Senate Education [Mar 11, 2026]

Senate Education Committee will come to order.

Here.

Excused.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Okay. You got him? Okay.

thank you senator senator marchman uh thank you mr chair i want to run through what the bill is going to do um so what the bill does is it prohibits all local education providers from discriminating against students with disabilities it requires that the providers local education providers provide equal access to all programs, services, and activities, ensuring students with disabilities are not offered lesser or separate benefit. It mandates reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures. It requires effective communications and auxiliary aids for students with disabilities. It ensures facility accessibility. cannot be denied access due to inaccessible school buildings or spaces. It obligates local providers to identify and evaluate every unserved student with a disability in their jurisdiction, at least annually. It requires schools to protect students from disability-based harassment, and it mandates anti-retiliation protections for students, families, and advocates. The reason I feel like this is important is because as we're seeing the uncertainty in the federal government and the devolution of what used to be the OCR that took all of the complaints about civil rights around disabilities, as we're seeing that go away, we need to do something here to provide those same protections. So that's what this bill intends to do, and we're available for questions and really eager to hear from our witnesses who have come out today. Thank you.

I do have a quick question. I understand there might be an amendment coming. I noticed we had two groups that were in an amend position, CASE and the Rural School Alliance. So I'm just wondering, is that amendment seeking to address their concerns?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. this bill is extremely important for historical context section 504 was the first federal law to provide protections to people with disabilities in the united states it was initially vetoed in 1972 and 1973 but following protests was signed into law however there were no regulations to explain what this law meant. It took four years of protests by people with disabilities who were very innovative and used sign language to communicate with the outside world when they engaged in sit-ins in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare so they could communicate needs and continue their protests. The regulations were finally signed in 1977, and I think that that history really highlights the importance of the regulations that interpret Section 504 as it exists now and continues to exist, as does the ADA, which was only signed into law after people with disabilities got out of their wheelchairs and climbed up the steps of the Capitol. So these laws do still exist. These requirements are still existing under federal law, but enforcement is the concern. You can still go to court if you can afford a lawyer, and find one to take your case. I can tell you in Colorado, there are not a lot of attorneys who represent families in these types of cases, and they're very expensive. You can also still go to OCR. However, they have about 300 staff now for 24,000 open cases to investigate. So this bill provides a new pathway for resolution. It ensures that equal access and non-discrimination. It's for students with 504 plans. It addresses bullying and retaliation. And it really is a way for families to seek a remedy without having to take extreme measures of going to court. We understand that there are fiscal implications. We've tried to take a reasonable approach in how we've written this bill and encouraged families to resolve their concerns at the lowest level possible first before going to the complaint option. The dismissal reasons that are included largely mirror what's typically been in the Office for Civil Rights reasons for dismissing. And I myself am a person with a disability who grew up with a disability. I went to school. I didn't have a 504 plan or an IEP, but I did have a disability, and I was protected by 504 as I would be protected under this new law. And I think that it's very important for Colorado students that we take this action. The federal government has been clear. Education should be sent back to the states, and that's what we're trying to do here today. Thank you.

of the Colorado Developmental Disabilities Council, and I provide staff support to a 24-member governor-appointed commission tasked with advising the Governor and General Assembly on matters impacting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The council supports this bill. Personally, I'm Cora's mom. Cora is a 13-year-old nonverbal student with epilepsy and an intellectual disability who is a student in our public school system. And she uses assistive technology for communication and for accessing her education. We actually moved out of our previous district to receive better services at school for the price of a brand new house in Littleton, which is not something that every family can afford to do or an option that they have. Local school districts and providers are under law bound by the same standards, but they vary greatly in their capacity and ability to implement a free and appropriate public education effectively. We are seeing a rise in multiple school districts who are seeking out-of-district placement for students on IEPs, often with only a few days' notice. Families are not being offered mediation while they're in a stable placement with supportive changes to their individualized education plans. and then families are told that they need to figure it out when a school says that they're unable to meet their needs with little to no school or district support, resources or options. Schools and districts seem unaware that these are civil rights violations and families are most concerned about their children's education and finding a fit so their child can participate with peers in school. When students rights are violated, families scramble to find a school that will collaborate and create an effective learning environment, support the students learning needs and promote safety, belonging and community inclusion. Without this, students simply lose the opportunity to learn and participate in school. Not adopting this costs the state additional money when students are pushed into out of district placements, center-based therapy programs of up to 40 hours a week and other more expensive options when school districts fail to provide what every student has the right to under law. Our students must stay home and families must make difficult choices about keeping their job or becoming a full-time family caregiver paid by Medicaid. Inclusion is less expensive and it has better outcomes for students. At the Council, we support a future for people with IDD where community living is expected, protected, and funded. Senate Bill 126 ensures that there are state level protections and enforcement to ensure that every child in Colorado has the right to a public education. This supports students, families, and communities where all students learn to participate and contribute meaningfully through education and belonging. Thank you.

Okay. Hi. Hi. Thank you to the channel committee members. My name is Molly Kirkham. I serve as a large-time policy advocate for the Out of Colorado, which supports people throughout Colorado with disabilities' family supports. But I think most importantly today, I'm actually here in support to testify as an individual with disabilities and as someone who's part of SFO, which stands for Speaking for Ourselves Colorado, which is a statewide self-advocacy organization. And I do want to acknowledge that you will hear from Dr. Colorado, but they're also in support. I think I really want to talk about why it's important from a person with a third business rate perspective. It's important because it has equal opportunity. It gives students with disabilities the same rights everyone else has, which I think is important I think it's important because just because you have a disability doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rights. It hurts to be accountable. It makes some, if there is a problem, it makes some self-fix it, and it doesn't just blindside it. It allows the Department of Education to investigate it. It allows a complaint process which protects the students and the family, and I think that's what's important. I wanted on to some examples because I think one thing is to hear in the bill, but I think it's more impactful if you can really see what it's like from the other side. So I was in unified classes at Skrill, and I went to Lakeview High School, and one of my options was either you do all unified or you do all regular. And to me that felt exclusive because I wanted to be able to choose them. And to me, that did not feel right because they have, you know, higher classes. They have higher education programs. But if you're on an IEP, you don't get that because you have the disability. And it also was, also for me, I always struggled with math. But it's either you had to do grade level for 15 minutes, but then they pulled out of class. That's a solution. not following IEPs, not being able to eat with other students. And it goes on. It can be field trips. It can be clubs. It can be as simple as someone not acknowledging you because of your disability. That's what's about. Identity, respect, looking at the person, seeing them as the person in front of you and not just because you have to, because that's the right thing to do. I know we ran out of time, so I'll wrap this up. But you know me. I like to talk. So thank you. I'm not going to do this now, but I did write a poem about labels when I was in high school. I do have it here. So not now, but if you want to hear, I'm happy to read it to you. But I just urge you to vote yes, to be that voice, to be the one, to say that this way or not, you are going to stand by the students and you don't do the right thing because of it. Thank you.

