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.

Senate | June 24, 2016 | Chamber | Senate Higher Ed

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO]. Ladies and gentlemen, members. Welcome to education committee. committee. Today we have a couple of pages here even on Friday. Lexi Rave from night dell. Sponsored by senator Ford. Where is Lexi? Right here, how are you, you had a good week, are you happy, you gonna vote for me. Don't it would be illegal. Geny Wigens from Night Dells sponsored by senator Ford. Their you are I believe. You had a good week too. Senator Ford is not here you know. That's why they've had a real good week. Alright sergeant of arms today, Donna Bleck larry Hang Koff, Rases Patterson, How Roach. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. The rules today. Will be that we're gonna take two bills up, we're gonna pass those bills and we're gonna get out of here in an hour. We'll have two speakers at the maximum on each side of the issue. If we have everybody on the same issue then we'll hear from one of you. If they're on different sides then we'll take two a piece if we have that many to To sign up. You'll have two minutes. The sergeant-at-arms will keep the time and will let you know when one minute remains. And the first bill we, which one do you want co-chair? >> [INAUDIBLE] Senator Meredith >> First bill we gonna bring out today, Senator Meredith's bill on Financing of spills at least back program and the bill number I believe is 544. Its yours. >> [UNKNOWN] >> 544. We did need a motion for the PCS, both these bills have one. Senator [UNKNOWN] all in favor aye. >> Aye. Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you committee, thank you Chairman for bringing this bill forward. This is a very important piece of legislation that I've been working on for about four years. I'm glad I finally got it to a committee hearing. We had it last year in a committee hearing for discussion only, there was a lot of good dialogue, a lot of good questions and we've worked really hard on this bill. Basically, this bill in a nutshell will allow rural schools specifically, but all schools to use local operating dollars to enter into leases to lease school buildings that are being built in their district. The savings will be generated by consolidation schools that are out of date not currently being utilized will be consolidated from those savings the lease payments will be paid, and that's basically it in a nutshell Mr Chairman. I know that [SOUND] but I'm hoping for questions. >> That's a special way to present [INAUDIBLE] cut down quite a bit from its original state and what we've got is a framework for a bill that we can add to as we go along to make it possible to finance schools in these very low wealth districts, and many of them have ageing buildings, 50 to 100 years old and some of them have 13 or 14 We need to close and consolidate and to one or two or very few schools, that's all this will allow us to do, we will take questions if you have them, if not first of all let's see if we've got any discussion. Senator Hartsel. >> I have several questions Mr. Chairman. >> Well we'll give you A series of questions as you have actually said. A series of questions. >> One, how does this relate to the bill that was presented probably about three years ago that was used to expand on the That Hoke County project, if you know what I'm talking about. >> Yes sir, I think that's a great question. Staff might wanna speak to that specifically but I feel that bill the law had sunset it's currently put back into this bill but they might wanna speak to it specifically, Senator [UNKNOWN] Carol do you have comments on that, if you don't , go ahead, Dwarfty. >>> Yes sir. [BLANK_AUDIO]. Senator Hassell, section two of the Bill reenact [UNKNOWN] laws that expired July 1, 2015 is what is what I think

you were referencing and we had this set them out again under new statue numbers and make a couple of technical corrections because some of the internal citations change because other laws change but that would be the from what that does. >> So in addition to the operating, can you use this project for the savings associated with energy savings. Can that be used as a financing tool? >> Senator Hartsell one of the huge savings will come when you close a lot of schools and And Bill one or two or a few, the energy savings which is a local savings but is huge, huge of dollars and one of the big savings in the whole count although you didn't consolidate any schools, that when you did Bill the [INAUDIBLE], when they put the seller on there and their elected bill is now zero where it was four or $500,000 a year. In that regard, so it does in fact utilize the savings associated with the energy savings. >> And all other local expenses, they came from the schools that were consolidated. >> I noticed on page three, line six, That the public private partnership construction contract law that I think was adopted last year does not apply, is there any. Why would that, why would you want to eliminate that? That's my question, I believe staff can answer that directive. >> Sir I spoke to some of my colleagues