now in our own place. And so if you're going to ask the question of that, this is my answer. And I think that's what I want to understand. If someone has served 18 months and it's been 30 years or they're still paying restitution and they have kids in this system and right now they volunteer in a classroom, are we saying that they by some reason don't have an opportunity to be honest with the community who will know who they are when they run to be able to serve on school board is is that what we saying i believe it is okay Thank you Okay Rep Gilchrist and then we will move on to the testimony phase

Sort of building off of what Amal Bacon was asking, I think – so I'd like to maybe ask – I appreciate the idea of bringing something forward from a constituent. I've actually had two bills this week that were similar, but we, the, the issue came up from a constituent and then we did, we did sort of an analysis of like, is this a problem beyond the constituent and realized it was. And so that's why we brought the bill. And so I'm trying to figure out like, is this, is, do you believe this is a problem? Like we have folks running for office that have these really concerning charges. So that's my first question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rob Gilchrist. Being that several other states have also instigated legislation similar, it has come on the radar in other states. So, yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And then I think, so maybe, do you believe that this information could kind of, similar to what Amal Bacon was saying, that in a campaign, you find out all things about all people? Do you not think that that is an effective way to, if constituents felt like this individual's past is unsafe? for their future office, that that would not come out in the campaign.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Gilchrist. I think the issue here is it would depend on the campaign and how much money was raised for or against the situation because this would require money to either promote or negate.

Good evening, members of the committee. Madam Chair, my name is Nicholas Hernandez. I'm the Executive Director of Transform Education Now. Now, we I just want to say I appreciate the nuanced and thoughtful conversation that you all have had today. And so I will be as brief as possible. I know it's been an incredibly long day for you all. We organize alongside families across Colorado to ensure that every child has access to a world class school. Ultimately, our work is fundamentally about leadership development and ensuring that parents, grandparents, moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, aunties, uncles and community members have a seat at the decision making table. and that our schools and the decisions being made by our school systems are reflective and representative of their schools. We are here today in opposition of Senate Bill 166. On the surface, I believe this bill sounds simple, that we want to protect kids, that we want to bar certain actions from taking leadership roles at our school districts. But this bill, in my opinion, flies in the face of the values that we all claim to believe in. the ideas of redemption, rehabilitation, and that once somebody has paid their debts to society, that they should have the opportunity to participate in civic life. We as a state have had conversations about not defining people about a single mistake or check the box on the application, yet this absolutely does that. The original bill permanently bars those folks from public service. The current and potential amendment, I think, said seven years. But to many of the conversations you all just had, though it says seven years, it could be a lifetime challenge that somebody has to continue to face. School boards should reflect the communities they serve, and Senate Bill 166 moves us from that goal. We also cannot ignore, while I appreciate the sponsor's comments, it is obvious that this bill would disproportionately affect communities of color. We have disproportionately faced decades of over-policing, surveillance, and unequal enforcement, particularly related to drug offenses, and this bill would reduce that representation from our communities already underrepresented in positions of power and decision making. And for all of those reasons, I would strongly urge all of you to vote no on Senate Bill 166. Thank you.

Yes. Mr. Hernandez, thank you for testifying. And I think maybe you answered my question because I was going to ask if, knowing that the criminal justice system is overrepresented with low-income people and people of color. But I think that was maybe my question you already answered because that was the point

Okay. Thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify? Oh, welcome. Come on up. If you can start by stating your name and who you represent, you have two minutes.

Okay. Any questions for Ms. Rose? Thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Okay. Seeing there is no one else to sign up or that wants to testify, the witness testimony phase is closed. Rep. Goldstein, I understand you have an amendment.

Rep Hamrick.

I'll second. I think I heard Rep. Garcia-Sander on the mic,

Are there any questions about L3? Are there any objections to L3? Seeing none, L3 is adopted. Are there any other amendments, Rep. Goldstein? Are there any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Closing comments, Rep. Goldstein.

Closing comments from the committee. Actually, let's have someone move the bill first. Rep Hamrick.

Second. Seconded by myself. Okay, closing comments from the committee. If we can put hands up who has closing comments so that we can – okay, we'll just cruise down the line. We'll start with Rep Hamrick.

Rep. Stewart.

Rep Gilchrist.

Brett Phillips.

AML Bacon. Thank you.

And the reason why is because, first, I have been a legislator who has articulated the collateral consequences of not just being convicted of a crime but being charged with one and the limits that it has put on people and their ability to serve, get a job, live, or whatnot. I have been a sponsor of a ban-the-box bill. I have been the sponsor of bills to say that people with felonies can get occupational licenses. And when I think about, too, the nature of the way that some drug crimes go, let alone some of these other crimes, and what the nature is of substance abuse disorder, I don't want to get to a place where we are saying that people cannot be redeemed and therefore should be disqualified for serving. I feel like this is consistent with the way that I have behaved in the building and my values. I do also want to say I'm going to own my own words in regards to what this signals. there was a question asked of you know perhaps who would want to run or who could do XYZ and I shared my own background and so for what it's worth I think it's important that what this legislature says about ways that one can engage after they have been convicted of a crime is really important I want to thank my colleague from Jefferson in talking about people are able to vote parents with convictions have kids and they volunteer and do things i do understand licensing and what it takes in regards to making a case that one can be a teacher i shared with you my personal background i come from a household where my father pastored and preached in a jail for 35 years to talk to people about taking accountability and entering into community. And so while I can understand deeply how important it is to keep kids safe, I'm concerned about what we're equating with safety, given one has had a conviction beyond the obvious of crimes against children. The other thing that interestingly comes with crimes against children is they are constantly supervised. They are registered sex offenders, which is not the case for some of these other crimes. Having also spent time on judiciary, I am very familiar with sentencing and what it means in Title 18 to be convicted of a crime of violence, as well as what it means to have to be paying fines and penalties. In fact, paying restitution fines and penalties can persist throughout your life. And so the clock will never start, and that is the overwhelming truth for those who have felonies because they were in jail for 10 years. they didn't earn enough money to pay the things back that they needed to pay. So in regards to who would want to run or who would vote for someone, I think we got a lot of evidence good and bad who would vote for someone with criminal pasts But I also don want to say that our communities aren responsive to their interests and can make decisions based off what they know about a person And I do know people who have criminal pasts, who have run for school boards. I also had the privilege of serving on the Denver Public School Board as the vice chair, vice president of the board. And so when you ask that question, I'm sure you'd be surprised on what you might find. and I'm sure our communities actually know who we are when they make those decisions. And so if we want to continue to have a conversation, I'd be open to that. For what it's worth, I was at CASB when we talked about some of this stuff because it came up around my own election. And so I think today for where we are at and given the discussion, I'm going to be a respectful no, but I do hope we can come to some understandings about the statements we're making about this if we do continue to have these conversations. Thank you. Rep. Garcia-Sander.

Rip Bradfield. thank you madam chair and representative i really bring uh want to thank you for this bill you've uh taken a tough subject and brought it to um a committee that uh we respect that you're bringing that and we i also personally appreciate you reaching out to me personally for my opinion I too want to echo what Representative Garcia-Sander said. I believe this is a local issue, not a legislative issue. I believe at the very least it would be an issue before the Colorado Association of School Boards. And not a function of this body. So I respectfully am a no.

representatives bacon no Bradfield no well no no Garcia Sander no Gilchrist no Amarick yes Hartsook no Johnson no Phillips No Stuart Kay Yes Story No. Martinez? Yes, Richard A. Madam Chair?

Senate Bill 166 has been lost on a vote of 9 to 4.

I move to postpone Senate Bill 166.

Second.

Senate Bill 166 has been postponed indefinitely.