For the record, I'm Ashley Sutton, testifying in support of Senate Bill 125 because my family has experienced firsthand the enforcement gap this bill seeks to address. I offer one refinement that would help ensure the protections envisioned in this legislation work as intended for families. First, I want to commend the sponsors for bringing this legislation forward. It is timely and deeply needed for Colorado families. I am the mother of a high school student with a serious and persistent medical disabilities who attends Palmer Ridge High School in the Lewis Palmer School District 38. At the beginning of the school year, my daughter was approved for a Section 504 plan recommended by her multidisciplinary team at Children's Hospital Colorado. Like many families, we believe that once a plan was approved, the accommodations necessary for her to access her education would be implemented. But what our family has learned is that approval of a plan does not guarantee implementation. When accommodations were not provided, we followed the process families are told to follow. We raised concerns with a school beginning in October of 2025 and escalated the issue to district leadership. We spent months working with the district's grievance process and escalating concerns at every level before seeking outside help. When those efforts did not resolve the issue, I filed a complaint with the Colorado Department of Education. I was told the department does not handle section 504 oversight because those cases fall outside its jurisdiction When excuse me in other words there is no state agency to help our family Our experience exposed a gap in the system Families facing 504 evaluations currently have no meaningful enforcement pathway in Colorado. Our only option was to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. That complaint was filed in December. Three months later, we received nothing beyond an acknowledgement that the complaint was received and my daughter's approved accommodations still have not been implemented. In that time, the situation at school became increasingly difficult for my daughter to navigate after we began asserting her rights. The consequences have been profound. My daughter has missed substantial instruction time. As her health worsened during this period, she has required additional hospital care. New medical diagnoses have emerged, and the academic gap between her and her peers continues to grow. For students with disabilities, time matters. A delay of months is not administrative. It is instructional time a child will never get back. What we discovered is something many families are learning right now. When federal enforcement stalls, families effectively have nowhere to churn. SB 125 is important because it creates a state-level pathway for families to seek review when disability rights protections fail. However, families must first navigate the district grievance process, which is typically overseen by district employees. Our families spent months in that process without resolution. One refinement that would strengthen this bill would be to allow the department to utilize a CDE train neutral investigator or mediator when a complaint remains unresolved after the district grievance process. This would preserve the local grievance process while providing independent review when complaints remain unresolved. I'll wrap up my comments. These refinements are narrow, but they matter because families depend on this process working when local systems fail. My daughter recently turned 16, and I think between all of us, we could all agree that's a milestone birthday. Instead of celebrating with friends, she chose to forego a birthday celebration entirely because her health and the stress surrounding the school had become overwhelming. For her, this isn't theoretical. Every month that systems fail to respond is a month of education that cannot be recovered. She is living that reality today. That is why a clear state pathway with independent review matters so deeply for families like ours. For these reasons, our family respectfully urges your support of Senate Bill 145 with the proposed change. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Wrong way. Happy turn. Thank you. So, I want to briefly explain. This, to me, is about labels. So in high school, you get labels. But I don't think it's just about this way. Everyone has labels. But for me, this is what I felt like sometimes at IP meetings. The poem is called What to Call Me. You ponder on what you should call me. It's a question that everyone faces at some point. You call me weird. You call me different. You call me special. But that is not my name. You call me slow. You call me lazy. You call me Ligen, still, that is not my name. You call me faulty, you call me broken, you call me damaged, that's not my name. You call me disabled, you call me challenged, you call me flawed, that is not my name. Just call me Molly. Thank you.

so it was hard to hear about your troubles navigating through this system. I think it was your daughter.

Thank you. Any other questions? Well, thank you all for giving us a part of your afternoon. Appreciate it. And while they're making room, let's call up our next four witnesses on the list. So Tess Rittenberg, Maddie Aschauer, Paul Bauman, and online is Sabrina May. Thank you. place. So, Ms. Rittenberg, if you would like to kick us off. Tess?

Senator? Yes, please. Thank you. All right, good afternoon, committee chair. Thank you for the

Thank you. Would you like to pass to a hear from Ms. Rittenberg now? Please, Tess Rittenberg.

Great. Thank you. If you guys will stand by, we have our next witness, Paul Baumann. Sir, if you'd like to introduce yourself, we'll start your clock.

Thank you. And before, Anita, before you leave, did we ever get a hold of Sabrina May online?

Okay, thank you. So this is our panel committee. Do we have any questions for any of these three witnesses? I'm not seeing or hearing anybody, so thank you all for coming in and sharing your testimony. Very much appreciated. Okay. Our next panel, and I didn't know from the bill's sponsors if they just wanted to take them in order. Okay. Then we will call up remotely Courtney Hanson and Yale Cohen. Those are two folks that have signed up in an against position. So while our new tech is getting situated over there, we'll go ahead and call up Jack Johnson in person and Christina Erickson also in person. Okay, and who do we have online? Courtney, Ms. Hanson, is that you? Would you like to introduce yourself and begin your testimony, please?

Thank you, Ms. Hanson. And now also online, Yale Cohen.

Well, while you're getting your access set up, we'll go ahead and go to some of our in-person witnesses. So, Mr. Jack Johnson.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Erickson. And I see we had, well, we had Yale. Yale Cohen looks ready to go. Welcome, Ms. Cohen.

A lot of tech issues here, and I'm off the highway on the side. So, yes, my name is Yale Cohen, and I have a master's in special education. I've worked with kids forever. I also a special education advocate and I back right now on my way back from a meeting which this definitely could be impacting I mostly am for this bill, even though I said I was against. My one concern is that, basically a basic concern, that one, that you, and I do a lot of mediations. I do a lot of talking with districts and parents come to me all the time because they can't get through the system. However, that we have to start there, that parents can't go directly to the Division of Civil Rights is a definite minus for this bill. And that's my one big concern. If the people who brought the bill would like to amend that and allow that also while encouraging that we certainly can go through the process, I think that that would be great. And then I would very much support this bill. Thank you.