about that. We did that add that in because and I'll defer to Erika Churchill Whose also here knows a little bit more about that other law that, It would not work to, we had to clarify that if you went under those provisions and these provisions don't fit together. So if you're gonna school financing through this, this is the profits that you would go through, but Erika, I think I'll let you speak to that. >> Erika, Church. >> Hi. >> How are you? >> Yes, I think Senator Hartsel [UNKNOWN] trying to figure out as Senator Meredith mentioned. This is putting back employees, the provisions that expired on the July 1st 2015, and the public private statue that is being accepted from came into place shortly right before that on October of 2014, and the two seem to go together. So if this is meant to be this provision for schools then we have to get an out of the provision the other provision. >> So you're just trying to avoid a potential conflict, one final question. >> Yes sir. >> Page actually two. Page 5. there is a provision that allows the developer after the award of a bid to renegotiate page five, top of the page. After the award of the contract, they can renegotiate all sorts of provisions in that contract that a bet of a new. I'm just try to understand that. That is it both lessor and lessee agree.[BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chair, we only have three pages please. >> [UNKNOWN] >> Senator Hartsel, we gonna move past to you now and see if the ->> One more question. >> One more. >> As the LG [UNKNOWN] on this particular [BLANK_AUDIO] upon the PCS >> Senator Hartsel. Mr. Chair can I speak to that question? >> Yes sir. Senator Meredith. >> The LGC would have to approve all the documents prior to the construction. >> Yes Sir. Senator LGC could put stop to the whole thing. They have to sign off on it but I believe all parties have been satisfied with the PCS that we have on this bill. I don't know and I've not heard of any opposition, since we did the PCS. Therefore, don't think it's in contention any where else and now I will ask for another question from the committee members. [BLANK_AUDIO] You don't have the PCS?

>> No. >> All right Senator Barringer don't have it. You need to ask a question, since your name is on the bill you should. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Smith? Thank you Mr. Chairman I know in the original bill that was proposed there was a whole lot of concern about whether the bid process would be intact and part of that I think was just answered but because some people felt like eliminating this section that Senator Hartsell had asked about was gonna Somehow affect that. I just wanna ask the bill sponsor or perhaps staff, is it 100% accurate that the bid process is going to be done as normal for any state contracts? >> That's a question of I tell you you were looking like you were about to raise your hand. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Sniff/g I'm not sure I totally understand the question first of all the state contract process is slightly different from that in terms of the public Contracting that a County Board of Education or County Board of Commissioners would engage in for their particular process for constructing a new school. So I think you might be trying to solicit whether or not this is going to be any exception from The county process of building a new building. With that, I think yes, there would be some exceptions however there, as Daughtry and I discussed last night, there are some inconsistencies in the bill that seem to go round and round where it says this is accepted from these provisions that are statutorily And there are places where this is being accepted from at the same time. So it may need a little more clarification as to what was intended in terms of exceptions from those statutory processes for bidding. >> [UNKNOWN] can you add to that? >> So Senator Smith, I think I know, you're talking about the design build exception that was in the original version of the bill, that is no longer in here because we're not under that scheme anymore. In the revived statutes that expired in July 2015 that were put back in there are some exceptions But that was the old law that we revived but as Erica pointed out as we read it, it seemed like even though that law was on the books for about nine years we found some inconsistencies in there that we have not been able to really resolve. So I don't know if it's because it wasn't used all that much that nobody noticed or [CROSSTALK] >> That's what I've got. >> And remember this is lease design bill. [BLANK_AUDIO] County and the school board have to be on board with this because basically the funding is going to come from local sources. That's where we are, and that's the reason there's some differences when you buy the land And then build your own building and you own the property from the get go that's one thing. When you lease it, design and build it it's a different issue and I think that's where we're a little confused. I have one other hand. No. Yes I do, Senator [UNKNOWN]. