A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 25, 2013 | Committee Room | Education

Full MP3 Audio File

that time had education committee ?? two and time in their current PENL 5 and two witnesses, RA A. Moore loved again and Japan and lee had a different if they had to try and a K a the time that homeland from YAME, on time and time between the cars A, A Hank, A Adair from lake area and their home on long time to five handling and encourage you from taking any interest on Amtrak reform could have got to be in their lifetime is concerned, this representatives recommended:?? (SPEAKER CHANGES)thank you for some time to an end to have a lot of the ocean will be interesting and had to fill out a deal that time in: A and Linda Hartley good deal for 40 award and that EA Figueroa time left hand, they can then chairman of the bible, leaving the time away from them we have a unwritten program before the end that allow too long ago milieu time to check the language of definitive PL and member of the ferment Cherokee get a few 100 yards away and it's been more typical for art Condit, generation of 200 AM in the trial to the Mater Dei language unusually cool idea we have a program to 5:00 PM 14 Mac lead time of day and night health?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Cherokee who were in the program, value of getting up and in college that whaling-killing and I'm happy all comparable in which more than 50 but by a human being a FA cup of coffee or 50 to play the game plan would cover model and wood, DF Cole, 8521 half from the language ability to get the court might be a good idea that the time, that the head back and check the language , too, got taken the lead and led away to take another foreign language like they were pleased that the issue of timing clapped and cheered two and have that, if they have the plate and Pam have been too quick for language clinic time and a happy you work on the question handcuffed and taken from the version that question his firm represented more and time and they care about the idea for too long, they don't have time right and public, but that's the best way to preserve party of regularity area and the department, what time they have a couple more independent, type: representative for MM cannon, (SPEAKER CHANGES) I am not that I'm, like a mandate to contact me at: ENNEMFNPAKAND-: KEMAAU law. I'm Anne Klein, a lead like you can't have mind that came back and can be a good many Canadian program that they had warned, the inteco and that he had the financial part of the progression: if the two are committed two, and com pany that language handgun control the Hankyu time: the Ventura question I have to deal with the demonstration corporations pay for college credit lead at one time yes, it via the policy of that beyond a time when the policy of economic and the weekend when he made one day, but the national media 4 to 2 in favor ??..........

many times they will bring somebody from home campus but I know at Cherokee they have developed a proficiency exam testing to get to that higher level so this will encourage each of the constituent universities to have the same type of policy, the same as UNC Ashville has now, languages that are not taught on campus. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow-up [SPEAKER CHANGE] Just to clarify so other campuses in the UNC system do have a proficiency exam that if one passes they would get credit for it, they don't necessary have to take the course on campus, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGE] This will be for Cherokee, Cherokee only. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I understand that. I'm asking, do they do that for other languages besides Cherokee? Do you, is there a proficiency exam for Italian, is there a proficiency exam for Spanish, is there a proficiency exam for other languages besides Cherokee or are we setting new policy here on a college campus. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Someone from the UNC system would have to address the 16 constituent universities. I don't know how many of them have a proficiency exam for other languages for that university. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Just also to be clear, I was a linguist for a number of years. I am hugely supportive of foreign language teaching and foreign language knowledge, something that I think Americans, we are very lacking in our knowledge of other languages and therefore other cultures and other history and not all the good stuff is written only in English so there is really good stuff in lots of other languages and a wealth of knowledge to be gained culturally, historically and technically by being proficient in other languages so I encourage the sense of the bill, I am just trying to determine are we setting new policies anywhere in the UNC system or is a proficiency exam already in place for some language, any language? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would have to direct that question to either staff or the UNC system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, do you have an answer for us? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think so. Yes, Representative ??, this is not precedent setting. It is done for other languages on other campuses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's all I need to know. Thank you very much. I strongly support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, I was over here, far right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Far right, there you are. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I especially want to thank you for this bill. My grandparents were both, and I am, an enrolled member of the Eastern Band. My grandfather was sent to a retraining school where they were punished for speaking Cherokee and that is when the language began to die out and was almost lost and so I greatly appreciate this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When they were punished, their heads were shaved and they had to ?? so our apologies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question has been answered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No other questions? Representative Warren? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to make a motion for a favorable report on Senate Bill 444. I see no referral. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion has been made for Senate Bill 444. All those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed nay. The bill passes. Thank you, Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chair, Members of the Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our next bill is Senate Bill 337, North Carolina Public Charter School Board. I am not sure who is handling it, Senator Tillman is here, Senator Tillman, I have to have a motion from the. Representative Glazier moves to have proposed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 337 before you. All opposed say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is properly before us. Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chairman and thank you for hearing this important piece of legislation. I know there are some amendments to be offered and I'm

is to hear those and see those and the PCS I will maybe ask staff to run through that in a minute I'll give you a little bit of editorial comment as to the background of this bill. Sen. Stevens and I wrote the original charter school bill 5 or 6 years ago. We worked on it for a long time and out of that all we got was "raise the cap". Alright, we're going to raise the cap. Now we need a comprehensive charter school bill, and basically that's what we have after many years of work. And it 's brought us to this point. I would ask that staff, if they would like to brief us on the PCS which has changed from the bill that was sent over here. Madam Chairman, if you would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm not sure. Cara or Drupti, which one's handling it? Cara? Cara McCraw. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCS, one of the largest changes that's made is that it replaces the public school- charter school's board which would have been in charge of the charter school process, with the North Carolina charter school's advisory board, which will advise the state board of education on its decisions regarding charter schools. It also removes the fee for charter school applications, it removes- it makes provisions to changes to the admissions criteria for charter schools, and the types of things that charter schools can consider when they give priority admission to some students. It removes changes regarding the return of net assets purchased with public funds to the general funds upon disclosure of the charter school. It would remain as it is in current law where it returns to the LEA, it removes a bid process wherein the board would have allowed companies to bid to take over failing charter school. That provision has been removed. It makes changes to the transfer of local funds from LEAs to charter schools in terms of the accounting process, some interest requirements and a provision regarding certification of ADM. It makes changes to the licensure requirements for elementary grade teachers in charter schools. Senate bill 337 had removed the licensure requirements, and this bill restores those but makes the elementary school's consistent with middle and high schools so that they all have the same standard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Tillman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna be calling you Sen ?? again, I'm Rep. TIllman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, I'm terribly sorry Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, no, you've elevated me. Thank you Madam Chairman. Before we proceed with any of the details of the bill, I would like to hear the amendments. Some have been discussed with me, and there may be one or two that I'm not familiar with, so could we have that at this time, Madam Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm wondering if there are members of the public that wish to speak, and if we could hear them before the amendments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have one, but I thought they might prefer to be heard after the amendments so they would know whether they need to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I only have 1 signed up to speak today, and that is a Matt Ellenwood. Someone what else might like to speak. Rep. Jeter has an amendment, and it is ATC-88 version 1. Rep. Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I believe the amendment's been passed out, I actually believe the amendment at the desk list is Rep. Hardister. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do not have the amendment ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The name on it still says "Hardister". It is [SPEAKER CHANGES] It says Hardister, but it has been crossed through and it has Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The copies that I don't believe do unfortunately. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, if you will look at the number it is ATC-88 version 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Everybody good? Thank you Madam Chair. This bill simply allows flexibility instead of giving a definitive date end of Feb. 15th, it allows for a date established by the office of charter schools for receipt of applications in the prior year. So it gives flexibility as opposed to having a date certain in this bill, to allow the date to be changed with the creation of this board. And I would commend the amendment to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's an excellent amendment, they are the ones that should be setting that date, and that makes a lot of sense. Good amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Bumgardner? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move that we adopt this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion has been made. Do we have any other questions? Motion has been made to adopt the amendment entered by Rep. Jeter. All those in favor will say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed will say "no".