Senator Marshman thank you Mr. Chair my question is for Ms. Cohen I just wanted to confirm so you can still parents can still place a complaint or a claim and take it to OCR but I just want to clarify that you're saying that one of the restrictions in this bill is that parents can't go directly to CCRD, that they have to. You're talking about the Colorado enforcement.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Senator Kolker. No, this bill would not prohibit anyone from going directly to OCR or directly to CCRD, who, while they – and we've had conversations with them since last July about whether this was more appropriate in CDE or CCRD, and it was clear that it was more appropriate in CDE given their expertise in the topic issue and this specific population. I think the other House bill that we talked about, there is a little bit more of a blend of some of the other types of civil rights where CCRD may be more appropriate. But this bill does not prohibit parents in any way from going to use those remedies. This is a new process. And, in fact, we put in the bill to make it very clear for any court that's interpreting this that this bill isn't meant to conflict or limit the rights of anyone going through those processes. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. um so one of the things about this bill that's a little bit different from the way 504 is written in federal law is that 504 allows you to go directly to the office of civil rights or file a lawsuit for that matter um However, in practice, I will tell you that that's not what happens. If you were to go to the Office of Civil Rights without having talked to your district first, they're going to tell you you need to go try to figure it out with the district first. This bill explicitly says that you have to go to your local education provider first in order to try to resolve the problem. That is an acknowledged of an explicit new barrier that doesn't explicitly say that is not explicit in 504. However, in practice, those two things are the same. And I would add that this bill also clearly outlines areas where if that's not appropriate, for example, there's acts of bad faith by the district. It's futile to go to the district or the district isn't responding to in a timely manner, as we heard from before. Then you can then go directly to the Department of Education. So it's not a permanent barrier that never allows you to file a higher complaint. it's just a barrier to say you need to try to go to your district first which is the practice as it works currently it just puts it in statute yes senator thank you any other questions for

Chairman, members of the commitment, my name is Julia Miller. I'm an autistic student. And thank you for letting me speak today. Okay, she wants me to help her out. Sure.

My dream is to become an animator. I want to make videos and media, but I need to learn the computer skills like typing, using programs, and filling out forms. Right now, I don't feel ready for a job yet because I have not been taught those skills. In my program, we spent a lot of time riding the city bus, but I wanted to learn many new skills that would actually help me to get the job I wanted. I want to work someday and make my own money, but first I need the chance to learn the computer skills and life skills that would help me succeed. Please make sure transitional services teach real skills that prepare students like me for my future. Thank you for listening Okay So Deanna Miller did you want to testify on your own behalf

Yes, I wanted to testify on my own behalf. I just didn't switch the computer.

Okay, good. Okay, so much again. Good afternoon. My name is Deanna Goyd-Miller, and I'm the parent of a young adult with disabilities in the Colorado education system. Over the past few years, I've spent countless hours advocating for the basic educational access of things my student needed and often did not receive. Families like mine discover that equal access exists more on paper than in actual practice. This becomes especially visible in transition services, which are meant to prepare students with disabilities for employment, future education, and independent living. When those services are not connected to a student's goals and do not build skills needed for real careers, the students leave the school system without the preparation that they were promised. For families, this issue is not just about the paperwork compliance, but whether the way the programs are designed actually allows the student with disabilities to achieve their goals for the programs that are supposed to support them. What this bill does is important because it reinforces something we should already have happening. Students with disabilities deserve to participate fully in their school programs, services, and opportunities, including meaningful transportation programs that transition programs that prepare them for their futures. When the protections are clear in the state laws, family have a stronger path of accountability when those rights are not being honored. I respectfully ask the committee to support SB 26-125 so students with disabilities in Colorado receive the equal education access that they are entitled to. I really appreciate your time and listening, and it is really hard to advocate for your child when you are the sole support of your family, and sometimes legal fees are out of reach. And so these districts need to be held more accountable for what they do every single day. Thank you.

Yes, we can. Dear Chair Coker Vice Chair Markman Representative Bacon Representative Phillips and members of the Senate Education Committee thank you for the opportunity to testify today My name is Carson Covey, and I serve as the Policy Lobbyist for Family Voices Colorado as part of the Family Coalition Initiative. Through this coalition, I represent five grassroots organizations, Family Voices Colorado, Peak Parent Center, Parent to Parent of Colorado, El Grupo Vida, and Show and Tell, that work every day to support families of individuals with disabilities and to advocate for their rights across Colorado. I would like to thank you for bringing forward Colorado Senate Bill 26-125, the Disability Rights Protections in Public Schools Act. This important bill would strengthen state-based enforcement of disability rights and help address gaps in federal oversight. When providing educational services or assistance, it would prohibit public schools and charter schools from discriminating against qualified students with disabilities. It also prohibits local education providers from limiting or denying students with disabilities equal access to educational services and ensures they can participate in activities and programs alongside their peers. Additionally, the bill protects individuals from retaliation if they file complaints or participate in investigations related to discrimination. This legislation would benefit any student with an I.E.P. regardless of the severity of their disability. As a Colorado native, I am familiar with many school systems across our state, but they all share the same goal, ensuring that students with disabilities have equal access to education. Personally, I attended Jeffco Public Schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. In my experience, I was given equal opportunities, classroom inclusion, and the ability to participate in my IEP process and the goals surrounding my education. I also took part in extracurricular activities, from talent shows to coaching football in high school, all while maintaining a strong GPA. I would not have been able to accomplish those things without a strong support team and equal opportunities alongside my peers. My public education helped me become the person I am today, and it is why I believe so strongly that every student with a disability in Colorado deserves the same opportunity to succeed. Thank you again for your time and for your commitment to protecting the rights of students with disabilities. I respectfully encourage your aye vote on SB 26-125.

Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Danny Lawrence, and I live in Fort Collins. I drove down to lend my support for SB 26125. My son Sawyer is a graduating senior. We are 73 days from the finish line. Unlike when my daughter graduated, when I was filled with sadness about her departure, for Sawyer it's totally the opposite. Instead, it's total elation that he will be free from the limitations of public education. You see, Sawyer is visually impaired. He is going blind and educating this child has been a battle of epic proportions Thirteen years on an IEP two on a 504 more states complaints written than I can count five Office of Civil Rights investigations three settlements six attorneys and spent on attorneys to assert his civil rights. Additionally, we've spent far more than that on assistive technology, Braille tutoring, and trauma therapy. But Sawyer fought and he persevered. He earned a 3.9 GPA in the general education setting so far. He is a National Honor Society STEM member and Agricultural Sciences. He just earned his EMT certification, and he's going to college this fall out of state on a merit scholarship. Today, we still have two active investigations with OCR, started in 2023 and 2024 with no end in sight. My son will graduate from high school before any decision regarding those complaints is ever made, and he will see no justice for his federal protections. He learned in real time that while he had rights, there was no one to enforce them, and Poudre School District definitely took advantage of that. So today I am here as a product of why this bill is needed. People shouldn't have to fight this hard to educate their children, and frankly most can't financially. My comments today won't help my son, but I am here to try to make it better than I found it, and SB 26125 does that, considering the reality of our national climate and administration. There currently is no OCR, currently. No one updates our case. No one responds to my emails. No one answers FOIA requests. It is a complete ghost town. For public education students with a 504, there is literally no place to go. Arguments made today about which position complaints should be made and fail to acknowledge the dire reality of the conditions today. Students like Sawyer in the classroom in Colorado right now in real time have no defense. They are entirely vulnerable. Codifying disability protections into Colorado law in any degree is critical. In fact, it's a five alarm fire. Please don't lose sight of that. And please extend a favorable vote to 26125. A lot of really great kids need you to give them some protection, and I appreciate the work of Colorado Disability Law, Senators Colker and Marchman, Representative Bacon and Phillips, and thank you to this committee for your work. It's important, and thank you for allowing me to testify.

So thank you, Chairman, members of the committee, and thank you so much to the bill's sponsors for bringing this forward. My name is Marcella Shifflin. I'm a former LEND fellow through JFK Partners at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, former co-chair of the Colorado Developmental Disabilities Council Planning and Grants Committee, and family expert with the Colorado Family Caregiver Collaborative and founder of Justice Care. Justice Care brings lived experience and policy strategy together to strengthen access, accountability, and inclusion in public systems. I want to begin with my daughter. She's now 23 years old. She is triggered when she reflects on her education. When she's in the middle of the school, she's in the middle of the school. She was in school. She was sent home many times, not because she did anything wrong, because the system lacked the capacity to meet her needs. She went through eight different schools from her early childhood years until age 21 because each school could not meet her needs because of her disability. Imagine being a child repeatedly sent home from school. Over time, children internalize that experience and begin to believe they are the problem. The stigma and emotional trauma from that can follow someone long into adulthood. And the impact doesn't stop with the student. When my daughter was repeatedly sent home, I could not maintain steady employment because I had to constantly respond to school crises. The financial and emotional consequences ripple through entire families. And my daughter's experience wasn't unique. It reflects systemic gaps that this bill begins to address. Across Colorado and the country, many students and families have filed civil rights complaints in education. But the dismantling of the Federal Office for Civil Rights, many of those cases have been stalled or dropped, leaving families without resolution and without justice. When federal enforcement falters, states have a responsibility to ensure civil rights protections remain real and enforceable. This moment presents an opportunity for Colorado to ensure students and families still have a meaningful path to accountability. Schools should be designed for students, not the other way around. The bill focuses on protecting the civil rights of students with disability and that focus is essential, but it also highlights something larger about how our schools are designed. When schools work with students with disabilities through accessible environments, flexible learning structures, and effective communication with families, they work better for many other students whose lives do not fit the narrow idea of a typical student. This includes students from immigrant families and youth caregivers, students who help care for siblings or relatives at home. In the past two weeks, the body unanimously recognized youth caregivers as a distinct population of students who often shoulder responsibilities beyond their years. Many educators are doing everything they can with limited resources. This is built out about blaming teachers or schools. It's about building systems that support educators and students so success does not depend on extraordinary effort from families or individual staff members. In closing, I urge you to support the bill because students should not have to adapt to systems that were never designed for their success. It is our responsibility to design systems worthy of students we serve. Thank you.

Colorado PTA supports Senate Bill 125. PTA believes every child has the right to a high-quality, inclusive public education that allows them to reach their full potential. Access to a free public education is the most effective method of securing that opportunity, and it should not be denied to any child. For students with disabilities, that promise is only meaningful when strong protections ensure they can fully participate in school life. City Bill 125 helps ensure that opportunity by reinforcing longstanding civil rights protections for students and clarifying what equal access truly means in our public schools While federal laws protecting students with disabilities exist we know they are not being enforced leaving students vulnerable and without recourse This bill strengthens Colorado's commitment by codifying key protections in state law and establishing clear expectations for schools. I'm here to share Colorado PTA's organizational position, but this bill hits a little closer. I'm the parent of an amazing thriving kid with a disability. Over the years, there have been educational ups and downs. I never had to file a complaint, got close a few terms. However, I'm confident the federal accountability laws are what kept decision makers at the table working with us towards solutions, even when it was hard, maybe especially when it was hard. In the end, my son got what he needed, and we're looking now at colleges. But without effective protections, I don't really want to think about where we would be. Later, I had the opportunity to further see the value of protections against discrimination in education when I interned at the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights during law school. And this was in 2020 under DeVos. I worked on all stages of complaints related to discrimination based on disability, race, and language access under the supervision of amazing civil rights attorneys, many who have left the department. It's heartbreaking and infuriating to see how the OCR has been gutted. It no longer acts as a stopgap protecting our kids and their access to education. It's also important to note that those protections matter to families. Not every parent has the time, resources, or knowledge to navigate the complex systems. When expectations are clear and rights are protected, it helps ensure that students do not slip through the cracks. VTA supports Senate Bill 125 because it will likely be the difference between giving students opportunity to reach that potential or slipping through the cracks. I support this bill because I've seen the difference both personally and professionally. Thank you for your careful