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to present an amendment. I believe everyone has It. >> Send forth the amendment we may have it. I think we do. That's not hers. [BLANK_AUDIO] That's okay, I don't need that, I think I know what her amendment is I saw it. >> [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] >> [BLANK_AUDIO] You have the floor to explain your amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This- >> Chair, has this amendment been distributed? >> Yes sir, I believe you have it. >> I believe I don't. >> All right it's coming around there. How many do not have the amendment? Only two Senators right here on the corner. Now we all have the amendment, Senator [UNKNOWN]. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This amendment amends the bill on page one line four by rewriting that line to read, this is the title, on line four. Facilities and to require the state Board of education to make first track charter school replication decisions within 120 days. And then on page 6 line 46-47 by inserting those lines just to keep it consistent with adding 120 days. Originally the bill had 150 days and we Took that out and said no later than October 15th but we're adding in that they have 120 days to respond to the application but no

later than October 15th. >> That's nice but I've got a bill that's in the house that has been agreed upon to come over this, got that fixed in there but just in case just In case by understanding the questions about the amendment that's just to speed up the process for the charter schools so that they can open without wondering for 2 or 3 months how long it's gonna take. I think everybody had agreed upon my bill fix was in 242. Yes sir Senator Hartsell I see your hand. >> With regard to the amendment does shaul/g still mean shaul/g at the State Board of Education? >> Yes sir. Well for them it don't but for us it does. >> Okay I just- >> A wonderful question. Any other questions on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment then having a motion I do, all in favor aye? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right the amendment now is going to be rolled into the bill. Now the bill is back before us. Any other discussion? I have a motion from senator Wade for approval. Wait a minute senator Smith you had another one? >> Yes I had a couple of questions not in opposition by any means but just for clarification for my own interest because there were a couple of things I just didn't know what they say. On page 2 line 26 it mentions that the developer's not subject to article 8 of chapter 143, I just don't know what that is so if you wouldn't mind staff maybe explain >> you wrote the bill. Staff, can you tell us what that is? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Erica. >> Article 8 of chapter 143 are those public bidding statutes that we were discussing just a little bit ago, might need a little bit of clarification and clean-up. Okay, that's what you were talking about earlier, we just didn't know it. I didn't either. >> I just didn't know it was the same. >> Okay, any other questions? >> No that's fine. >> All right. We have a motion all in favor, aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed, bill passes. It's got a serial referral to finance. Our next bill, House Bill 1080 achievement school districts and co chair Barefoot will be presenting [BLANK_AUDIO]. Thank you Mr Chairman I will be moving the adoption of PCS move for the adoption of the PCS all in favor aye. >> Aye. >> All right, its included. Any oppose? No. All right. the PCS is before you. >> Thank you Mr. chair, members of the education committee. The bill before you is the attempt by this general assembly to offer an innovative solution to address the problem of chronic low performing schools in our state. I hope you agree with me that we can no longer sit idle while students chun through out our institution that show a history of low performance, scores and unacceptable growth. House Bill 1080 seeks to create another tool in our state's tool box to help solve this problem or at least make meaningful growth in the right direction. The achievement school district model is set forth in this legislation will create a state level and state wide school district for up to five low performing elementary schools from different geographic parts of our state. A superintendent will be chosen over see this schools and will over see the hiring of new management to see those schools function. It will also allow for the creation of innovation zones for the school districts that qualify into the achievement school district. And will explain those so at this time I'm gonna ask staff since their are some new concepts in this bill to the senate. To walk through some of the definitions and major parts of the bill. All right thank you and will ask Carol to handle this one. >> If you want to follow along in the PCS that you have before you that said the back of the packet. So in page one of the bill the first section it's being created is the definition section. Their are a number of definitions for terms that will be throughout including a definition of qualifying schools. These are the schools that would be eligible for consideration to be in the achievement school district. The achievement school district is going to be a state wide district that will have five schools in it and these qualifying schools would be schools that are in the lowest 5% of all elementary schools and that meets certain other criteria. If you go to the next page you are gonna see 115 C75.6 this creates the achievement school district and provided for the selection of a superintendent of that district by advisory committee made up by lieutenant governor as well as some other members of the state board,