I am pleased to present SB 26045 with my co-prime, AML Winter. This bill is about the Nuclear Workforce Development and Education Program. Building a skilled, clean energy workforce. Colorado aims for zero emissions by 2050. This effort will take a multifaceted approach. Building off the work of the General Assembly just one year ago, Colorado is now moving towards a clean future by leveraging nuclear power, at least we hope to be. These advancements in technologies will not only need some support from the General Assembly, but also from labor. To meet the growing need for skilled workers in nuclear engineering, radiation safety, and reactor technology, this bill establishes the Colorado Nuclear Workforce Development and Education Council. at the School of Mines. This initiative will support grid stability, targeted emissions reductions, and economic development in transitioning coal and rural communities. The objective is to invest in the future by providing crucial grants to catalyze new nuclear-focused education. This funding will support cutting-edge degree programs, certificates, courses, and essential nuclear, and essential sorry modular training across all higher education institutions This bill will help deliver robust technical assistance ensuring the highly skilled workforce is prepared for immediate and rewarding careers in this vital field, accelerating Colorado's progress. This bill prioritizes and contributes additional support to Colorado's coal transition communities and rural areas, fostering job creation in high demand, well-paying fields without relying on fossil fuels. And I turn it over to my co-prime, Amel Winter.

Rep. Paschal. I just wanted to also comment that the thing about I'm an all-of-the-above kind of renewable person, and I think we need all of it to be able to make things work. But the one thing that is really nice about nuclear is that from an energy standpoint, it provides always on, as they call firm, energy source. And from a job standpoint, it provides good paying jobs. And all up and down the stack you got trades jobs involved You got engineering jobs involved operator jobs involved There's a lot of opportunity there. And we want to make sure that our workforce, be they young or not young, if they're transitioning, that we have people who are trained up to be able to do these jobs and hopefully stay here in Colorado and do them or go somewhere else if that's their desire to do those jobs. And I also want to mention that we have support from the Clean Air Task Force, Climate Jobs Colorado, and from some of the trades, AFL-CIO and IBEW, and they will be testifying in support today. So the other thing that AML Winter, I don't think, mentioned is that I know some of you may go, you know, I think I've seen this bill before. Yeah, we ran it last year, maybe more times than that. One of the things that's different here is if, because, of course, finances are important, and gifts, grants, and donations is a mechanism, same as last year. But this bill, if we don't raise the fundraising of $500,000 or more by September of 2027, the bill is just repealed. So there's going to be no vestigial cash funds laying around that nobody knows why they were there or who created them. So if we don't get that funding, it will automatically repeal. So I urge an aye vote.

Rep Hamrick. Thank you for bringing the bill. So my understanding is if you have gifts, grants, and donations, you have to identify major grant providers. Who's a major grant provider here? right now I have and I can I didn't make a bunch of copies but right now we've already had two groups are you sure? thank you

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to point out that it can be gifts, grants, and donations. Well, this comes as their grants, but we can draw down federal funds as well. So that's another thing we are hoping to do is get the attention of the federal level and get some of those federal funds. AML Winter.

Mr. Hartzok. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors. As one of the few people I'm willing to bet around here that actually worked at a nuclear power plant, helped build it at Senator No Free Nuclear Power Plant in California prior to my illustrious 26-year military. See, you didn't know I could do that. Do you have any number inputs on, I mean I know what the job labor that created engineering, everything that went into. Do you have any data on that, any numbers for the economic growth, the education, all of that that we could see?

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would assume, because you mentioned colleges, but I'd assume some of our community colleges would also be jumping for this, right? I know one of my community colleges does a lot in energy, oil and gas, renewable. I am sure they're going to jump on this as soon as they can. I'm just curious if you've heard from your local areas that they're just waiting for this to happen. Amo Winter.

Bradfield. Thank you, Madam Chair. School of Mines is specifically in this bill. Were there any other colleges in Colorado that were approached or have come forward with a desire to have a program? Paschal.

Rep Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm curious, why do we need the state involvement? I mean, School of Mines is very established and they have a program running, and why can they not just keep rolling and doing what they're doing? What is the purpose of engaging involving the state in this at this point in time And then I have one more question Pascal.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Red, Pascal. um typically it takes about 10 years to spin something up at least and right now we don't have aside from the military um you know aside from the one in chayan mountain near where i live um we don't have nuclear um spun up yet but i know that excel is very interested in doing so um so typically i think it would take at least 10 years to get a project going and having something on the ground. AML Winter. Thank you. Rep Story, if the legislature and the energy office would get

council talks about energy experts and the department representatives. Are the energy experts obviously from industry but do you also have professors? Good question. To be honest with you, Rep Hamrick, in all the testimony that we've done, the

who has at least five years of experience in the nuclear sector. That may or may not be a professor, but from what I've experienced as well, there's a lot of engineers who are really active in research, and they're also professors. And also, is this model being set up in other states, or are there some states that have done this model already? Pascal.

Okay, let's transition to our testimony phase. Do you have a preference on order of witnesses? Okay let do our opposition and amend panel first if that okay Sure Okay We only have two folks here to testify in opposition or amend so I call up Rachel Layman and Jack Neese Jake Neese, excuse me.

Welcome to the House Education Committee. You have two minutes. Please start by stating your name and who you represent. And the button is actually way over here. Yes, there you go. Okay, hi.

You're welcome. Questions for our witness?

And over the next 15 years, solar is expected to drop to $25 an hour or megawatt hour. And the nuclear power will stay the same. and the same issues will still keep happening about how to decommission them and how to provide waste, where to put the waste at, what kind of water is going to be used, and where that waste is going to go as well. And it's extremely expensive, as we were already sold. It takes 10-plus years to get online.