The ayes have it and Representative Jeters amendment has passed. Our next amendment is ATC 85 hardister amendment 2, does everyone have that amendment?Thats ATC 85 Version 6 that has a 2 on the copy. Does everyone have it? Representative Hardister [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you madame speaker, This amendment basically if you look at the PCS before you youll see that the charter school advisory board is composed in such a way that the governor has 5 appointees, the house and the senate each have 2 and then the state board of education would appoint a member to serve on the board and the lieutinant governor or designee would also serve on the board. Whatthis amendment would do is change it so that the governor would have 3 appointees,the House and the senate would have 3 appointees. And so the 3 from the house 3 from the senate 3 from the governor that would balance it out. Still the state board of education would appoint a member, and then the lieutinant governor or designee would serve opn the board so it would be a 11 member board, so the governor would appoint 3 members but out of those 3 the governor would designate a chair and vice chair. I think this would just bbring more balance to how the board is configured and i appreciate your support [SPEAKER CHANGES]Do we have any questions on this amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES]Madame chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Tillman [SPEAKER CHANGES]I like the amendment, i like one part of it that was on the original bill that it would be 3 3 and 3, because of there advisory and nature i dont think anyone should have a supr majority on therre, because these people are advising the state board that6 has all the power. I would also like to see that group select there own chairman and vice chairman, out of there group, rather than that be appointed. I think they feel they need a little independence, and that severs the tie from the governors office and i have no problem with the governor getting his way on most things which he certainly does, and that i do quiver with a little bit. I could take it as it is and we may decide not to concur and talk about that, its not a huge issue with me but i do have a problem with that part of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Do we have any questions? Do we have a motion? Representative Bumgardner moves for Representative Hardister's ammendment all of those in favor will say aye, all those opposed no, The ayes have it amendment passes.Our next amendment it has a 3 in the right hand corner. Its ATC 84, and its representative Elmore's amendment. Representative Elmore [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you madame chairman. What this amendment deals with is the accounting changes that were made in the bill with the accounting and deflicting of the money to the charter school an back dealing with the ADM adjustment. Basically what he amendment does, since were making statitury changes to the transfer from the LEA to the charter, this amendment would make the transfer back from the charter to the LEA the exact same standard. So it ensures the money follows the child either direction that it goes with it. I asked research about this and they said that the practice from the money ncoming back form the charter to the LEA was just accounting principles, so since we are dealing with change in the statute money from LEA to the charter, i think we need to do the same from charter back to the LEA [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you representative Elmore. Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think this is fair, i helped put together this PCS and symmetrical its fair, i support it [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Tillman [SPEAKER CHANGES]I just would ask a question on the flipping back and then backl again, thats fair but is there a deadline for this flipping to stop at some point [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes in the amendment it givwes a 30- day period or if an arrangement hs been made with the LEA [SPEAKER CHANGES]Fair enough [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Bumgardner moves to accept representative Elmore's amendment. All those in favor say Aye, all those opposed. The amendment passes. Again in the right hand corner number 4

ARQ 40, Rep. Whitmire. ARQ-40 version 1, Rep. Whitmire. Rep. Stam, could you handle yours, that's amendment number 6, ATC-90 version 1, Rep. Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, this is a semi technical amendment, it's just a redundant sentence. So we're just moving to take it out so there's one less sentence in the statutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. TIllman? Do you have a response? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's fine, we major in redundancies around here, Rep. Stam, so I'm not surprised you found one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion has been made for adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, I'm sorry Rep. Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a question, I'm trying to read this and figure out, could you ask staff to explain this one? I may be missing- It may be just a redundancy but i'm just trying to find out exactly what it does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Cara ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It strikes a sentence on page 1 that indicates the advisory board would be located administratively within the Dept of Public Instruction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Is that- The first sentence creates the advisory board, but that second sentence says "where it's to lie," is that somewhere else in the bill, so that that is stripping a redundancy, or is it stripping a sentence about the location of the advisory board? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is nowhere else within the statute that it specifies where the advisory board would be located administratively. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question then would be to Sen. Tillman. If this sentence is taken out, where would the advisory board be located? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a good question, and Rep. Stam, I don't believe that's a redundancy at all, I believe that is a material amendment because it's not mentioned anywhere else where it would be located, and we know where it is located, and the intention is for it to be located there. Therefore, I don't like your amendment at all. Madam Chair, I withdraw the amendment and study it and if we need to do it on the floor, I will- I was possibly ill-advised. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment has been withdrawn. Now I believe you should have Rep. Whitmire's ARQ-40 version 1, amendment number 4. Does everyone have that now? Rep Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you Madam Chair. What this amendment does, it goes back to the- in this one section where Sen. Tillman sent it over to us. There's plenty of cases where you have zip codes that may have a city school district in it and also a county school district, or there may simply be times where children from one county may be going to another charter school- or going to a charter school in another county. As we realize that most of the time when minutiae of determining which school system transfers the funds to a charter, that review and that vetting that make sure it's accurate is usually best done at the local level and not at the state level. So what ARQ-40 does is it puts that back at the local level, that's where the original version of 337 that came our way was, and it also from an a ?? standpoint so government entities aren't necessarily charging each others interest, it does that only if it's court ordered. So that's the 2 provisions there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that it is best determined there the location of the students and where they are attending done locally, I don't think the state is that well equipped to do that, I may be wrong, but I don't see anyone jumping up back there. And I like that the interest charge from one entity to another would only be according to the amendment done if court ordered. The history on that is some were getting late payments, and the only way to assure payment was to put the interest in there. I'm not a big fan of one entity of the government charging another one interest from taxpayer money, so I'm okay with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I'm trying to figure out- this amendment was not shared with the managers of this before, and I'm trying to figure out what it does

??? If you would ask staff. Miss Chuhon or Miss McGraw to explain what the actual difference is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cara McGraw. Can you answer that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you look on page 13 of the PCS, which is where this provision is, there is a sentence regarding necessary adjustments being made within 30 days of certification of the charter school ADM. That sentence is removed by the amendment. The next sentence is also removed which immediately triggers interest if there is a failure to transfer in a timely manner and that it would accrue from that date. In the amendment, the interest provision is only if someone brings a legal action that interest can be awarded but it would not be automatically triggered by delay in the certification language is removed. That’s the difference between the two. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In that case I would oppose the amendment. It appears to me to promote litigation. Interest isthe time value of money. That is, if you don’t have money when you should have had it, you may have to go out and borrow it. Conversely the party that owed it gets to keep that money on interest for the time they haven’t given it to you. So the only way the transferee can be made whole under this provision is to file suit and it’s not interest from filing suit, it’s on the amendment. Line 30-31 “From and after the date that any such amount should have otherwise been paid”. So this is a lawyer’s relief act of 2013 to require a lawsuit in order to get what you’re owed. I would oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rebuttal? Representative Whitmire? [SPEAKER CHANGES] With all due respect, I’ll simply say this. For charter schools and traditional public schools to compete with each other to raise the bar, the less consternation we create by statute the more cooperative and the better that outcome will be. As far as government entities charging interest on each other, you’re going to have human error