teachers, principals etc. 75.7 explains the process for selection for achievement schools into the achievement school district. So the AST superintendent once selected will be responsible for going out and doing an analysis of the various schools that are in the qualified pool, and would be required to go to the LEA and interview the school principal, the local board of education members, the superintendent, the county commissioners. And once they've completed their analysis they are to return to the state board and make recommendations by November 15th on schools that can be included. The state board then must consider those recommendations, and make decisions by January 15th. The local board of education once notified then has until March 1st to decide whether to close the qualifying school or to transfer that school into the achievement school district. If you go to the next page 115 C 75.8 provides for the S operators. These are the groups who are then going to go in and run these schools within the achievement school district. So the achievement school district operators would be selected by the state board of education upon the recommendation of the ASD superintendent. They would be required to meet some of the same standards that are required for operation of charter schools. 115 C 75.9 provides the process for the management of these schools. So once the school has been brought into the ASD, the AS operator is going to be the direct manager of that school for a five year contract. The students will remain at the same school, the school system will not change the school assignment. If there is any adjustment based on growth and their is any dispute on that, that can be taken to the state board. But this is not a choice school. the facilities in capital expenditures will still be maintained by the Local Board of Education , the transportation will still be provided by the local board of education. But the AS Operator and the Local Board of Education can enter into alternate arrangements through MOU's related to facilities in capital transportation and service for children with disabilities. Employees of the school as exist can be examined by the AS Operator. The AS operator can determine whether they'd like to retain those employees or hire new employees. The employees of that school can remain employees of that school system or the school system can choose to dismiss them under the ref process. The school is required to have a school nutrition program and to maintain liability insurance as established by the State Board of Education. 115C75.10 at the bottom of page five provides the funding models. There're two options provided for funding of the schools. Both will receive state funding. But at the local level the AS operator can decide if they'd like designated funding. Which would be using a charter school-like model where the local board transfers local funding to them with the exception of transportation funding. Or option c. Which you can find on page 6. The Funding Memorandum of Understanding allows the AS operator to enter into an MOU with the local board. Where they determined a combination of services and funding based off the local funding. And again if there's a disagreement on that, the State Board of Education would be the decider. If you go to the top of page 7, 115c75.11 provides the accountability in governance for achievement schools. AS operators are required to set clear goals that are to be made public. The principle that they hire is supposed to work on those specific goals. And that school will not be considered in the evaluation of the Local Board of Education in which the school is located it would be a part of the ASD for evaluation. 115c75.12, speaks to the terms of contract for the AS operators. So a1 deals with how you terminate early in the basis of poor performance if an AS operator is not showing appropriate growth, the contract could be terminated early. A2, provides for extension of the contract. If the operator hasn't shown certain growth, then the state board is not permitted to renew the contract for a 3 year extension. A3, allows the state board and its discretion to extend the contract for three years based on certain growth. And finally at the top of page eight, A4, requires a three year contract extension to be offered if the AS operator has raised the school to a C school or higher. And then finally, A5 is a catch offer for other , issues that may arise, if there is financial mismanagement, criminal activity, failure to comply with the contract or non compliance with law, the contract can be terminated at any time.