yourself, we'd love to hear your testimony. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Hi, I'm Ronnie Broyles. I am a parent of a 12-year-old in the backseat. We're just coming back from Children's Hospital. She just got discharged today. Over the last three years, I have been in litigation against Academy School District 20 in Colorado Springs. The IEP teams in ASD 20 have lied to us, manipulated us. They've gaslighted us. They predetermined her placement as determined by an administrative law judge decision in 2024. That case is EA 2024-0014. I encourage each of you to look it up. As I understand, it's the first time a parent's won in some time. We're now engaged in a federal civil rights lawsuit against Academy School District 20 for violating her civil rights not once, not twice, but three separate times over three separate days. They refused to provide, even after winning the case in the administrative courts, The district refused to provide any educational services for more than a month. They withdrew her services three separate times because we have video cameras in the living areas of our home due to issues with nursing that we've had in the past. And it helps to protect her It helps to protect us And quite frankly it helps to protect the district And this bill is extremely important because while the IDEA mandates that special needs children be educated to the extent possible with their non peers that not possible in every case And cases like my daughter is one of them. And I have tried working with the district. We went out of our way. We've been over backwards trying to work with the district. And they continue to stonewall us. We had a CDE mediator who met with the district privately before they ever met with us, and that didn't work out. Nine separate IEP meetings failed. They tried to intimidate us with threats of truancy, which ultimately led to a due process complaint, which we won, and now a federal civil rights lawsuit. These districts are not going to police themselves. They're not going to do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. And the only way to do that is to make them through legislation. And that's why this bill is extremely important. And while I would personally like to see more teeth put into it, like requiring districts to pay for, say, legal fees for a prevailing party, this bill is a good start. So I ask each of you to vote yes on SB 26125 because these children deserve better than what they're getting. Thank you.

That last one line, it was about design systems for kids. Do you have that? Yeah. I mentioned it a couple times. And so I was saying in closing, I'm urging you to support the bill because students should not have to adapt to systems that were never designed for their success. And it's our responsibility to design systems worthy of the students that we serve. Thank you.

so thank you for the question apparently

the committee. My name is Megan Lovelace, and I am the policy coordinator for the Arc of Colorado. I'd like to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill forward. The Arc of Colorado is in support of Senate Bill 26-125. I come to you today as a parent to share my personal story and my child's story on our journey through the education system here in Colorado. My daughter is the most amazing young lady with red curly hair and blue eyes who has IDD. During her elementary school education, she was locked in a seclusion room where they put her desk. She was carried through the hallway by four teachers, her belly down and her back up by her limbs. She was put on a 45-day suspension. She was not offered any accommodations. The ones in her IEP were not adhered to. My beautiful young daughter was told repeatedly that she did not belong. The school district told us. Sue us. That's just fine. We get sued all the time. The school district told us we'd love to accommodate her, but we just don't have the money. When I tried to file a complaint, I was told how great the county that I lived in was and how they like to go skiing there sometimes, although no follow-up. My daughter heard over and over again that she didn't belong. It created a series of mental health concerns that led to an acute mental health illness that led to her attempting suicide in the fifth grade. My daughter missed years of her education due to the discrimination, And my family just simply did not have the money to afford legal counsel and to pursue the legal aspects of what we're asking parents to do in our state. Now, I know that Colorado is better than this. I know that we don't want any of our students to be treated the way that my daughter has been treated. This bill will help us get there. You've heard from previous testimony that some of our federal protections aren't really in place at the moment. And so it's so important to make sure those protections are in place right here in our state so every Coloradan can succeed. I'm happy to report that my daughter is now in a different school district with all the support she needs, a future geologist that will help solve our drought problems. It's bills like this that help kids like mine succeed. Thank you for your support and your time today.

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Good afternoon, Chair, and... members of the board, excuse me. My name is Bryce Rafferty. I'm here representing the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition in support of this bill. CCDC supports this legislation because students with disabilities need more than promises of inclusion. They deserve clear, legally enforceable rights that guarantee them practical, not just theoretical, access to public education. This bill matters because it affirms that Colorado's constitutional responsibility to provide thorough and uniform public schooling applies to all children, including those with disabilities. Equal access to educational programs, services, and activities is fundamental for educational equity. The bill also recognizes that students with disabilities often have depended on federal laws for protection, which can be affected by changes in federal enforcement. Colorado should ensure these rights are safeguarded at the state level for reasons now well understood by this committee. I'd like to draw your attention to three points of emphasis. First, the bill advances disability rights by ensuring equal opportunity to participate and benefit from school life. Schools must not organize programs in ways that exclude students with disabilities. Schools must organize programs in ways that provide equal access, which means inclusion

Thank you, Mr. Rafferty. And now we'd like to hear from Dr. Michael Neal. Dr. Neal, good to see you. It's been a while for me. And if you'll introduce yourself, we'll start your clock for testimony.

Thank you, Dr. Neal. And I see we have Mr. Broyles back. So, Mr. Broyles, if you remember, I'd asked you about the difficulties in getting legal representation and how that path through the litigation world with D20 had gone. So if you're on and ready to answer that, we'd love to hear the answer.

Wow.

Yes.

Well, thank you for sharing that with us. I think it was very important to hear. So we have one witness signed up left and we're saving the best for last. So, Elizabeth Moran, if you'll introduce yourself and give your testimony, that'd be great.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Moran. So, folks, we have any questions for these four witnesses online? I'm not seeing any. So again, I want to thank you all for giving up a part of your afternoon and testifying before the Senate Education Committee. So thank you again. So folks, that's all the witnesses who have signed up. Is there anybody else in the room or anybody in the waiting room online who wishes to testify? Not seeing or hearing anyone. We will close the witness testimony phase, and we will take a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Education Committee will come back to order. We are to the amendment phase. Bill sponsors. Do you have any amendments for today? Senator Colker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we have one amendment, and I move amendment L-001 to Senate Bill 125. Great. Would you like to tell us about L-001? This amendment just reflects an existing obligation on schools related to ADA communication standards. It's an area of case law that we missed in the initial draft that we wanted to make sure we capture so that our law is mirroring federal law. What it's doing, basically, we don't anticipate disabled parents' interactions, but Section 504 case law does, and so it's just to make accommodations for disabled parents of students with 504s. Okay. Any questions from the committee on L001? is there any objection to L001? Seeing and hearing none, L001 is adopted. Bill sponsors, any additional amendments? No. Committee, any amendments to Senate Bill 125? No. Then we will close the amendment phase. Do you want to go?

Very good. Yes, please.