along the way at times. I know in my county, in working with our charter school, which does a great job, I just don’t want that relationship to have more things that cause dissent and we have seen plenty of things over the years that have caused some dissent with items such as this so I simply ask your support that we not have government entities charging interest on each other. It just leads to consternation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman. I kind of go along with Representative Stam on this. I cannot see putting anything in statute that would encourage litigation, although we do that. I do believe the original version requires interest to be paid, is a much better way to go than have someone in a charter school think that the only way they’re going to be made whole is to file litigation. So I’m going to have to oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I agree with what Representative Stam said. I understand and appreciate Representative Whitmire bringing this forward but I have some concerns about it. I think this is something we may need to work on a little bit more. At this point in time I would recommend defeating this amendment and then we can work on it a little bit more and see if we can find a proper way to address this issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative would you like to answer? I have two more I believe. Do you want the last word or do you want…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair, if I could go last. I have something that might satisfy all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I think that one of the issues that over the years that we have tried to have is the cooperative relationship between the traditional public school and the charter schools. The whole idea of charging interest so that the charter school can get a little bit more from the traditional public school seems really running contrary to the notion of cooperation. I think this is a good amendment because it makes clear…

[Speaker changes.] that there's no ill will on the part of the traditional public school in terms of making the necessary payment, as I support Representative Whitmire's amendment and would encourage others to do so. [Speaker changes.] Senator Tillman, then Whitmire...then Representative Whitmire. [Speaker changes.] This may...you lawyers may love this one. Remember, in this bill, there is a loser pay clause, which we've not had here before. I don't think that's gonna encourage a lot of lawsuits. [Speaker changes.]Representative Whitmire? [Speaker changes.] Madame Chair, if the Chair would allow, I have another amendment that hits on what I feel is certainly the larger of the two issues in this amendment. If I were to pull this one and submit a second one that relates to keepin' the determination of which system a student came from in terms of transfers, would you allow me to run that? [Speaker changes.] I don't have the authority to allow or disallow....(Laughter.) [Speaker changes.]You're asking that your amendment be displaced? Is that what you're asking? And you're asking for Amendment Number 5? Is that correct? [Speaker changes.] Well, it would be ARQ41...I'm not sure what amendment number that is. [Speaker changes.] OK..you don't have another amendment with us right now. [Speaker changes.] Let me walk it... [Speaker changes.] Ok...I'm informed that we do have that amendment and the Sargent-at-Arms will be passing that out. If you will please, just be at ease for a moment. We're displacing Amendment Number 4. You will be receiving ARQ-41 Version 1 and it's Amendment Number A. If you'll just be at ease until staff has them passed out. If we'll come back to order. I believe they're passed out. Representative Whitemire, you ready for your amendment? That's ARQ-41, Version 1. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Madame Chair..and basically, since the interest seem to be causing some dissent, what this does, goes back to the first part of what I said earlier. If you have, and we have multiple situations to where you have a student that transfers and there's...the determination is that they came from one LEA when, in reality, they came from another...to resolve that situation, it's best done at the local level where the local level knows their students and not to where you would have to depend on the state level to resolve this...what's essentially minutiae but it does boil down to transferring the funds properly and makin' sure it comes from the proper LEA and not the wrong one. And again, the example I used is take a city and a county school system that have boundaries that actually have the same zip code, but the boundary runs through the middle of the zip code. It is extremely easy, with the best of intentions/human error, to assign that student's transfer to the wrong LEA. And this just simply says, don't put it at the state level, put it at the local level. [Speaker changes.] Do we have any questions on Representative Whitmire's amendment? If not, Senator Tillman? [Speaker changes.] I'd ask staff to give me their interpretation of this if they would. See if it goes any beyond what Representative Whitmire has described. [Speaker changes.] I recognize Cara McGraw???????? And she's moving very rapidly. [Speaker changes.] Representative Whitemire is correct...it takes out the piece that....