B is an important item to note, achievement schools are limited to staying in the ASD to a total of no more than eight years, finally at the bottom of page eight 115C 75.13, provides the innovations zone model, if a school system has given a school into the ASD, then that school system may request that the state board allow them to establish an innovation zone of up to three continually local performing schools, Which would get charter flexibility and how they're run. You can see criteria for those and then on page nine, there is a similar process for the length of the innovation zone up to five years. Which can be extended to eight years based on certain performance factors. The reminder of the Bill, sections two and three are conforming changes section four provides for an independent evaluator to evaluate these two models over the eight years till 2023. Section five appropriates funding for the running of the ASD as well an an intent to appropriate money for innovation zones in the future, and then finally a phase in over the next few years of when the ASD schools would come online. >> Thank you Carol for that very detailed analysis of the Bill, Senator, do you have anything else to say? Senator Barefoot? Committee if you have any questions, I will take committee questions I believe the first one I saw was Mayor Pate, [INAUDIBLE] Mayor Pate >> Thank you sir it's my state to come up here and visit. Do we contemplate the changing the area of attendance if one of the these schools goes into this new district that you're talking about. Will the children be drawn from the same area as they are currently being drawn? >> Yes. As Carol stated it's not a school of choice so the current whatever current residential districting rules would apply to that elementary school would stay in force. >> Any other questions from the committee? Senator Robinson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, I have several questions. >> A series of questions we'll give you three at least. >> Okay, I'll have to decide which top three and then I have a comment, if I continue [LAUGH] so the first thing, in terms of achievement school zones, how does this differ in theory? from what we done with Charter schools which are public schools within the system. In terms of addressing the needs of kids who could not be "served within the regular traditional school." >> Good question, Senator Barefoot, why don't you take that one. Senator Robinson I think the you almost answered the question in the question and that is what this bill seeks to do. Is allow that type of flexibility, that type of management structure to apply to a chronically one of the mis-chronically low performing schools in the state within the parameters that the bill has set forth. >> Follow Mr.Chair. >> Follow up. >> Then based on your answer why is it necessary to establish another tear in terms of a different model as opposed to allowing this this same children to be a part of chatter schools. Why is it necessary to establish something difference with the separate superintendent board etc when we already have a chatter school advisory board, already have that goes up on the perspective board of education. Why is it necessary to do this? >> Because chatter schools are schools of choice, so what this bill attempts to do is to take a school in the traditional system and use an innovative way to turn it around. And am gonna keep saying this because this are the most chronically low performing schools in the state of North Carolina and this children don't have an option and so what we're trying to do is provide a way to go in with a new management structure and turn those schools around. >> Follow up Mr. Chair. >> Follow up. >> Then I thought that based on what I've learned about chatter schools that they have some some flexibility and they are able to employ some additional models in terms of how those children learn, and to get their performance

up. So I still don't think you've answered my question, but let me move to my second one. Do I understand that who would appoint the superintendent of the schools? >> The committee of the superintendent of the school, that would be chosen by the state board. >> Are my three up? >> Your threes are up. >> [LAUGH] You know I got some more. >> You'll come back with a comment later I promise you which you will be allowed to have senator Davis I believe you were next. My air force graduate buddy. >> Thank you so much Mr. Chair. I greatly appreciate you. I wanna start today and I do want to acknowledge [UNKNOWN] we need maintain a commitment to to low performing students and especially all the students in the end here in the state North Carolina. I wanna start and make sure I am understanding, can you share the result cuz often in education we talk about evidence based decisions. Can you share the evidence that we are learning from ASD and other states? >> Sure. So there have been a few ASD model that had been tried in other states. The first thing that I would caution is to say, the while they are called ASDs the model that you have before you is specifically unique to North Carolina. So its not necessarily fair to compare to other states. Some who were successful for certain reasons and some who were not. This is our attempt at trying to find the innovative way to rehabilitate some of these low performing schools, in our traditional system. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> okay. Follow up. >> Follow up. You have two. >> Just two I have okay. I have a lengthy list and I haven't collaborated with- >> You have three then you had one, you got two more senator. >> [LAUGH] >> Were gonna stop this at 10 minutes till as good as it is and we're gonna have public comment from couple of people and then we're gonna vote the bill.>> Okay. Okay, you acknowledge it, obviously other states have had challenges here, and I appreciate your [UNKNOWN] in that response, moving into my second question. >> I acknowledge under their models they had challenges, that's what I acknowledge. But our model is not necessarily the same model as an achievement school district and in another state that had challenges. >> [UNKNOWN] deep challenges though? >> But some of those successes also agree that ours can have successes. >> Okay, the question that I'm trying also to understand Moving into my second question is looking at these other models, how successful have they been under this model? What will be your intent in terms of really reaching out into rural communities often an issue, that I've experienced is just really capacity building, how do you see over time building capacity to this model? >> Well, one thing I would say is for all intents and purposes, it is a pallet, we're only dealing with five schools here, doesn't apply state wide I think 90% of the LEAs in North Carolina are school district won't be affected by this legislation, but in terms of it's success, I don't know how to say this gently but the bar is so low with these schools that anything that makes an impact in a positive direction has to be viewed by the state as a good thing and I think that's why I'm gonna continue to hammer that because were're talking about the lowest of the lowest performing to qualify for this. Any movement in a positive direction by the state is going to be a good thing for students and parents in North Carolina. >> Okay, my last one. >> Your last one. >> And I'm trying to compact these as much as possible. Do you believe that under all of our efforts in the past in terms of any turn around, is there any model success that you can point you finger towards the state of North Carolina that we have actually been able to address some of the long term challenges? >> Well I think it's been mixed. When I think about the five schools that could be chosen for this regardless of what has happened Happened out there, these schools only come from a selection of low performing schools that have existed for many, many years.