Thank you. Senator Colker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I reiterate my co-sponsors' comments. I was thanking everyone that came forward to testify today, both in person and remotely. And for many of the parents reliving through their testimony, maybe not specifically, but just talking about it relives some of the trauma that they go through. I know it impacts me. There are times where I'm listening to the testimony, and I don't want to let you down. I just want to... This bill does not create new mandates or burdens on schools. What we're trying to do is in law. we're going to send this to appropriations and it has a fiscal note and damn it we're going to find a way to pay for it because these people, their kids deserve another recourse and they don't have the time to wait for another year so I encourage an aye vote thank you Thank you. Committee, any closing comments? Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, sponsors, for bringing this bill. This is really important work. It's glaring that this is a gap in our current state policy that needs to be addressed. And thank you so much for seeing it and addressing it. I noticed that we didn't hear from school districts in this process, and I was just wondering if those discussions did happen and what the basic reaction was.

As I'm, again, looking at the fiscal note and you brought it up, obviously it's going to be a hurdle to get through, and I sure hope as well as you that we can find a way to make this work. As I'm looking through the fiscal, just the paragraph that talks about the assumptions, It does talk about the fiscal note assumes that the bill does not apply to the Department of Early Childhood or preschool providers that participate in the universal preschool program unless they're school districts, charter schools, or boards. And it goes on to state that that could have over a million dollar impact to the Department of Early Childhood within that preschool space. and I was hoping that maybe we could get a little bit of insight on that, a little bit of coloring from our fiscal analyst. That's okay. Welcome to the Education Committee, Ms. Gerstle. Did I get that right? Close enough?

Senator Bright? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for the insight there. That really helps give me a picture of how we got there and why the statement exists, et cetera. And so I would want folks to know that I will be supportive of this and hoping that if the question did show up from the Department of the Childhood and then warranted your attention to it as well Maybe we can get something that might address that more specifically as we get closer but I will be supporting the bill Committee any other closing comments I just have a quick one I think I shared this with Senator Colker, I believe, yesterday, but one of the first cases when I got my law license here in Colorado, I was doing wills and trusts and met with some good friends of ours, family, whose daughter had presented nonverbal, severely autistic. and in the course of preparing their wills and testamentary documents, they began to tell me about their experience with my own Manitou Springs School District 14 and how when they first went there to investigate how they could get an IEP and get her on track to go to school on time, the school basically told her, we have no resources, we can't handle that, why don't you go down to D11 down the street where they have a lot more resources and they can handle it. And the parents were outraged. Of course, they wanted their daughter to go to school in their own community and have access to all of that. So I actually had to go all the way to filing a notice of intent to sue before the school district actually came back. But I think Ms. Moran, our last witness, pointed out this has been going on for a long time. And I think the quality of the testimony we heard today was fabulous. I really appreciate you all bringing this bill. And if there's no further comments, the motion is the approval, the passage of Senate Bill 125 as amended. Would you take the roll, please? Senators Bright? Aye. Frizzell?

Aye. Polker?

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 126 attempts to remove barriers to achieving teacher licensure for out-of-state teachers, ensuring our schools have the workforce they need to achieve Kater kiddos. For the 24-25 school year, Colorado had 7,792 open teaching positions. That's roughly 14% of the total teacher workforce in the state vacant. That's an increase from even the prior year where we had about 6,900 open positions. Our schools are struggling to fill teaching positions, particularly in our rural areas. The reasons for our workforce challenges are many, including low pay, heavy workloads, and competition from neighboring states. While there's no silver bullet to solving these problems, this bill is a small step to help fill that void by expediting licensure for experienced out-of-state teachers. The bill has two parts. The first part addresses years of experience for out-of-state teachers. The second part builds off a bill I sponsored in 2023, enacting the teacher compact. Current law requires a teacher coming from another state with reciprocity have three years' worth of teaching experience within the last seven years. This bill simply strikes that previous seven-year requirement but retains the three-year experience. There's really no evidence to support the need for that really recent seven-year requirement. Nothing suggests it improves the quality of teachers, but it is in fact creating barriers. So, for instance, in one small rural district, there was an administrator moving to Colorado from another state. They started their career as a teacher, but had spent the last 20 years as an administrator. Now, they wanted to come back into one of our Colorado classrooms. No one would say the individual is not qualified, but she has to jump through multiple hoops just to attain that licensure. Another example could be a mom who left the classroom for 10 years to raise her kids, and now she wants to return to her career in our state. This requirement is presenting an obstacle that we as a legislature can easily remove without sacrificing the quality of our teachers. I'm going to turn this over to my co-prime to describe the second provision of the bill.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for our bill sponsors? All right. We do have a few people signed up for testimony. We'll go straight into testimony. It looks like we just have one panel. I'm going to call them Aaron Gold and Megan Raines in person, and then have three remote for testimony, one for questions only. Tanya Klein for questions only. Daniil LaPlatt for remotely. Chris Sell and Kirk Henwood, all remote. And while the remote is coming up, we'll have our, those that are in person start, and we'll have Ms. Gold, if you'd like to start, please.