So a couple of things. One is the uranium mining that it takes in order to fuel nuclear power plants. And we had an example here in Colorado called Eurovan. And Eurovan actually was a uranium mine that provided uranium for the nuclear bombs that went to Hiroshima. And subsequently, people got sick, very, very, very sick. And they ended up basically blowing up parts of the city, burying it, and it currently has a fence around it. And currently the biggest producers of uranium are in Canada and I believe Botswana and Australia. So there's some place in the world there will be a cost. There's going to be a community that has to mine uranium. That's one of the biggest issues because that is the real toxic part of this whole situation. And then I don't want us to even think about it being safe at this point because we have had nuclear spills here. We've had them abroad. Just recently, Fukushima in Japan, they recently deposited some of the wastewater from their original disaster into the Pacific Ocean. Yeah. And it's actually affecting. You can look at the fish that maybe go up on the California shore, and they have the same nuclear signature as the nucleotides from the Japanese Fukushima plant. It's dirty. It's not clean at all. It's a real, I think, nasty sleight of hand, to use that word.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I promise I only have two questions. First question, ma'am, is where do the waste solar panels and batteries go once their life is up? Once their life is up, there's a couple of things. There's actually become a really great market for recycling those items. and also batteries are part of all of our like lots of functioning car batteries in particular the battery that's in my computer there's a there's there has been a years a decades long process of of recycling batteries and so that's already been kind of established rep johnson thank you madam chair my last question um in reference to house bill 25 1040 last year that was passed by over half support in both chambers, designating nuclear energy as clean energy because it can now count towards clean energy targets, because of its low carbon output, because it is designated and the governor signed, it is a clean energy. Does that change any of your points when we're just looking at the energy side in this bill? Because I know you said that it wasn't, but the state recognizes it as it is. Ms. Layman. Correct. The problem is, or how it is labeled as clean is because there are zero emissions. That's how it's labeled clean. And that's when we're thinking about the target goals for climate in Colorado, that's what we're looking at mostly is those zero emissions so that we can bring air quality into compliance. Garcia Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Lehman, you sound like you've done a lot of research. You said that it was nuclear is $100 per? Yeah. $110. $110 and solar is $55. How much are wind and coal energy for the same amount? They're around $60 an hour, megawatt hour. Rep. Garcia-Sander. Sorry, wind is around $60 and coal is also around $60? Oh, coal is actually – I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. I have to announce for folks that are listening. Okay. Okay. Coal is around $75. Coal is around $75. Sorry. Thank you. Coal is around $75. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. You're welcome. We will transition to the next panel of witnesses. Thank you. Okay. I will call up Ella Rose, Garen Worthman, William DeOrio, Phil Ord, and Dan West. Okay. Welcome to the House Education Committee. Everyone will have two minutes. Please start by stating your name and who you represent, and we'll start at my left and move down. Welcome. It will actually be the plug to the right. This one? Yeah. It's on. You can hear me. That one's broken. Good to know. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Garen Vorthman, and I'm here today on behalf of the Colorado School of Mines. It is a privilege to testify in support of this proposed legislation for the future of our clean energy workforce. Nuclear energy is an essential part of our nation's energy infrastructure. Nuclear is growing. It's central to American defense and to power space operations and transportation. We are excited about the potential that clean, safe nuclear energy represents for the future of our nation and the world. The Colorado School of Mines has been identified in the bill as the institution that will house this council. The School of Mines is home to Colorado's only nuclear science and engineering program, addressing the entire nuclear fuel cycle, sustainability, chemistry, materials, systems design, operations, integration, and more. We are a prime partner in nuclear to the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, and the School of Mines works closely with schools, community colleges, other universities, and national labs in scholarship, research, and workforce development. Mines also works with other nations to establish nuclear science and engineering programs. We are pleased to be a partner to support and implement this legislation for our future high-tech workforce in Colorado. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you all today. My name is Ella Rose. I'm a mom, a wife, an engineer, an environmentalist, a working professional in the renewable energy industry, and the president of the Colorado Nuclear Alliance, which is a grassroots organization of concerned Coloradans that believes nuclear energy must be part of an abundant clean energy future. I have a smattering of technical certificates a BS in mechanical engineering with a focus on energy generation an MBA with a focus on international business and finance and working on a PhD in systems engineering with a focus on regenerative agricultural systems and the impacts on food, air, water, and nutritional quality. Education opens doors. Education builds smarter, stronger, and more resilient communities. We are staring at an amazing opportunity to be a hub to support quality nuclear energy education that supports the jobs of the future. Our current nuclear workforce is aging out, and it is imperative that we leverage the knowledge we have now for our future workforce. That is why this bill is so important. It provides the feedstock of knowledge to support an industry that will be so important to the advancement of clean energy goals for the state, the country, and the globe. We want Colorado to be prepared to accept these kinds of opportunities for the people and the families that will benefit from the high-quality, generational opportunities they bring. We not only need university education, but as mentioned, we need a larger technical workforce to support this clean energy future. This bill provides the foundation for that workforce. Let's do something practical and productive and move forward with an aye vote on this bill today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And we will go online. Welcome, Mr. DiOrio. Unmute. Hello, committee members. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. I want to thank the sponsors for introducing this bill. I'm in favor of it, but I have a couple of suggestions. As to the cost, let me just quickly say that it is true that like wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear if you just look at the power output from the site. But when you add in all of the batteries and backup and transmission lines and land and replacement costs, they are not. Now, as to the bill, this is a very good idea. Nuclear is going to happen. Colorado needs to be there. Some of the suggestions I have is, one, if the state of Colorado thinks this is a good idea, they should put state money into it. And they should not just simply have it, say, we're going to set this up if you want to contribute. Actually, companies and industry, they don't need the state to contribute to the universities. They can do it themselves. So I think you should say that we're going to have modest state appropriations and we're going to match money contributions, say, up to $250,000 a year. Okay, that's important. The other thing is there's 12 members on the council. And I think what you should do, it says that the industry members can be members of the nuclear industry or the clean energy community. And the lady who spoke against this bill is obviously a member of the clean energy community. You could end up with like five members of the council being wind advocates, battery advocates, solar advocates. So I think you should limit the industry. The industry members should be members of the nuclear industry. And the other thing the final thing is you should have you should focus the technology on innovative technologies not just standard run stuff but technologies that minimize the need for uranium enrichment and the generate the minimum amount of solace If you could wrap up your testimony please Very important. Thanks very much. Thank you. Any questions? Well, and we will go through all of our witnesses and then open it up to questions. And so up next is Mr. Ord. Welcome. Computer, stop. Sorry, but I have a breathing bath done because I'm pretty disabled and I can't be at my desktop computer. So it might be a little bit hard to hear me. So just let me know that at first. Yeah, we definitely need this bill because we need to get climate action going. We need to throw everything we have at the climate crisis. I have not tried to leave my niece and nephew with an uninhabitable world. We need to be able to deploy this stuff once it becomes available. Once it's at the national labs are letting people prove that they're safe and effective technologies, especially new technologies. The climate crisis is real. It's going to destroy my future and the young people's future. We are losing the war on climate change very badly. we need to put huge debts in our electricity emissions. This is just the first step. So, yeah, we do need this bill. We need to have the infrastructure in place. Just because, you know, technology might be expensive at first does not mean that they don't get to have, like, an educational output like this. We are able to, whereas much of a legit technology is wind and solar, The original woman testifying against is wrong on all accounts. She does not have a science background, and she did not do her research correctly. For all of her concerns, I can give a rebuttal to them and explain how they're actually cleaner than renewable energy and more efficient. And I can talk about costs like that guy did before. But, yes, we need this. It's not fair that when it's fuller gets everything, they aren't the only players in town. And it's kind of a spoiled thing to say that, you know, we shouldn't even consider it because it might be expensive. The climate change is real. We're losing this battle. Nuclear is more powerful than fossil fuels, but no emissions. It's always on. And it's just it's just what we need. So please let me ask the questions if you have them. Thank you. And welcome, Mr. West. Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members of the committee. I'm Dan West, and I'm providing this testimony in support of Senate Bill 45 on behalf of Clean Air Task Force, or CATF. We are a U.S.-based environmental organization that pushes the change in technologies and policies needed to get to a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an affordable cost. CATF supports advanced nuclear as part of the state's energy mix to meet growing electricity demand and reduced climate warming emissions. One important way to accelerate the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies in the state is to ensure Coloradans can obtain the skills that are needed to support the technology without having to leave the state. CATF supports this bill because it provides more enabling tools for the state to meet its decarbonization goals. We also support it because nuclear power presents a viable opportunity for Colorado communities facing complex labor transitions away from legacy energy technologies And so for all these reasons we support SB 2645 Thank you to the bipartisan co for leading this bill And thank you to the committee for considering it We urge you to pass it Thank you. Questions for this panel of witnesses, Rep Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And those questions for the two ladies who testified first. Can you explain the logic? Because it's, you know, I'm liking how we're starting with the workforce and then the future of energy. It seems like too often we're always having something and then chasing after on what we do for the infrastructure and workforce. So how crucial is it to this so we make sure that we're implementing this correctly? Ms. Forthman. Thank you, Representative Johnson. And I think that's part of the reason the School of Mines is going to play such a significant role in this. Last year's bill, there was some discussions about where to house it and should it be the Colorado Energy Office or Department of Natural Resources. And the School of Mines was approached because of our connection to the workforce. But we have the expertise in educating the workforce, but also the research for the technology and the infrastructure that's going to be needed. whether it be for energy usage in the energy world or in aerospace or whatever it can be used for. And so I think us being a central hub to reach, make out all of those connections is going to be key. Rep Hamrick. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Rose, did you have a response as well? Go ahead. I'll add on to that. School of Mines is covering a lot of the university education, but I don't want to lose sight also of the labor force, the skilled trades that are so important. I joke to people that I should have just been a welder. And I think especially now, especially for women in those industries, it's important for us to give more opportunities for families to get into the trades that are dwindling in this country. is those are really great paying jobs as well, and they're good quality jobs. So again, yes, you're right. Just like we've seen in the renewable energy industry, even when I graduated from college, there wasn't really opportunities in renewable energy education. I took the one class that we had offered at my school, and it was fuel cells, which nobody does fuel cells. They're kind of like batteries, but not. So, yeah, we don't want to chase that. We want people to be prepared. We want people to be excited. We want people to be ready to take those jobs, especially in our coal communities. You know, we're promising them a just transition, but we're not giving them anything to transition into. Solar jobs and wind jobs, they are good quality jobs, but they don't pay as well. There aren't as many of them. That is not the same as you can't even if you replace the capacity three times over with renewable energy projects for one Comanche III project, you are not going to get the same jobs for those community members that used to work at that plant. It's just not a one-to-one transition. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for Ms. Vortman. For Mines, I'm a huge fan of the Colorado School of Mines. My niece got her master's degree there. She also had a lot of friends in the nuclear science and engineering program and it was really great speaking with them. I'm really excited that this is going to be anchored in the School of Mines, which is sort of known nationally for its excellence in this field. So I just wanted to say thank you for coming and I'm excited it's anchored in the School of Mines. Okay. Thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. We will move to our last Last panel of witnesses, Nate Bernstein, Phil Hayes, Mark Heineman, and Benjamin Elwood. And we will call, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify? Please raise your hand in person or on Zoom. Okay, everyone online, welcome to the Education Committee. You each have two minutes. please start by stating your name and who you represent and we will start with Mr. Nate Bernstein. Welcome. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Nate Bernstein and I am the Executive Director of Climate Jobs Colorado. We are a non-profit organization comprising of 13 unions and labor organizations here in Colorado collectively, including tens of thousands of workers in the state. Sorry I'm catching my breath. I have asthma. We speak in favor of 26045 in an amendment that would ensure that a worker voice is represented on the council. This bill is an education bill. It does not require the state to develop nuclear energy. It provides the opportunity for us to progress the educational opportunities of Coloradans and those wishing to study and learn in Colorado so that we as a state can lead on the energy sources of the future. Colorado is in the process of an energy transitioner state with more and more clean energy coming online. At the same time, we like the clean, firm energy to meet our state's growing energy needs. Other states are looking towards the future and expanding these sources like geothermal, hydrogen, and nuclear energy. We believe all of these sources of energy will need to play a role in ensuring Colorado can meet the needs of our communities and doing so affordably while at the same time keeping our state beautiful. This bill will help us to move the dial forward on educational infrastructure needed to safely and effectively advance research and the workforce needs to meet the energy needs of Colorado and beyond. I respectfully request a vote in favor of the bill and the amendment that would add a worker voice on the council of the bill creates. Thank you. And I am happy to answer questions and I apologize that I just so happen to have an asthma attack as you called. But I'm thankful for this opportunity, and I do request a vote in favor of the bill. No, thank you so much for your testimony. We're sorry by the poor timing, and we hope you are okay. We will now welcome Mark Hinneman. Welcome. Hey, thanks, Matt and Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Mark Hinneman. I'm a licensed professional engineer, studied mechanical engineering. I got a bachelor's and master's at CU Boulder, so I'm a little biased. Go Buffs. I wish this was being hosted at Boulder instead of Mines, but Mines is a great school too. I've worked with a lot of super smart engineers from Mines. I run a company called Fire to Fission. We're an energy project developer building new power plants, natural gas and nuclear power plants. I've spent most of my day today working on advanced nuclear projects. We had an hour-long conversation this morning with a thorium reactor company. We're working to build new power plants all over the country. It's awesome. It's really fun work. We hired five interns for our business last summer all of them engineers none of them nuclear engineers and that a shame I wish we could have hired a nuclear engineer from a school in Colorado many of them locals many of them from CU Boulder But we had environmental engineers aerospace engineers mechanical engineers I give you that color to say there is an immediate need for additional education, specifically nuclear engineering, and people with competency in the nuclear industry. Coincidentally, my mother-in-law actually runs a nuclear engineering firm that was a total accident. I started dating this girl, and she's like, you should talk to my mom. She runs a nuclear engineering firm. Her business has grown by 25% just in the last quarter. Most of her engineers are quite old and will be transitioning out of the business. She needs new blood. She needs young people entering the business now. There's comments about it taking 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. That's not necessarily true. We're trying to do it faster. and the new grads and the new workforce is needed ASAP. I can answer a bunch of questions about cost and cleanup. And yeah, really, really urge a yes vote on this bill. Thanks so much. Thank you. And welcome, Mr. Phil Hayes. Good evening, members of the committee. Thanks for letting us testify remotely. I'm Phil Hayes. I'm representing the IBW and the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Trade Unions, as well as the National Electrical Contractors Association and the Western Line Contractors Chapter of NECA. I've also been asked to mention that in addition to my clients that I just listed, the Colorado AFL-CIO, all of us, all five organizations I mentioned support this legislation and are asking for an aye vote. We do a lot of our training for our members who build a lot of these facilities and service and maintain a lot of the complex steam, electrical, mechanical, and other systems in these facilities across the country in our apprenticeship training programs. But one of the things that I think is really critical to point out is that without scientists and physicists and engineers and other professional technical workers, those jobs for our members don't exist. And I think that the other critical thing to point out here is that for construction workers, we sometimes need augmentation to our training. Electricians or pipe fitters or steam fitters maybe have trained in other systems or other construction projects, and we need to partner with our institutions of higher education to augment our ability to understand specific types of systems. and that's going to be a pretty critical piece. I did hear some cynical questions about why should Colorado invest in this? Why should we care? I think, you know, for me, it's not just about Colorado. It's about we need scientists. The School of Mines and some of our other schools in the state are some of the premier engineering institutions in the western U.S. Our citizens, if they want to go into nuclear science or engineering, should have the opportunity to get those educational components here in Colorado. Even if we never develop these types of facilities in Colorado, which I certainly hope we do, it's important to allow those access points for our citizens. Thank you. Happy to take questions. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Elwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear representatives, my name is Elwood, and I am a former physicist and current board chair of the Colorado Nuclear Alliance. I here today to ask that you support this important and underrated piece of legislation that will ensure Colorado reaps the whirlwind of the growing nuclear renaissance As is the business of this committee the name of the game today is education the prerequisite required to build all skilled workforces of the future, and which this bill aims to directly address. Colorado is uniquely situated in that it possesses the resources and geography to host what could be a complete and self-sustaining nuclear industry from mining to power generation to fuel recycling. Yes, it can be recycled. However, if we as a state decide we wish to take the lead in hosting the next generation of cutting-edge energy development, we must first address the shortages in the required workforce. That is what this bill aims to do by addressing at the source deficiencies in education by boosting nuclear programs in our own universities and making it more accessible to those who may possess the talent for it, but have limited opportunities so far in Colorado. A higher education grant program funded entirely by charitable donations is a good first step and is an appropriate measure that avoids adding to our state's current budgetary burdens. I believe once this fund is established, policy leaders and legislators will be pleasantly surprised as to the pace with which this fund reaches its first half million mark. And as we've seen by the sponsors, we have good reason to suspect that companies will rally behind it and show their support in the form of funding. This will prove a testament to how nuclear energy is supported by a growing coalition willing to think strategically, not emotionally, about how to meet our clean energy goals. Thank you, and please support SB 26-045. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for this panel of witnesses? okay we don't have any questions thank you so much we greatly appreciate your testimony uh i already made last call for testimony so thank you uh so the testimony phase is closed bill sponsors do you have amendments okay l3 yes rep pascal uh actually let's start with uh vice chair martinez Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L3 to Senate Bill 45. Second. Seconded by Rep. Johnson. Rep. Paschal, please explain your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, this amendment is requesting that there are a group of people on the Council that could come from various industries, and labor is one of the possible ways where they could come from. and just to be crystal clear, this amendment asks that we are sure that at least one person from Labor is on the council. Okay. Are there any questions about L3? Are there any objections to L3? Seeing none, L3 is adopted. Bill sponsors, do you have any other amendments? No, ma'am. Okay. Committee members, do you have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Rep. Pascal. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think we have here a really exciting opportunity to provide an option in industry, which is clean energy. By the statute in Colorado, clean energy is defined as not emitting carbon. So that's not in dispute. and as somebody who is very interested in energy, I sit on the energy and the environment committee I am kind of a technology dork as you guys know my background I an engineer And I have an EV that I drive up here every week And I charge my EV with the solar panels on my house in support by the battery that I bought this year So I am very pro-technology, very pro-advancement in energy. And I am also pro-advancement in nuclear because I think this is another option. And we need lots of different tools in the toolbox to be able to have a strong energy supply in Colorado. And in order to provide a workforce for jobs that are well-paying, good union jobs at the trades level, engineers, scientists, we need to have education for these folks. and this and as you know we spoke a little bit about how much time it potentially takes up to spin up a nuclear reactor and maybe I'm behind the curve a little bit because I think there's people more on the cutting edge that know a little bit more than I do and are maybe moving faster but it also takes a while to spin up education and this is not going to be overnight we have to fundraise, put the council together and then start a program of granting and mentoring to help other schools that may decide that they want to spin up a program get started. That's going to take a while. So this is, this we need a long runway for as well. And I'm very excited to be on this bill with my co-prime and to be supporting all different types of energy. And I also want to point out to just in contrary to some of the testimony. You know, I grew up during Three Mile Island. I lived through Chernobyl. I know all the fears. And these are all true things about those technologies. Guess what? Humans are really smart. We've come up with a lot more technology since then. Reactors don't even necessarily have uranium these days. And we can recycle fuel rods. But we're not going to have those engineers, There's no scientists who can make these innovations if we're not teaching them. So this is a really important bill, and I urge an aye vote. Amo Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. Plain and simple, this is an education bill, and I think it kind of took a left turn into something else, a whole different energy policy debate. But at the end of the day, we're an education committee, and you all are tasked with making sure that there's educational opportunities within this state. You've had the School of Mines come testify in favor, and you've actually had scientists that have testified to what the industry needs. You've had industry testify to what the industry needs. And this is a touchy subject. It has been since I've been in the building, but at the end of the day, this is the education committee. You guys aren't dropping a nuclear reactor in downtown Denver. You're giving kids the opportunity to go to school, to get well-versed in this industry. and I look at it this way. Look at how many kids are forced with trying to pay out a state tuition. Well, if your child wants to be a nuclear engineer or wants to work in this industry, why shouldn't they be able to get that education in Colorado no matter where you stand on the energy policy itself? So there's been a lot of discussion. I would love to sit down and refute and debate some of the points that were made tonight. But like I said, this isn't a policy discussion about what the energy actually does this is a policy discussion about making sure kids can get to school and get the training they need as we move forward with this not only in this state but around the nation so with that i would ask for an aye vote vice chair martinez thank you madam chair i move senate bill 45-8 as amended to the Committee on Finance with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded. Seconded by Rep. Garcia Sanders. Closing comments from the committee. Vice Chair Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Garcia Sander.