And so, if your argument is to try to get me to acknowledge that there is some kind of turnaround model that works in North Carolina, my argument to you is , where is it? Why isn't it in one of these schools? So what this bill does is this gives us another tool and that tool [SOUND]. It doesn't make a statement as to what exists. It makes a statement as to what can be. And that is what I'm asking this committee to approve today. >> Moving on. Senator Bryant, I would be disappointed if you didn't have one. >> I have a theory for [INAUDIBLE] >> You only get two. >> [LAUGH] >> You used one up on the other bill. >> [LAUGH] >> You got three, you got three. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I know you don't. >> I wanna say so far I don't have [INAUDIBLE] We'll count that an aye. >> No it's not an aye >> [LAUGH] >> My problem is the coercion aspect of it, what I don't like is. My point is so important I don't want to use the mike, I don't wanna hold anything with my hand but my major opposition is the coercive aspect of it, that is, cuz it would imply in here that we can force this. >> You have a question? >> Yeah on a district it seems like such a good idea and we unfortunately have so many low performing schools. And we only gonna do five, how come we aren't doing it in five areas where the boards and the communities want to try this model versus forcing it on a community. Firing their employees and going in trying to implement a turnaround when they are against it and you gonna have negative energy happen? happening. That's my concern. >> I don't see the bill that way, Senator Bryant, in fact one of the advantages, after this bill passes, for a school district who is within, who has schools within this measurement zone to get involved in this program are the innovation zones. There are advantages to school districts who are identified as possible applicants to jumping in, and saying hey let's do this and so I think you may see our school districts choose to do that. I'm not so certain of the coercive nature that you're talking about. >> Follow up >> Follow up question number two. >> To the chair or staff I just wanna be clear that a district can be forced into this ASD, they either have to close the school or go into a ASD whether they want to or not. The step this off bill does allow that level of coercion am I correct? >> That is true, but if I can comment to that Senator Bryant. We're talking about a situation in the state that is so bad, where the results are so bad, that how could you argue to keep doing the same thing? >> Follow up. >> Follow up and we're going at 10 till we're stopping and we're going to the- >> I didn't get to my other points which were good points but I just wanna say that there- >> [LAUGH] >> Particularly from a position of race and low wealth. The idea of coercion in to something that is, we're the government and we've come to help you, whether you want that help- >> Question you've already asked- >> This is my comment, this is my comment- >> Senator are you speaking now on comment? >> Yeah, this is my comment- >> Okay, that's fine- >> The element of coercion is so pernicious and harmful at multiple levels that there is now way you can have success out of that level of force by government.- >> [CROSSTALK] >> Thank you. I would just point out to the Senator that the doing nothing would be the government forcing those children regardless of their background and where they come from to go to a school that is going to fail them for their future. >> All right, very good. That stops that part of it now I have the Senator Robinson/g you've used up your three. I'm going to- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> You'll get that in just a moment, but in ahead of you were two other people. Senator Woodard. You're next. >> Thank Mr. Chair. Unlike my colleagues, I have one question. >> Sounds good to me pal >> [LAUGH] >> I'll let the Chair rule on that. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Barefoot you said that this proposal was unique to North Carolina. Would you walk me through how it is unique from other proposals in other states. >> Well one of the big criticisms of other states is that they create these ASD districts,