Thank you. Perfect timing. Ms. Raines, you know the drill. go ahead and you have three minutes. Good afternoon Chair Kolker and members of the committee. My name is Megan Raines. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Colorado Education Association representing 40,000 educators across the state of Colorado. And I'm here today to express the strong support of educators for SB 26126. We see the impacts of the teacher shortage crisis every day throughout Colorado, especially in our rural communities. Districts are heading into each school year with open positions they simply cannot fill. The reasons are real and well-known. The high cost of housing, the remoteness of many of our communities, competition from neighboring states that pay teachers more, and a national workforce shortage that isn't going to go away anytime soon. Our rural schools in particular are bearing the brunt of this crisis, and the kids in those classrooms deserve better. We hear from our members in rural Colorado that there are not enough teachers or support staff to serve our students the way they deserve to be served. Our educators always rise to the occasion, but the state's burdensome requirements around licensure have exacerbated the educator shortage. SB 26126 won't solve all of these problems, but it removes a few barriers that have been quietly turning qualified teachers away. Under current law, an educator moving to Colorado from another state must have their three years of teaching experience fall within the last seven years. A parent who stepped away to raise children, a military spouse who took a break while following their partner to a new posting, a teacher whose career was disrupted by the pandemic, all of them can be turned away even with years of strong evaluated classroom experience. This bill simply says, if you have three years of successful teaching experience, it counts, regardless of when it happened. That is not a lowering of standards. It is a recognition that good teachers come from varied life paths and that Colorado cannot afford to turn them away. For rural school districts and all school districts across Colorado struggling to find a qualified science or special education teacher, this change could make all the difference. We urge your support for SB 26126. Thank you. Thank you. And just hold on We see if we have questions Remotely I have Ms LaPlatt If you would go ahead and unmute yourself state who you represent You know the drill too I believe So go ahead Good afternoon, Chair Kolker, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify. I'm Danille LaPlatt, Executive Director of the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance. We represent 146 rural school districts across the state of Colorado and approximately 135,000 students across the state. The alliance strongly supports this bill and I want to be very direct about why it matters so much to our members. Our rural districts work hard every day to fill teaching positions and this bill helps by removing barriers that complicate the process and potentially turn qualified candidates away. Experienced educators want to teach in Colorado. This bill clears the path by eliminating licensure obstacles that have little to do with classroom competency so qualified teachers can get into classrooms without unnecessary delay. As Senator Marchman talked about in her opening summary, if a teacher takes time off to raise a family, care for a parent, or has another capacity they're serving in, even for just a year or two too long, their years of experience can become invisible to Colorado. This bill fixes that by eliminating the arbitrary seven-year look-back window while keeping the substantive requirement of three years of successful teaching experience. A 30-day processing timeline isn't a luxury. It is often a lifeline. Our rural superintendents don't have the luxury of a deep substitute bench or even a nearby university pipeline. So when a qualified candidate is ready, our system needs to be ready as well. This bill builds in a bridge. the 30-day initial licensure pathway is designed to function while the compact states finalize their formal agreements. So districts aren't left waiting during that transition. And critically, this bill doesn't require additional coursework or exams as a condition of initial licensure, meaning qualified teachers can get into classrooms without unnecessary additional hurdles. We also strongly support the crosswalk table requirement. Our superintendents repeatedly tell us they don't know how out-of-state licenses translate to Colorado endorsement areas, and that transparency will help our rural districts recruit more strategically. We urge your support. Our rural students deserve the same access to qualified teachers as their urban counterparts, and this bill helps to move us meaningfully in that direction. Thank you. Thank you, and if you just hold on, we'll go to Chris Sell. I may have mispronounced your name, but please correct me. Mute yourself, state your name and who you represent. You have three minutes. Thank you, Chair Kolker and the Education Committee. My name is Chris Selle. It's okay if you mispronounce my name. I'm a school administrator. I've been called much worse. It's perfectly fine. Thank you. Thank you for this afternoon. I wanted to share with you my support for this particular bill as well, too. I feel like it's important to state that this is really around rules and statutes that inhibit our ability to get great educators in our systems. It is not an issue with CDE. They're a wonderful partner. When I call them and specifically Tanya Klein, who you're going to probably talk to later, They give us great advice, and we are grateful for their partnership on this. It's really about those restrictions that are placed in law right now that inhibit our ability to get good folks in our systems. Meeker is a wonderful place to live. It's not uncommon for us to have out-of-state applicants, but there are times where they come from maybe some unique circumstances. You know, an administrator that wants to go back into the classroom. I'm a school psychologist that took time off, you know, a superintendent that now wants to be a principal, those types of scenarios. And when you have a requirement that there's a certain amount of experience within a certain window of time that that person has to meet for them to be able to get a professional license in the state of Colorado, it inhibits their ability to do that. Most of the time we can get them to do it, but they have to jump through a set of hoops, usually at cost to the employee. And when we're in a situation where we all know there's a scarcity of quality educators in our state, we certainly want to be able to make that pathway as smooth as possible for those people who have demonstrated effectiveness somewhere else in the state. We know we're a great fit for our system. We don't want to have to make it a complicated process for them to get the right piece of paper to tell them that they can teach in our system. I can give you a couple of stories if you want, but just wanted to kind of give you the flavor for what actually happens in our systems in rural schools and some of the challenges we face. Anything you all can do that makes that pathway smoother but doesn't lower the expectations would be fantastic. Smoothing out the compact would be great. Keeping the requirement for previous teaching experience but not within a certain amount of time, that'd be great. All of those steps help us fill the needs that we have in our districts, which ultimately lead to better outcomes for kids. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have Tanya Klein here from the Department of Ed, but for questions only, correct? Yep. So we'll go to that portion here for this panel. Do we have any questions for the panel? Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure who to direct this to, but whoever feels appropriate to address it, that would be great. Through the 2021 and 2022 years as we exited the pandemic, we lowered the standards a little bit on our teaching staff. And I think it resulted in a little bit of a compromise in the quality in the classrooms. I just would want to know your opinion on this as we remove some of these components. Do you suspect that we might have a little bit of a reduction in quality in the classrooms, or are we fairly confident that we can maintain that? Who would like to take that? Ms. Klein? I mean, your questions only, or Mr. Selle? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am not aware that after the pandemic that standards were reduced. I know we lost a lot of teachers to attrition, but I do not recall that our licensure requirements changed at all. Senator Bright? Sorry, I'll clarify that. It was in the preschool space, so definitely preschool changed. Sorry. Thank you. So we're just talking about K-12 here, I believe, right, Ms. Klein? That is correct. Thank you. I don't think there's any – Senator Bright? I mean, the parallel still may hold. I'm just asking for an opinion about whether or not that would be an issue. Anyone have an opinion on that? Well, I was just going to say – Senator, excuse me, Mr. Sully, go ahead. Sorry. I'm always happy to share my opinion. I don foresee a reduction in quality We talking about people who have proven effectiveness in other states already anyway who are coming to Colorado And there just like this kind of weird section in the requirements that says you have to have a certain amount of teaching within a certain period of time. These are folks that still have a professional license in another state who have proven to be effective educators in the systems that they're in. Thank you. And I want to just speak on my personal experience. I was a teacher in Iowa, moved here in 99. And the hoops to jump through to get the license at that time, and I had taught for three full years, two years as a sub, but three full years, it was detrimental for me to get my license. And it was just easier for me to just step away from the profession. A lot of other reasons why I did, but I just know in my own personal experience, I had three years where I was a highly effective teacher, rated as highly effective, and good references and everything, but it was just going to be, 27 years ago, too hard just for me to go through and get my license, and so I just moved on here in the state, so that's just my personal experience. Do we have any other questions? Senator Marshman. I was going to rephrase Senator Bright's question to CDE and just say what measures do we have to make sure we do have quality candidates? Can you talk a little bit about the quality of the candidates, not just about their experience, but what other components we look at to ensure that we're actually bringing in quality candidates. Ms. Colleen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At present, and we would continue to do this for all out-of-state applications, compact aside, we can speak to that in a moment if you would like, we look for that they do indeed have a degree from a regionally accredited college or university, a bachelor's or higher degree, that they have completed an approved teacher preparation program that leads to licensure in that state. So that state, say Nevada, has gone through the authorization, reauthorization process that Colorado does of all of our teacher preparation programs, and they have ensured that those programs meet Nevada's requirements for an educator credential in that state. And then we also look for a demonstration of content knowledge competency for the endorsement or endorsements that they are seeking, their content areas that they are seeking. With that three-year requirement, if you come in with three years, that demonstration of content knowledge competency is essentially waived. So if you come in and you've got three years of licensed experience as an elementary teacher in another state and you have that degree and preparation program, we waive that and we move you forward with a clear background check, of course. Thank you, Senator Marchman. Great. So that helps. So that's how we do it now. And with the compact, this just kind of creates a parallel process. Is that correct then? Ms. Klein. Correct. Great. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's okay. Yes, that is correct. It does establish that. For those in the compact state, what we are working on, what the commissioners of the compact are working on is to establish what is that equivalent. What is Colorado say secondary science teacher license with a secondary science endorsement What does that equate to in Utah So if a candidate here goes to Utah they have our license Utah has already determined that Similarly we determined what a Utah credential would qualify for here in Colorado. And then we will have a separate application specifically for those applying under the compact who have already determined that, yes, I have an equivalent license. Here it is. We'll have a separate application to make that really super smooth for them. Senator Marchman. And I'm sorry, last question. I've been intrigued by this compact that I went through and looked at some of the minutes of the meetings. I know we have one representative who serves on that. But if I'm not mistaken, part of the reason we're having this hold up with the compact is related to data. Is that your understanding as well? And is there anything else you can share about that? I'm really glad we're doing this to try to bridge the gap. But, of course, we're really excited for the compact to be up and going the way we had anticipated it. So any kind of an update on the compact would be great. And if you don't have it, that's fine. Ms. Colleen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I do actually, I serve on the compact as Colorado's representative. So if you ever have any questions, just feel free to call. We, the compact commissioners, have been really antsy to get the compact up and operational. And it was a lot of the delay is based on a data system that was in a set of rules. I didn't start out as Colorado's representative, so I kind of fell into it a little later. And it makes sense to have a centralized system where individuals who are participating in this compact, So we have record of them. We know where they're coming from, where they're going, where they've been, all of that kind of thing. However, it's taken forever to get this data system going. We anticipate, keyword, that it will be up May, June of this year. We are also independently working to somehow get it operational sans this data system. Maybe we can populate it with information, you know, afterward, those kinds of things. But, yes, that has been kind of what has held everything up, and it has frustrated all 13 states that are presently in the compact. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you all for participating and joining us. I'm glad we could have Zoom, Mr. Sully, so you could join us from Meeker. I appreciate that. Anyone left in the room who signed up who hasn't been called to testify? See, no one. Testimony phase is closed. To the amendment phase, and there is an amendment here. This is our sponsor to get back. Who would like to move and explain the amendment? Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it appropriate that I move it now? Yes. Okay. I move L-001 to Senate Bill 126. That's a proper motion. Can you explain the amendment? Sure. L-001 was proposed by the Colorado League of Charter Schools, and the amendment offers clarifying language to ensure the reciprocity granted to a teacher matches the eligible categories in which they teach. The current language was ambiguous on the intent of the reciprocity and this better aligns with the compact I take your word for it Pardon me I said I take your word for it Is there any objection to this amendment Seeing none of the amendments passed. Is there another amendment? We think there is. But I know it didn't get handed out. We'll take a senatorial five here, because we do have another amendment that just hasn't been copied. Well, we'll get it printed. We'll still take a senatorial five while we wait. Thank you. Thank you. Explain the amendment. Yeah, so this amendment was suggested by CDE. It's just a technical clarification. Technically, the compact's in effect, right, because all 10 states have adopted it, and the rules are complete, but there's still work to be done with the other states, so licenses have not been issued under the compact. So this just adds clarifying language to more align with the process of the compact. Thank you. Do we have any questions? We didn't hit record in time when I said we were back. Can you just move it one more time? I move L-002 to Senate Bill 126. That's a proper motion. Any objections? Seeing none, L-002 is passed. Any other amendments? No, sir. All right. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Final comments? Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that we've gone through everything that we believe that this bill has in it. I just want to say that, you know, it builds on the interstate teacher mobility compact adopted in 2023, and I ask for an aye vote. Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With 10% of our teaching, 10 to 14% of our teaching positions are, and vacant each year. And being a teacher in the classroom, I can tell you, we also have a huge sub shortage. I'm excited to get more teachers who are qualified into our schools. So I urge your support of this bill. Thank you. Any closing comments, questions? The committee. Senator Snyder. Oh, Senator Kipp, sorry. Yeah, I have like a 45-minute comment now. Sorry. I have a 45-second comment. Thank you guys for bringing this bill. I know we've been trying to work on this teacher shortage. you for years and years and years and thank you for bringing a practical solution that costs no money right i mean we love it when we have things that cost no money because this is the year for that senator snyder thank you mr chair thank you to the bill sponsors you know i'm from down in a very military heavy district and i think a lot of this compact and this portability of licensure started with the military because we were getting constantly having people rotating in there are licensed physical therapists or whatever in another state and they'd have to go through all of the training necessary so education is one area we could really use the workforce I think this is a great idea I excited for this compact to be up and running and I be voting yesterday thank you thank you Any other comments Senator Marchman I was just going to actually mention that we did get a letter from the Department of War It was them who brought this bill. We used to call them DOD, but it was the Department of War, and they are in support of the bill, really excited to see it moving on. So thank you. We forgot to both mentioned that, but that is a big part of why we are working on that. So thank you. With that, I move amended Senate Bill 126 to the Committee of the Whole and ask for a yes vote. That's a proper motion. Ms. Chris-Fee, will you take the poll, please? Senators Bright? Yes. Brazil? Aye. Kip? I think it's still the Department of Defense until Congress changes it, just as an FYI, but yes. Rich? Aye. Snyder? Aye. Marchman? Aye. Mr. Chair? Aye. That passes unanimously. Senator Marchman? We would love the consent calendar. Any objections to the consent calendar? Seeing none, it will be placed on consent. Thank you very much. Thank you, committee. Seeing no further business, the Senate Education Committee is adjourned.