Mr. Beck, please call the vote.

Excuse. Excuse.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes. Congratulations. Senate Bill 45 passes on a vote of 11 to 1. You're on your way to the Committee on Appropriations. Finance. Oh, finance. Did I say it? Did I gavel too fast? Okay, we moved it to finance, so it's fine. Committee on Finance. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. Appreciate you hosting us. And we will transition to Senate Bill 170. I'll grab her. Okay I understand Vice Chair Martinez has been added to Senate Bill 170 and AML Bacon is here Who would like to start Vice Chair Martinez Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee.

Thank you. And thank you to my co-prime. Thank you for joining on this bill. Members, I want to read to you a few things to explain why I joined this bill. I really have come to enjoy my time in the legislature and I actually thank all of you and many of our colleagues for allowing me to come visit you during the interim You know I give a shout out to a certain member from Douglas County who did buy me a chai latte let alone visiting Holyoke right Or I got to hang out with my colleague Rep Hamrick when we were talking about school performance framework and whatnot. I also want to thank my colleague from Jefferson County, Representative Story, and telling me about some great experiences and data that we got out of Jefferson County, particularly some elementary schools. I want to read to you a profile. I'm not sure if any of you have been to Poudre High School in Fort Collins. Yes. Poudre is a P-TECH model that takes students on a focused journey, enabling them to graduate with a high school diploma, industry-recognized credentials, a two-year post-secondary degree, and meaningful workplace experiences, all within a four- to six-year time frame. I know somebody. Has anyone been to Canyon City High School? Great model. Let's talk about Greeley Central High School. They have a higher ed partner with Ames Community College. They have business partners with Greeley Weld and Habitat for Humanity. Let's go down to, let's find another one. And let's give a shout out to our schools. Woohoo. Okay, I'm trying to, I know it's the last day of session. God bless America, right? But I want to shout out Colorado Teachers of the Year. Steven Paulson at Greeley Evans School District. He's a social studies teacher selected for his dedication to guiding first generation students towards college and connecting them with real world career opportunities. I want to shout out Janet Damon from Denver Public Schools. Jamie Young from Aurora Public Schools, Richard McCarthy, who also, these are former teachers of the year, and Autumn Rivera from Glenwood Springs Middle School, who was a sixth grade science teacher who evaluated, I'm sorry, who elevated education by fostering a sense of belonging and connecting classroom science to the local community, emphasizing that teachers are experts in their field. And so I wanted to start with some of these examples because in this state, the conversations that we've had about gaps, achievement gaps and opportunity gaps tended to have landed in one of two boxes. But I think in 2026, personally, I feel like we are owed a different conversation. If you take a look at who is appointed to this task force, you will see educators. And you will see educators from across the state, Western rural, northern rural, southern rural, along with urban, because we need to put to ourselves, if we are going to design education systems to support our students so that they can actualize in their power, perhaps we should talk to different groups of people than we have in the past. And so while I can appreciate those who brought this bill to me, brought this bill forward to me this session, I do also want to share with everyone in the committee the conversations I had with them, and I'm sure they'll testify to this. I said if we're going to look into opportunity gaps, we should have community and teachers help define what that means. we should push ourselves to look beyond the standard examples, perhaps in the Denver metro area, to bring in really good insights. And so that is my purpose and hope with sponsoring this bill and quite frankly being involved with the task force Ultimately I do want to say that this bill has certainly gone through a journey I want to thank those who participated especially in the Senate, even though it was difficult. But in the Senate, we were able to add on amendments, particularly brought by teachers and CEA, to better define what opportunity gap means, that it's no longer limited to just academics. We also brought amendments to add another seat to the task force for facility schools because they do have unique insights on how to support students from across academic sectors, but also across the state. We also struck the ledge deck from the bill because we didn't want to get mired in old narratives. We wanted to talk about the future. And if the legislative deck kind of made people feel like we were going backwards, we were willing to remove it so that we can focus on moving forward. So at the end of the day, what we hope this task force does, and I will be the first one to admit we've seen plenty of task forces come through the education committee. But perhaps this will give us an opportunity with sponsors from the four corners of the state. and with the examples I just shared with you to maybe do, or I'm sorry, to maybe gather some unique insights so we can help right size what we believe is a 21st century quality education in this state. So I will end with giving another shout out. You know, over the last five years, we have spent a lot of time now perhaps on apprenticeships. That's something I learned in Holyoke and CTE, and that's something I learned in Cherry Creek. But you'll kind of see that we maybe addressed it a little bit in our new school performance framework. But perhaps we should be talking more about those things. And that's what my hope is for this task force. So I will be the first one to say I was a school board member that had a lot of hard conversations about district run schools or charter schools. And I will also be the first one to say, quality schools does not live in governance type and models. Quality schools lives in the professionals in the building, the connections to community, and our hope and drive that everyone involved believes our kids can reach their utmost potential. And so if you are asking, too, who might be willing to fund this work, well, we are able to share now that it will come from the John and Janet Buckner Foundation, who was created to support educational endeavors. And with that, Madam Chair, I will stop and happy to answer any questions.