certification of the state board, and would just because it does not speak to it, it would leave that up to the local LEAs in the charters to determine the correct population counts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman? Do I have a motion? Rep. Glazier moves the adoption of Rep. Whitmire's amendment, ARQ-41, all those in favor say "Aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed, "nay"? The "Aye"s have it. Rep. Whitmire, you have displaced amendment, would you like to have that pulled? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am, thank you Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Glazier has an amendment, ATC-89, version 2, is that the correct one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is, thank you Madam Chair, and it says Rep. Whitmire, but I'm running this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This actually I think has already been agreed to with Sen. Tillman. It adds to the section D on that same page, simply adds that prior to commencing any action, that there be 15 days notice to the other party so that if it can be worked out prior to the lawsuit, it would be, and if it can't be than the suit goes forward. So this is the 15 day notice provision, and my understanding was there was no objection to this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman. That amendment is ?? think it will bring the healing process a little more along with what we're hoping for, and that they will have a 15 day period to sit down and discuss any grievance before a lawsuit is filed. A very good amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do I have anyone who moves for an adoption? Rep. Gill moves for the adoption of Sen. Glazier's amendment, ATC-89, all those in favor will say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed will say no? The "aye"s have it. And Rep. Glazier's amendment has passed. Rep. Glazier has another amendment, ATC-87 version 2, amendment number 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. This is the other amendment, and what this does is try to put the constancy between under 115C 332 exactly the language we have for public schools. It doesn't change anything in the background check language that's in the substantively in the bill, what it does say is there won't be any liability for negligence on the part of the state or the charter, but the immunity we're giving them doesn't extend to wanton or intentional misconduct or gross negligence, which is the standard we use across the board. So that it's clear that we're granting them immunity from negligence but we're not granting them immunity from intentional misconduct or gross negligence, which is the standard we operate under in all public schools, and this really comes into play in where I think it's important is when we have sexual abuse lawsuits and there's been intentional wrongdoing. This allows that to proceed. And I would hope there wouldn't be any opposition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, did you- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to say, sounds like a pretty good amendment to me, and after it's passed if you want to have a discussion I've got a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a mo- Is that a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have another motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's a motion to adopt Rep. Glazier's amendment, all in favor will say "aye." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed will say "no". The "aye"s have it, and Rep. Glazier's amendment number 7 passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion on the PCS Madam Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the correct time, I have someone in the audience who wishes to speak. Is there any other questions on the bill? ?? Matt Ellenwood? State your name and who you're with. Push "mic". There you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matt Ellenwood, I'm with the North Carolina Justice Center, where I'm an education policy analyst and attorney. I've had some involvement with the charter school approval and oversight process, it's one of my responsibilities of my job to try to oversee that and submit comments on ways to improve that. In the current charter advisory council and the state board have been very accepting of those comments and really of over the 16 years that they've been administering charter schools have accepted a lot of outside input on how to improve the system, and it's still an ongoing process, but has really come a long way over those years. The Justice Center

is this bill because it unnecessarily lowers certification standards for teachers. It potentially creates an unconstitutional board. It diminishes the charter school approval oversight and approval process and it hampers cooperation process between charter schools and traditional public schools. In terms of teacher certification, I saw that the PCS, instead of getting rid of all certification requirements completely, it lowers them just from, right now you need to have 75% of your teachers from grades K-5 be certified, it lowers it to 50%. I am not sure what the reason is for that. There is a recent study from Duke University's ?? to show that North Carolina students who were taught by uncertified teachers suffered significant learning losses when compared with students who were taught by certified teachers. Right now there is no shortage of certified teachers. Teachers as I said, can already be uncertified; there is also a lateral entry process where teachers can become certified while they are already teaching and the second reason we oppose this bill is it creates an unconstitutional board. I heard numerous members mention earlier that they do not want to pass a bill that is going to potentially create litigation and I believe this bill does that. Article 9, Section 5, of the Constitution gives the authority to supervise and administer North Carolina public schools, including charter schools to the State Board of Education. Of course there are practical reasons why the Constitution does this. Some body has to have responsibility for the entire public school system to make sure all the different pieces fit together as one coherent ??. One of the original reasons for creation of charter schools was to encourage innovation and facilitate the sharing of best practices between charter schools and traditional public schools and I believe the current setup is a better way of doing that because it doesn't have that kind of separation. Finally, creating a new charter board that is separate from the State Board would hamper the charter school approval and oversight process. Right now what you really want to do is make sure that the new charter schools are put into places were they are needed where we are not duplicating existing services. We don't want to build a new a charter school right in a spot where there is a planned public school and have enrollment problems, have half empty schools. In summary, we oppose this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. ?? You have ?? a few questions here. Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGE] It is apparent from the last speaker he hasn't read the PCS. How can an advisory board be nonconstitutional, I would ask you. And I would ask you where you were in your organization when we started meeting in January. I don't need you to respond, sir. I would say that you never made an effort to join us from January up until the present day and you are calling a bill unconstitutional that simply has an advisory board and I'd say you need to read the PCS and see what the bill does. And you need to be familiar with the details of it because you are opposing it without solid ground for your opposing, number 1. We revised this thing 23 different times since January with anybody and everybody that wanted to be heard. And we are at this point, after beginning about 8 years ago with the original Senate Bill 8, that's what brings us to the table. A lot of people want choice and choice is what makes the market place work and what makes education work. If you are trapped in a school that don't work you got options now. You got public charter schools that you may attend and that's as American as it gets. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Madame Chair, Senator Tillman just made my point. The gentleman a moment ago made the statement that there's an unconstitutional board in this bill and that's just not the case. This board is advisory. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGE] My comments aren't on the speakers so. What I did want to ask is sort of a general policy question. My understanding is that charter schools were created to try out new programs, to be more nimble, more flexible and then take the lessons learned and bring them back to our K-12 system and my question is, it seems like we are moving more and more towards a separate system as opposed to one that feeds our K-12 and I wondered if you had any comments in regard to that as an overall policy ??. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Tillman [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Tine, yes, it is created to be so, to be innovative and to share the ideas. It is not created to clone the public schools otherwise we wouldn't need the charter schools so we intentionally want it to be different and we've intentionally made the rules more liberal where they can try these new things and I think now with the advisory board and the new board of

Education, and you, Chairman. We will have a harmonious and wonderful working relationship. I see that coming. You’ll see a change in the next weeks and months and years ahead, I believe. Good question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, did you wish to pass? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pass. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well just a couple quick comments. I came in at the old version and I think there were a lot of issues. I think number one the negotiations that have gone on and the amendments have made this a far better bill, and I know that some of the Justice Center’s concerns have actually been addressed in the amendments. I agree actually with Senator Tillman. I think the PCS does not create an unconstitutional… There was an unconstitutional or constitutional issue with the original board, but there’s not, I don’t think, with the advisory board. Strikes me as the right balance, and while I certainly don’t agree with everything in here, I suspect nobody in the room agrees with every provision in here. It is actually my intent to vote for the PCS. I was not going to vote for the original bill, but I really do think the changes have been made that make this what it’s supposed to be, an advisory process, and actually a number of the amendments today I think help as well to make sure that there’s some more accountability and some legitimacy to what we’re doing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Glazier. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question first of all for Senator Tillman, and I agree that you have tightened up this bill significantly since it passed your chamber. My question now is when you reference the advisory board and that it shall be located administratively within DPI, what kind of authority does the state Board of Education have to for example rule against the advisory board? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good question, Representative Luebke. They have total authority. The only authority… The state board of education has total authority to overrule any recommendation, and that’s all they may make into policy, procedure or anything else. But that’s the state board now has total power to overrule anything that they may suggest. They’re only advisory. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And where is that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. And where is that? I hear you saying that. Where is that stated in the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not stated. If you’re advisory, you cannot make law, you cannot make binding decisions. “Advisory” takes care of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I often get accused of being a bit too blunt, and I guess I’m going to live up to that accusation right now because I object to this objection to teacher certification. A lot of the impetus I think for having charter schools is because some parents who have the real responsibility and authority for their children’s education are not buying what a lot of the traditional public schools are selling, and I know in the case at my family, the public school’s doing a lousy job teaching my kids. My son, who is in the third grade, couldn’t read at a first grade level. He couldn’t read as well in the third grade as I could in the first grade because he was not taught phonics like I was, and he was falling further and further behind, so we decided to home school him. In the course of events we ended up homeschooling all three of our kids because we weren’t buying what the public school was selling, and neither my wife nor I were certified teachers. My wife did mainly the teaching, and she only went to a community college and her training was as a medical secretary, yet when she was through homeschooling our three [AUDIO SKIPS] have a certified teacher, but they were all Dean’s List in college, so certification doesn’t mean all that much to me and I think that’s an objection that doesn’t carry any weight, and I’m hopeful that having charter schools and home schools and private schools, competition, will help the traditional public schools improve what they’re doing, and I think this bill is along those lines and so I’ll support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll pass. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to briefly make a statement that the original bill I did have a lot of concerns with, and I commend Senator Tillman and all of the bill sponsors for making the effort to listen to all of the folks and make this a really, really, really good bill that I intend to support, and at the appropriate time, I’d like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett.