and then they flood them with public money and they don't see the results. This doesn't do that. This doesn't take money away from other classrooms. What this does is it says a new management structure can come into the existing funding model that is currently there and operate that way. That's typically been the big objection from people who are institutionalized as to directing money away from low performing schools into situations to try to help students succeed. >> All right we go into Senator Lowe, Senator Hartsell will be, that's it. You have one- >> That's the one difference with this money- >> You making a comment? All right, follow up, yes sir that that's the difference. >> I will say in general the way it's organised, our state is totally different than these other states. These ASD's they operate under the state board of education. They operate in conjunction with the local school districts, our local school districts and our state board of education are unique to North Carolina. So every single piece of this bill that puts those two together is unique to the state, not every state is organised like we are. >> All right, senator Lowe, senator Hartsell, and final comment from senator Robinson. So let's go with this at 10 till we're stopping. senator Lowe. >> Thank you so much I have one question and while I look at this I do wanna make this one statement that all of the failing schools certainly in my district are in poor neighborhoods. And there's some cohesion here but my question is the ASD have not worked in a lot of states. One I know of particular is Tennessee, in Memphis in a poor community. And my district where the schools are failing is a poor community. What's going to be so different here? >> Senator Lowe that's a good question, but we just had it asked just about two minutes ago. >> I'll speak more specifically to Tennessee. >> Please. >> So one of the important parts of this Bill is timeline we put school districts on. The reason why it's important is because you need a certain amount of time to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. One of the things that's happened up in Tennessee is they instituted a program that quite frankly, bit a whole lot more than what North Carolina has tried to do. And they've only been doing it for a couple of years. And the studies that were done what you read where they said it wasn't doing well, those were early on in the In the process and too early to really draw a conclusive evaluation. And so we actually learned from that and that's why we built in certain matrix at three, five and eight years. But I will conceive this is a newer idea. What's not a new idea is that there are people that operate schools all over the State of North Carolina and all over the country who go into environments exactly as you talked about and have success, and we're inviting them into our school districts. >> Senator Hassell We're gonna take yours and a comment from Senator Robinson. >> Actually just two comments Mr. Chair, >> Two comments. >> One I seem to recall 10 to 15 years ago, [INAUDIBLE] in this committee there was an authorization I'm not sure is the state board, DPI or whatever, to create what was known as action teams who were supposed to go into these same very schools do the very same things and as far as I know we never got a report I don't know whatever happened. Cuz I don't know that any of those teams were ever really focused or directed so it was a similar situation that Senator Bryant has raised but nobody ever did anything. It seems to me that what we have here is simply a different process to identify a methodology to send people to assist in these low performing schools, it's not different from what was done 10 to 15 years ago nobody ever did. With that having been said and I think I have an amendment that I was going to run I wanna hold on it for a moment relating to the selection of these operators because I think that that segment as is written in the bill is not as clear and frankly is a bit more run on that it should be. But I'm simply saying that this is slightly different methodology with a different group of people People trying to do something that we tried to do something years ago and never got done. >> Thank you Senator Hassell. Final comment. Senator Robinson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Several things here.