Rep Story. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the sponsors, and I appreciated the conversation we had the other day, AML Bacon. So can you share with us what this task force is to offer that so many other task forces haven't provided? Because there have been so many, and you sort of mentioned that.

Thank you. I think what this task force provides, quite honestly, is a different sense of urgency and a different makeup of community members and stakeholders to kind of be, sure that we don't lose sight of the question that we're perpetually trying to answer. I do realize that there perhaps have been many studies on quality, but the interesting thing is none of those have necessarily been pulled together and coalesced in a space that has legislators and the stakeholders who move K-12 policy together to put them on the table. I think what this task force represents is an opportunity to actively shift narratives. as well, to pull us out of, like I said before, the past and move us into 21st century. I certainly know there is an interest from stakeholders, even beyond what you see on this form, to sit in a space, you know, quite frankly, whether it is from charter to CEA to Pooder to Greeley to whatnot, to say, here's what we are doing, and let's create something comprehensive about what is currently and urgently going on in our state with people who have different sets of eyes. I would say that this task force should also include some of the studies and some of the other bodies of work that have done to consider as well. And so for me, I think the construction of this task force, along with the opportunities that we have in the construction of that task force can provide us with some really great insights that we have not seen in the last couple of years.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, sometimes when these task forces are put together, there's an effort to prove a particular point to arrive at a destination and the task force is the way to make that happen and you know it's basically a foregone conclusion and so what i'm curious about is you know if we're going to have another task force and a whole bunch of people that are you know sort of their positions are identified like how how do you make sure that this task force is continues to go at the work with open eyes and looking for all the stones to overturn instead of just really trying to focus on the thing that they want in the end you know, whatever outcome they are specifically searching for. And I just don't want this to be an effort that is a foregone conclusion. And we're going to spend a month and then, or I mean, spend several months and come back and share what the outcome always was meant to be and what needs to happen. And I'm also curious about what, like how the adequacy studies that have been done that we have not really done anything with, you know? Like, do they have a play in all of this? Because there's all kinds of information in those adequacy studies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Story. I guess I start with this is that you know this is not there no guarantees within within this study and we left it broad because we don want it just to be just another report or a check in the box to do what we were already doing. You know, it's just narrowly focused to identify the already successful schools that we have and trying to figure out what's driving those results and what's making them successful. And then being able to really evaluate that. And I think that to making sure that we're not promoting one set idea, I mean, again, we didn't put any specific models in there for that specific reason because we want to evaluate kind of anything and everything that's going there. And we would just want to know if it's working for the kids, then how can we replicate that in other parts of the state?

And I think what I would add to that, I spent a lot of time in adequacy studies. You may see another bill about that. I think what I would add is that one of the things we did articulate, while we said we're not looking at any particular models, what we did say is we're looking at examples of success. But part of the conversation around opportunity gaps also included that success isn't defined one particular way, especially not what we've heard in the past. I will be honest with you in my own concerns, and I want to articulate what I hope to bring to the space. You all heard me, you know, two days ago, I think I was like talking about how my community has been overworked when it comes with particular funding. And these are questions that I did ask. There have been times in the past where funding comes with conditions of what they want to see, whether it's a neoliberal version of education or not. And so for what it's worth, all of that has been said and it's not lost on anyone. I know we had conversations, this came up in the Senate, to kind of look out for conflicts, which is why we shared who is funding this, because that did matter. I have personally experienced funders saying, here are the dollars in exchange for building educational programs this way. And I have 15 years of seeing a mixed bag, quite honestly. So I agree with that is something we should guard against. It is my hope, and that's why I'm saying it here on the microphone in the record, that people hear that that is not of interest to at least the sponsors of this bill. I will also go back again to saying we're looking at success stories, and we've been very clear that they don't live in one archetype of a model, which is why I opened up with listing the programs from different schools. that have typically not been in the conversations about what achievement looks like. I shared my own story. You know, many of you in South Florida, we didn't necessarily have a charter structure. Our version of choice was to go to magnet schools. And so some of the proponents of the bill asked me, what does success look like and what do opportunities look like? I said my parents and I spoke about me going to a predominantly black high school that was not an A-plus school. It was a C-plus school so that I could see myself and thrive. I could be at a school that's an A-plus where I'm by myself and never speak in a hallway. And that's not an example. So I wanted to share that with you all to demonstrate the potential of these conversations. I'll also share that we have you know last year and candidly some of you may know about this we have had conversations about what communities look like that don have you know a quality school And I pushed back against that because of the same story I just shared with you I pushed back against that because I was elected to school board, talking to communities about what they articulated diversity and model and excellence to be. I said to my constituents, I do believe we are qualified to educate our own kids and to name what quality is. And so I have personal experience with watching for some of these guardrails. And that has been no secret to anybody who has been working this bill and who has been talking to me personally for the last couple of months about it. So I say all of that to articulate to you. I hear your concerns and I know they are real. I know the experiences are real. But hopefully we have a good group of people that we haven't seen come together to really push us out of those boxes. So at least thank you for the question, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, AML Bacon, yeah, you're a champion for education, and really love working with you on school adequacy. I remember you even came to my district for one of our underperforming schools and looked at the school performance framework. And, yeah, you're just a person of your word, and I really appreciate you reaching out and talking to me about this and your focus and your dedication on making sure it works. And thanks for letting me know about the grant question because that was going to be a question of mine. And this one, you kind of sort of answered it, but how do we ensure that the task force doesn't just study innovation models that rely on private grants but instead prioritizes traditional schools that are succeeding with only the per-pupil funding state provides. You talked about Canyon City. You talked about Greeley. You talked about Puder. Is there something in the language of the bill that has a guardrail that would encourage the task force to look at models that can be replicated, you know, models in the traditional public school space?