has beat you to that, and I believe Rep. Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to briefly address Rep. Luebke's question. Rep. Luebke, I think if you'll look on page 2, line 33, section 8, "gives the powers and duties of the board", and the first 3 are to make recommendations, and the fourth one is to do whatever else the state board says. I think that should address your concerns. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Rep. Luebke, you're next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to comment on the bill in response to Sen. Tillman's comments, and I appreciate them Senator. I'm going to have to disagree with my friend Rep. Glazier. The advisory board that we have in place works, and what this is doing now is strengthening the division between the traditional public schools and the charter schools. I see no need for a separate board to be set up. I do appreciate that it's under the authority of the Department of Public Education and the State Board of Education, but what we have done here, and we are doing in this bill, is strengthening the advisory board in a way that to me is unnecessary. It makes a statement that the charter schools are on equal footing with the traditional public schools. That does not fit with the experience of 90% of the children in North Carolina in terms of where they are educated right now, and I do believe that the establishment of this separate advisory board strengthens the position of the charter schools unnecessarily. What we have now works, and I am going to oppose the bill and urge others to do so. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Shepard, then Rep. Michaux, and then Sen. Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. A question for the bill sponsor. Sen. Tillman, right over here. Is it not true that most high schools, elementary schools, and middle schools in the state of North Carolina already have advisory boards in each and every one of those schools that give advice and on policy and so forth to the county school boards and LEAs? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're right as rain in August Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sen. Tillman, over to your right, you know the man. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm on the right. My question to you is, and you know I have a problem with it so we're going to go into that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you do, then I would be worried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My problem is I'm seeing a lot of charter schools pop up in communities all across the state, if I can say it very politely, on a segregated basis. You have black charter schools, you have white charter schools, each one of them all of them have some tokenism in them. Is there anything in your bill that speaks to diversity in those charter schools and that the board should advise on those charter schools in terms of diversity? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, good question. I believe there is some reference to that in the bill, staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Karen McGraw? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Maybe not, but I think so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those provisions are still in and were not changed in any way. It does look like if you look on page 10 of the bill, there was a reorganization of that section in order to make it more clear, it was just a technical reorganization to the language, moved, and it is underlined, but it is precisely the same language as before. If you look on page 11, you can see where that language was struck out, and simply moved up on to page 10. So it is the existing language, no other changes were made regarding diversity. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sen. Tillman, do you have any other remarks? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If not, we'll take Rep. Torbett's motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairman, alas. I move that the House committee on education report out favorable to Senate bill 337, proposed House committee substitute as amended, enrolled to a new PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] With a favorable report to finance and then to appropriations. Sen. Tillman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??

Well I am afraid that it will have to Were going to do a referral to finances and preparations All of those in favor say I oppose no The eyes have it thank you senator solemn and your bill was pronounced to committee As chairman I would like to ask two people Manage this bill Our life for representative harvester Assisted by representative blazer If you wanted to do that representative blazer If you don't you may refer it to Johnson Thank you for the talk with Representative Johnson An representative Harvester Thank you have no other business from the committee we now are adjourned