One is, I think that and I know that our school systems, our LEAs currently have flexibility. Poor low performing schools to then operate them like charters and to do the very thing that you're saying right now. So that's already in place. Secondly is that the ASD, when you're talking about it, I believe you're talking about private companies coming up and setting that up in North Carolina so we're giving over to private companies our children who are low income, mostly minority to private companies to come in and operate something we already have a capacity within our state board of education and thirdly if those schools schools fail for three years, those same children who are already failing then have failed for an additional three years, and what do you do? They drop out, they get into delinquency because of what's ahead of them as opposed to, and then everybody runs away, I think it's irresponsible and I don't think we should be going another direction, Senator Tillman since we just began to work with charter schools. >> Senator Robinson I'm gonna use my comment now. What you're saying is since 140, 50, 180 years these kids have been failing and those schools ought to keep them there and let them be managed by DPI and the state board just like we've been doing and not try something different. Well I showed you a chart the other day of all the charter schools good, bad and ugly, all the public schools good, bad and ugly and you know what the percentage of Of test scores have have ended up great and have ended up test worthy a minimum of 25% higher in all of the charters versus all of the public schools, folks give it to somebody that can do the job, if you've got the right principal and teachers and the right superintendent in those five schools, they will make great growth. That's a fact. >> Mr Chairman, I just wanna correct one thing. >> No, I don't mind whether they wanna go or not. >> Mr Chairman. >> I didn't wanna go to school at all. >>Mr Chairman. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] you're gonna close this. >> You're not sure you did. >> Senator Robinson is entitled to her opinion, but I do want the committee to know, This idea of private companies there's, the Bill specifically spells out what qualifications you have to have to be an operator, these are not private companies. There are any entities that made a a certain selection of criteria which I will if you just read the Bill you will see is better than the current management that, They are under and they have to be in the school business. >> Thank you senator, good job on presentation, now I'm going to, we have two speakers that one is for and one against you, you have two minutes each, we're gonna start with Marcus Brown, former he's from [UNKNOWN] and former House member, Marcus Brown, and you've got two minutes. time, Keeper you better watch this one. >> Thank you Mr Chair, that you committee for allowing me to speak. I am speaking on behalf, in favor of the Bill and I am an executive director of Carolina county and the reason why I support this Bill and the organisation support this Bill, It's more of an accountability issue here we're talking about, I am on the board of chatter school, and if we don't do well, they will close us down and they will shut us down and they should, but we have schools in this state that have been failing for 20, 30, 40 years and they also have 700 or 800 of those kids, Are gonna go back to that school next August, we talk a lot about accountability around here, but I will let you know there's 0% accountability. As a state, this Bill to me finally says, that we will no longer as a state of North Carolina continue you to fail kids that look like me mostly for 20, 30, straight continuous years. The other part of the Bill I hear some people talking about, the cohesion piece. The cohesion piece is the most important part of this Bill, because what i would like to see and what I think is the best part of the Bill is that of you don't want to be an ASD, if you don't want be, Be taken over then I suggest you start having lots of discussions to make sure that you do not become one of those schools, and I would think that most people would be having those conversations and that's a great thing. We want you to have those conversations, we don't want you to become a part of the ASD, but the cause and pieces are most important Important piece because that's what the accountability is. The accountability is, is that we now have a program that if you're gonna continue to fail kids, we will come and take you over and that is a great thing.

So, I want the committee to know that this bill is more about accountability Than anything, this is the ultimate accountability and we have a great opportunity here to say that in the state of North Carolina we will no longer allow for kids to be failing for 25, 30 continuing straight years >> Well said Representative Brandon, we have one other speaker that's against this bill Winner who represents school boards associations and I don't know who all else but it's your turn, two minutes. >> Good Morning I'm Leanne Winner director of Governmental Relations for the North Carolina schools boards association. The education community agrees that something different needs to be done to assist in improving student Outcomes in low performing schools. The senate addressed this by including the lab school model at the UNC system in its budget. This bill on the other hand creates a new state bureaucracy by taking away local community decision making. One example is this would ultimately put Rolie in charge of Of how local facility dollars are prioritized, by putting the State Board of Education in charge when the ASD and the School District can not agree on facility improvements. On behalf of the North Carolina School Boards Association, the North Carolina Association of School Administrators The North Carolina Association of Educators and The Professional Educators of North Carolina, we would ask that you not send North Carolina down this road with an experiment that has not shown to be successful in other states and does not provide the necessary protections for both taxpayers And students directly affected. Thank you for your time. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> For a motion, I see a motion from senator Apodaca for a favorable report. Though with the PCS wrapped in To the unfavorable as to the original, favorable as to the amended bill with the PCS. I believe I can learn that from Apodaca who learned it from God, Aand now I've got a motion for a favorable report. All in favor aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> One opposed. [BLANK_AUDIO]. The meeting is adjourned. >> [BLANK-AUDIO]