HB2142 — House Bill 2142 is introduced and staff begins briefing on it, explaining that the bill replaces statutory references to alternative learning experiences with the term remote and hybrid learning.
HB2142 — Public hearing on the bill is closed.
Joel McEntire — Joel McEntire responded to concerns about the bill by saying it would not materially change what happens on the ground and is largely a name change. He noted the legislation does not define the terms, said he was trying to think ahead about how to address concerns, and explained that the proposal was brought to him because of stigma around the term 'alternative learning experience.' He said replacing that terminology with 'online' and 'hybrid learning' more accurately describes the education model, then concluded and yielded for further questions.
Lillian Ortiz-Self — Lillian Ortiz-Self questioned the bill’s purpose and scope, asking what problem it is intended to solve and whether alternative high schools are included. She then pressed for clarification on how online and hybrid programs would be defined and differentiated, especially in districts that already offer online classes. She concluded by noting her support for reducing stigma and avoiding othering students, while expressing concern that changing terminology may be inconsistent.
Mr. Clements — Referenced as the person who brought the issue to the sponsor's attention.
Mr. Clements — Addressed as the witness being questioned about terminology and education models.
Clyde Shavers — Vice Chair Clyde Shavers was called to bring forward those wishing to testify, and he responded by asking Mark Clements to come up.
Clyde Shavers — Asked to read into the record those who signed in not wishing to testify.
Clyde Shavers — Addressed by the sponsor as Vice Chair Shavers.
Clyde Shavers — Was asked to call forward the panel of witnesses.
Clyde Shavers — Vice Chair Shavers is referenced as the person who will read the record later in the hearing sequence.
Clyde Shavers — The chair asks a follow-up question to Superintendent Murphy about the GRUB program.
Clyde Shavers — Called on to read the record of testimony positions and then referenced as Vice Chair Shavers.
Mark Clements — Mark Clements, a retired principal and former president of WALA, testified in support of changing the terminology from 'alternative learning experience' to 'remote and hybrid learning.' He argued that the current term has negative connotations and no longer accurately describes the model, while the proposed language better reflects learning that occurs outside a regular classroom. He clarified that alternative high schools would only fit the definition if they offer remote or hybrid instruction, and explained the distinctions among remote, online, and hybrid learning. He also said the school structure determines whether it fits the terminology and that the name change would reduce confusion and prejudice in current law. In response to questions, he described how non-classroom-based learning can better accommodate different learning speeds and gave River Homelink as an example of special education students thriving in a blended model with personalized programming and a mix of in-class and at-home learning.
Alicia Rule — Representative Alicia Rule was called on and then asked for clarification about the term 'hybrid,' specifically whether it meant partly online and partly in the classroom, or partly in the classroom and partly at home.
Alicia Rule — Representative Alicia Rule asks whether the bill will help smaller districts overcome cost and access barriers, and the response addresses her concern indirectly as part of the same discussion.
Gerry Pollet — Argued that changing terminology for alternative learning experiences without changing it for alternative schools is inconsistent, and noted that people often keep using familiar terms.
Rob Chase — Representative Rob Chase was introduced as the next member to ask a question and then asked whether remote and hybrid learning could lead to more specialized education and better outcomes than a traditional factory-model approach.
HB2369 — House Bill 2369 is introduced as a bill promoting the use of local foods in public schools. The discussion explains that it would create the Washington Local Food for Schools program within OSPI and authorize OSPI to coordinate with WSDA while updating Farm to School program requirements.
HB2369 — Witnesses expressed strong support for House Bill 2369, explaining that it would improve school meals in Washington by making it easier for school districts to procure locally produced food. The discussion also noted that the bill codifies OSPI’s direct-purchase approach, clarifies logistical details, and makes Washington’s program distinct from models used in other states. Overall, the witnesses urged favorable consideration of the bill.
HB2369 — Public hearing on the bill is closed after testimony counts are read into the record.
Ethan Moreno — Ethan Moreno, nonpartisan staff to the committee, briefed members on House Bill 2369 and described existing state programs that support the use of locally grown foods in public schools. He concluded his remarks and invited questions, then noted that while there are various related state programs, he was not aware of any prior legislation exactly like the bill being discussed.
Ethan Moreno — Ethan Moreno, nonpartisan committee staff, briefs the committee on House Bill 2432, then invites and responds to questions. During the discussion, he continues by reading the bill’s definition of surplus technology hardware.
Kristine Reeves — Kristine Reeves introduces herself as the prime sponsor and explains that the bill seeks to codify a previously supported program that helps students connect with where their food comes from and supports local, healthy food in schools. She closes her opening remarks by inviting questions, then responds to a follow-up by emphasizing that the bill is meant to preserve what is already working well and remove barriers to those efforts. A later brief mention simply thanks her for introducing the bill.
Kristine Reeves — Referenced as having mentioned the school tour that the witness attended.
Kristine Reeves — Asked about the date of Beef Day and whether she could be first in line.
Kristine Reeves — Thanked for introducing the bill.
Skyler Rude — Addressed by the sponsor as Ranking Member Rude.