I'm looking for the definitions. I would say, given who we have representing, you know, being represented task force members, sorry, I would also believe that we have an opportunity to bring up models that are not in the innovation space. So, for example, one member who is a teacher in a Colorado public school classroom with the demonstrated track record of meaningfully narrowing opportunity gaps. We have schools across communities, rural communities, where, I mean, they don't have these models there. I'm going back to look at the definitions to be sure of that, But the one thing I do know is when we looked at the diversity of folks, geographical diversity and their experiences, we did that to be sure that we weren't stuck in a particular type of model. I will go back. For example, we have rural public schools, right? We have rural South, rural North, right? I think East and West,

I looked at the definition of opportunity gaps, and I'm curious what, by what measure are you taking success? Are you defining success and successful programs? Because everybody has a different definition of what's successful in their schools, and And kind of a comical example is last week, Lone Star School up in northeast Colorado had a viral video. I think their goal was to get to 3 million or 5 million views by the end of the week. Because this video of these four seniors, it was a senior prank. They brought in steers to their staff parking lot. and at 6.03 in the morning, these four seniors, they drove in their trailers, they set up the big red fencing, they backed in this trailer and unloaded two steers and when staff and kids got there in the morning, there's steers in the parking lot. And this video, it was on the school cameras. So the principal put it out there and said, we want to know who these four kids are. In this tiny little rural school, like you could pretty much figure it out. But anyway, the comments on this were like, wow, these kids are so talented. I want to hire them. Look at the work ethic. These four kids, they got up at 6 in the morning. Look at their trailer backing skills. Look at their fencing skills. Like, I want these kids. Look at their steer handling skills. So, you know, that's a measure of success by some people who want those skills in their workforce. So there's a lot of different measures of success. I also heard somebody earlier this week talk about how we're worried about our rural schools and not measuring up. And honestly, I work in a rural school district, and a lot of our rural parents have decided over the last 5, 10, 15 years to just opt out of some of the statewide tests like CMASS. So it doesn't look like they maybe are measuring up to state measures of success on CMASS, but those schools also have Betcher Scholars. and they have kids who are going to Ivy League schools. And so I'm just curious about what are the metrics when we say opportunity gaps. It can be measured in a lot of ways. And who determines what success is? Is that going to be up to this task force? And I guess to the question of task forces, how is this going to be any different? Because honestly, with 30 years in public school as a teacher and as a principal, I've seen tons of task forces. I've seen tons of studies, and we know what's successful. We know what successful schools are and what they do, and you can ask lots of principals. You can ask the superintendent in Poudre School District, what are your most successful schools and what do they do, and they can name them for us. And I understand that there's this desire to replicate, but we are a local control school state, and we have lots of opportunities in our state to go and find other schools. who's doing what that's successful. And so I guess how is this going to be, how is this, what the outcome is, how is it going to be any different, what's the change, what's the impetus?

Do you want to? Well. I guess two questions. I'm still not over this video. I think, you know, one, the high school dean in me is like, you can get in trouble for things and also learn a lesson. So, you know, honestly, I used to say this rep story, if I ever saw steer or wool in my district, we have other problems, okay? But I will say that the way that we defined opportunity gap in the bill, and this had been workshopped in regards to metrics, there are ways to define what some disparities are that we've seen, not just in education, but across different agencies. For example, there are after-school program deserts, right? There are job deserts. And so when we say disparities in students' access, I do imagine we would look in the definition that talks about in and out of school. We would talk about what climates have to offer and how do schools react to those climates. I heard you say replication, and I really struggle with replicating models, per se. But what I do think lingers, there are underlying values and underlying proposals on how communities can, one, be different, but also meet the goals of success as they define. I will say generally, I still think there is consensus in the education community that success means you can graduate from high school and be at least competent in reading, writing, and math, right? We have not moved off of that. But one of the things that I've learned from districts like that you talked about, and for example, up in Holyoke, is a measure of success for them was being able to build a workforce for their own community. And so they built apprenticeship programs where the junior college, we went up to, I know you were just talking about nuclear, we talked about wind up there. And even having a local lawyer take in high school students. And while that is success for them, I do know there's a universal concept that everybody who wants someone to work for them must be literate, right?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your grace. So in the bill, it allows the task force to ask the department for more staff support. So how can we ensure that this doesn't become an unfunded mandate that pulls resources away from our neighborhood schools if the private donations dry up?

Brett Flanel. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just looking over the bill, so you guys allow, so four people can be appointed through the majority speaker. and president, and then four people can be appointed from the governor, and then only three people can be essentially chosen from the minority leader in the House and the Senate, which obviously adds a little bit of an imbalance. I'm curious, how do you, I mean, I guess my, I'm a little concerned about maybe sort of preferred outcomes due to party loyalty. And I'm also curious why they don't get to pick the same person from like the same department as opposed to like, for example, and I don't think I'm wording that correctly, but so let's just take the president of the Senate, for example, they get to pick one member who's a Metro Denver school leader, but then nobody else the Speaker of the House, the minority leader, they don't get to pick anybody from, let's say, the Metro Denver school. And so I'm just wondering why there was sort of that inconsistency as well.

Okay, let's move on to our testimony phase. We only have one panel of witnesses on this bill. I'll call up Matt Cook, Brenda DeConer, Nicholas Fernandez, Fernanda Saros, and Maddie Asher. Sorry. Welcome to the House Education Committee. You each will have two minutes. Please start by stating your name and who you represent. And we'll start with our folks that are here in person. We'll start with who would like to start, Ms. DeKoner.

thank you mr. cook evening chair local and the member of the House Education Committee my name is Matt cook and I'm here today representing the nearly 1,000 locally elected school board members and their superintendents who make up the Colorado Association of School Boards on behalf the CASB CASB membership I here to ask for your support on Senate Bill 26 I also been asked to include the following Colorado Rural Schools Alliance the Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado Education Association, the Southern Colorado Springs Alliance, and the Douglas County School District in the supportive testimony tonight. The aforementioned organizations would like to thank the Assistant Majority Leader Bacon and Representative Martinez for their work on the bill. CASB members look forward to the opportunity to work with a broad group of education and community experts to have the conversations about how we can all ensure that every student has the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential. Colorado rural, urban, and suburban students all deserve this opportunity and the ability to access these opportunities from all corners of the state. So on behalf of the CASB and the groups that I mentioned, we would respectively ask for a yes vote on the bill. and I'm available to attempt to answer any questions. Thank you.

Hi, thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Fernanda Saros and I serve as Operations Manager with Transform Education Now. We organize alongside parents and communities across Colorado to ensure that every child has access to a high quality education. I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 26-170. In our work, we hear from families every day who are trying to do what every parent wants to make sure their child is safe, supported, and learning. But too often, families come to us because they feel the system is falling short. And the families most often reaching out for support are Black and brown families, families who recognize that the system as it currently exists is not serving their children equitably. Many parents have experienced these same inequalities themselves as students in our public education system. So when families speak about opportunity gaps, they are speaking from lived experiences and from watching those same patterns continue for their own children. That is why this bill matters. Senate Bill 26170 asked us to do something very important, to take an honest look at where opportunity gaps persist, which students are being served well, and where our systems continue to fall short. Just as importantly, it asks us to identify and learn from the schools and districts that are making real progress in closing those gaps. This creates an opportunity to move beyond good intentions and towards evidence-based solutions. At its core, this bill is, to me, about responsibility. Every child in Colorado deserves access to a high-quality education, and that responsibility belongs to all of us, especially those of us in positions of power and privilege to make decisions on behalf of children. Senate Bill 26-170 reflects a willingness to say clearly, what we have today is not working for every student, and we have a responsibility to do better. I urge you to support Senate Bill 26-170 and take this important step towards a more equitable and effective education system for all students. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members, and thank you for taking the time tonight for testimony. My name is Madhya Shore, Director of K-12 Education Policy at the Colorado Children's Campaign, a nonpartisan organization that uses data and research to advocate for policies that help Colorado kids thrive. We're here today in strong support of Senate Bill 170. Across generations and across states, student zip codes remain one of the strongest predictors of their educational outcomes. We know those gaps are shaped by many forces, including poverty, funding, policy, and the lasting effects of the pandemic. But we also know that some Colorado schools are helping our students grow, closing gaps, and preparing kids for more bright futures, even within the constraints of their current system. Senate Bill 170 is all about those schools. This task force is designed to help Colorado identify schools that are delivering strong results, learn directly from educators about what is making the difference, and share those lessons more broadly so more students can benefit. it. In a moment when so much of the education conversation is about challenges and deficits, Senate Bill 170 gives us a chance to focus on excellence, assets, and what is working for Colorado kids. Policy changes and bills are only as powerful as the people on the ground who believe in them. The campaign's hope is that by celebrating and lifting up the good works of our best educators in schools, we can get more people believing that we can do this. We can get more kids on grade level systematically. This work will require careful listening and thoughtful discussion, especially with educators, but it's time to learn from success where it already exists. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a yes vote on Senate Bill 170. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It's good to see you all again. Again, my name is Nicholas Hernandez, the Executive Director of Transform Education Now. We work to ensure that every child, regardless of their zip code, has access to a world-class education. We are here, as you've heard, in support of Senate Bill 180. At 10, we believe that a great school is not simply a school that tests well, but it is also not simply a school that loves a child and makes them feel welcome. A great school is one that loves your child, respects their family and their community, inspires a love of learning, and prepares them for a life full of opportunity. That means ensuring students develop the skills necessary to thrive in the 21st century. The ability to read and write, to solve complex math problems, to think critically, collaborate with peers, navigate increasingly complex challenges, and have deep analytical thinking. We know that there are amazing things happening across Colorado, and we know that there are places in Colorado not serving the best interests of kids, where your zip code truly does determine your opportunity. There are places where students attend schools where kids are thriving, achieving, and being thoroughly prepared for whatever comes next, whether that is succeeding in elementary school, transitioning successfully to secondary school, graduating college ready, and starting a career in a life full of opportunity. And we know that many children in many communities do not have those same opportunities. You have all mentioned some of the challenges of the task force. We at 10 believe that we have our own perspective and policy ideas, but we also recognize that this is not a single organization or one single ideology or mythology can solve this problem. And that's why we are excited to work alongside the task force to bring together educators, families, policymakers, and experts to collectively examine what's working, what's not, and how do we share those learnings across our state. Ultimately, our goal should be simple, that a student's zip code, their family's income, or their skin color should not determine the quality of their education they receive or the opportunities available to them. We owe it to our children to bring an education system that opens up the world for all of our children, not just those lucky enough to win the lotto. And that's why we are respectfully asking a yes vote on Senate Bill 170. Thank you.

Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess this is really a question that I'd love to hear the answer from each and every one of you, although I kind of heard bits and pieces. I guess what action do you think is going to come out of this task force at the end of the year What are two or three things that you know are going to be achieved by this task force I would like to start Mr Hernandez Yeah I happy to start

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can we go ahead and let them answer? If anybody else wants to answer my first question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative, for the question. I think, I'll be honest, my folks were not terribly excited about the idea of another task force. However, I think what they were excited about, and I know Representative Bradford and Representative Hamrick were gracious enough to join us last fall out in Callahan School District to see their new process. And what that was was a local school board looking at what the community was asking for, looking at the resources they had available, and then looking how best to serve their kids and came up with what they have been very successful in some current technical things. That was not a state task force. But there's a lot of school districts and superintendents who don't know where to go to get that information. So I think our hope is that, to reference what Mr. Hernandez just said, that we will have a resource, a place that's been vetted through some deep conversations with a wide swath of folks to help those folks. Because there's a lot of school districts and school boards with everything going on are really struggling with how do we bring those ideas forward. How do we use our role as good stewards and governors of our school district to make those outcomes happen for students?

Okay You have a follow question Okay Thank you Madam Chair I just curious have any of you on the panel read John Hattie Visible Learning

Oh, okay. Rep Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, sir, kind of to go off of your comments saying they're not incredibly happy on another task force, My question is because we have such limited dollars, and I get these are donated dollars, and such a budget crunch in education that would it not be more beneficial trying to make a gifts grants donation item that actually goes to support the actual actions of schools and their dire needs to keep the lights on as opposed to yet another task study that we've seen the data, we've seen the stuff, and instead of collecting it all, we should be moving forward with what dollars we're able to collect in the now as opposed to, well, we don't know what we're going to get. We've already done these studies, understand that we need them, but it's kind of hard to justify voting on something for funds for a hypothetical of what we may or may not find as opposed to the immediate right now when we're struggling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative, for the question. I want to clarify. My folks weren't particularly excited about another task force, but they're very excited about the potential outcomes from this. And what we have learned over the years is, at least in the 25 years or so I've been watching public education, including serving on my local school board, is that those things that we do not assign resources to and just kind of hope, gifts and grants, and we could even tie that back to the way we fund some things in Colorado and how some things have been presented to voters, that those were going to be fixes for that. So I think what our folks would say is without some tangible direction, some tangible assets, some things that they can say, this is going to drive this forward, instead of if we get the grant, it might happen. So I think that's what CASB members would say.

Who would like to respond? Mr. Cook.

Okay. We do 10 minutes of questions for each panel, and we have been on this panel for 13 minutes. So thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify on Senate Bill 170? Seeing none, the testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors, do you have amendments? Okay. I thought you were still presenting your bill. You were behind this post. Bill sponsors do not have amendments. Committee members, do you have amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Who would like to start? Vice Chair Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's late, and we've been here a while, but I will just say I think you've seen what this bill is trying to do and trying to really help out areas like mine, like yours. And I think that this has a widespread focus, and I think it's a good bill to vote yes.

Look at Rep. Lucan's eyes. She's like, really, though? And I know I encourage a yes vote. Mic off. Who would like to move your bill? Vice Chair Martinez. It goes to the Finance Committee. Sorry. Oh, I would love to move Senate Bill 170 to the Committee on Finance with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Closing comments from the committee and friendly reminder that it's 830 at night and closing comments are optional.

Sorry.

Representatives Bacon?

Respectfully, no.

Garcia-Sander? No.

Hamrick?

Hartsook?

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kay?

Story?

Martinez?

Madam Chair? Yes. And congratulations. Your bill passes on a vote of 8 to 5, and you are on your way to the committee, the Finance Committee. You'll now transition to Senate Bill 173. We have transition, we have the bill sponsors here. Who would like to begin?

Representative Gilchrist.

Any questions from the committee?

Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we will move on to witness testimony. We will call up our panel of witnesses. Do you prefer? All right, is there anybody opposed to Senate Bill 173 online? Okay, so we will go to our support panel. We have Dana Dreyfuss, Candace Proud, Becky Elhart, and Stacey Staub. And is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify in support of Senate Bill 173? Please approach the front since we don't have anybody. We'll start from my left to your right. Please date your name for the record. Please unmute yourself, and you have two minutes. It's on the phone.

Thank you very much. Please state your name for the record. It's a tiny gray building by the PowerPoint. There we go. You are good. You have two minutes. Welcome to education.

All right. Are there any – oh, we have one more on line. Ms. Staub, welcome to education. Please unmute yourself, and you have two minutes.

on to Ms Elhard Welcome to education Please unmute yourself and you have two minutes Great Can you hear me or do I need to push something We can hear you Okay, great.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this panel of witnesses?

Ms. Dreyfus? I mean, like, every day.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of the Education Committee. I forgot to say in my opening that the Department of Higher Ed, which oversees DPOS, supports our bill. And I think that this is a great bill. And I think that if you all agree, I think that we could all go to a Pilates class as a committee together. That could be a really fun bonding activity. I'm sure one of the people that testified would be happy to host us. And then we can go to the bar afterwards. And I ask for your yes vote on Senate Bill 173.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the folks that, Mr. Vice Chair, to the folks that came and stayed and thought our eight hours was interesting. That is really nice. and let's save Barr and Pilates. Please vote yes.

I move Senate Bill 173 to the committee of the whole.

Will you please call the roll? Representatives Bacon?

Bradfield?

Bonnell?

Garcia-Sander?

Gilchrist?

Hamrick?

Hartzellick?

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kay?

Story?

Lukens?

Mr. Chair?