Skyler Rude — Referenced for a breakfast-after-the-bell comment.
Skyler Rude — The vice chair is asked to bring up a panel of witnesses.
Matt Marshall — Representative Marshall is referenced in the context of a committee visit to an outdoor education program in his district, with discussion of how the program grows food as part of its curriculum and distributes that food to the community; a later mention continues the same example by referring to the flow of the food and the prior visit.
Chris Tini — Chris Tini was called to come forward and then introduced himself as a co-owner of Farmstand Local Foods. He explained that the organization is a South Seattle food hub that has supported more than 250 Washington farmers and food producers.
Claire Lane — Claire Lane was called forward as a witness and then formally introduced herself as the director of the Anti-Hunger Nutrition Coalition, testifying in very strong support of the bill.
Marks truly — Likely a mis-transcription of a witness name; asked to come up.
Preston Tucker — Named as a witness to come up/on deck.
Preston Tucker — Preston Tucker, an 18-year-old from Yakima in the 15th legislative district speaking for himself and the Washington Youth Alliance, testified in support of the bill. He said the issue matters to students directly, noting that many students do not have healthy food at home and that the food provided to schools can be overly processed. He emphasized that supporting the legislation is important for improving student nutrition and helping build a healthier student body.
Kendra Dean — Kendra Dean is called on deck and asked to speak first because she is online. She then introduces herself and testifies in strong support of House Bill 2369 on behalf of Northeast Washington Educational Service District 101, specifically its Nutrition Cooperative and Farm to School program. After her testimony, the chair thanks her and notes that she needs to leave.
Rebecca, Ray Cooley — Likely a mis-transcribed witness name; asked to be on deck online.
Mark Struley — Mark Struley testified in strong support of the bill on behalf of the Washington Cattlemen's Association and other agricultural groups, emphasizing that the bill’s logistics and rural transportation provisions are important. He relayed a rancher’s comments about how procurement rules and related logistics make participation difficult, but still worthwhile because they are glad to feed children in their community. He closed by reiterating that the bill is good and that they want to be part of it.
Rebecca Cooley — Called forward to testify next, though the transcript briefly garbles the name as 'Rebecca Cooley' and then 'me.'
Ray Cooley — Ray Cooley, network coordinator for the Washington Farm to School Network and a former educator, testified in support of the bill. He described working with students who learned where food comes from and helping schools bring local foods into meals through technical assistance. He emphasized that farm-to-school programs connect students to agriculture, improve awareness of food system and agriculture careers, and benefit entire school communities. He concluded that the bill supports this work and would allow more schools to participate in ways that fit their needs.
Rebecca — The chair mistakenly refers to the witness as Rebecca when closing questions.
Patrick Murphy — Patrick Murphy was called to the panel, then testified as superintendent of the Olympia School District. He said the bill would help build statewide procurement infrastructure and described Olympia’s Freedom Farm Program, where students have grown food used in school cafeterias since 2010.
Jeremy Roblich — Jeremy Roblich is called to come up for the next panel alongside Patrick Murphy and Leanne Echo.
Leanne Echo — Leanne Echo is called up to the panel along with Patrick Murphy and Jeremy Roblich; the transcript notes her name as she comes up, but she has not yet begun speaking in this section.
Austin Erlocker — Called to testify online; name may be uncertain due to transcription.
Carolyn Eslick — Referenced as having asked about school programs.
Patrick Murphy, Superintendent, Olympia School District — Patrick Murphy testified in support of the bill, explaining that Olympia School District’s Freedom Farm program allows students to grow food for school cafeterias while earning credit and integrating science, history, agriculture, and real-world learning. He said the program helps provide fresh food for students and could be supported by the bill. He also clarified that the district had partnered with GRUB, which led to the creation of Freedom Farm, and that GRUB and Freedom Farm still exist as separate entities on different sides of town.
Jeremy Vrablich, owner of Cascadia Produce — Jeremy Vrablich, owner of Cascadia Produce, testified in support of the bill, explaining that as an aggregator and parent of public school children he is focused on its impact on the farming community. He said farming is already difficult and federal budget cuts aimed at farm support make it harder, but that the food system is interconnected rather than siloed. He argued the bill would help local farms and, in turn, strengthen Washington’s local economy by creating a safety net that supports food for schools and hunger relief organizations, helps farmers build their businesses, benefits distributors like his company, and creates jobs and a stronger tax base.
Leanne Echo, Chief Nutrition Officer, OSPI — Leanne Echo, OSPI’s chief nutrition officer, explained that the bill builds on an existing USDA food distribution system OSPI already runs: federally procured food is brought into state warehouses and shipped to districts, and the bill would let OSPI use that same infrastructure to procure Washington-grown food. She said this leverages existing trucks, warehouses, and OSPI’s ongoing work with WSDA. In response to questions, she described the bill as having two parts—one expanding OSPI’s contracting/procurement system and another reflecting existing WSDA-OSPI language—and said the bill already covers locally purchased district food and student-grown food. She added that an amendment is not necessary, though language could be added for clarity if desired.