Debbie Hitchfield, State Superintendent — Testified in support of the bill and said the office worked with Representative Redmond.
James Woodward — Referenced as one of the committee members who may disagree on the issue of withholding recess.
James Woodward — Referenced as one of the committee members with disagreements on the recess issue.
James Woodward — Representative Redmond is being questioned about the recess language and disciplinary alternatives.
James Woodward — Representative Redmond is responding to the concerns raised by Representative Galavis.
James Woodward — The speaker addresses 'Representative' while arguing the language is too broad.
James Woodward — Was told to wait while the committee dealt with House Bill 784 first.
James Woodward — Representative Matthias engaged Mr. Mason in a continuous line of questioning about the bill’s disciplinary language, focusing on whether serious behavioral incidents during unstructured school time—such as lunch or recess—should be treated differently from misconduct during instructional time. The exchange included a follow-up and continued references to the same concern about violent or major behavioral acts during recess or other unstructured periods.
James Woodward — Representative Matthias questions the scope of the bill language, asking whether he is allowed to ask questions about the RS, whether the provision on lines 19–21 applies to eighth graders and to 6th through 8th graders, and whether the no-withholding language applies only to kindergarten through fifth grade. He also raises concern that older students might exploit the recess-related language.
Christy Zito — Christy Zito is referenced as one of the committee members who may disagree with withholding recess, with the discussion repeating the same point about committee disagreement on the issue.
Dave Lent — Addressed as Chairman during the exchange.
Dave Lent — The chairman is referenced as having discussed special education qualifications for behaviors.
Dave Lent — Addressed by Representative Redmond during the exchange.
Dave Lent — Invoked in the procedural exchange as the chair being addressed for recognition.
Dave Lent — The chair is asked about the motion and how to proceed with the RS and possible wording changes.
Dave Lent — Asked how to proceed procedurally and whether the RS to replace 784 could be put to general orders.
Dave Lent — Addressed in the response confirming that whole classes are being held back from recess in some instances.
Dave Lent — Was addressed during follow-up remarks.
Dave Lent — Was addressed in the response.
Dave Lent — Explained that the bill requires at least one recess of 20 minutes, even if multiple recesses occur during the day.
Dave Lent — Was noted as having asked a question.
Dave Lent — Introduced a point-of-order question.
Dave Lent — The chair wanted to check the sponsor's reaction to the motion.
Dave Lent — Raised a point-of-order question and suggested holding the RS in committee temporarily.
Dave Lent — Was told he could make whatever motion he chose.
Dave Lent — Was referenced in the chair's instruction; likely a transcription error for Representative Galavis.
Dave Lent — Clarified that he would not direct the motion.
Dave Lent — Redirected the committee to testimony before continuing discussion.
Dave Lent — In a continuous exchange involving the chair, members discuss procedural points and then turn to the substance of the bill. The chair is referenced multiple times while the committee works through questions about recesses and whether discussion of the RS is appropriate. Representative Redmond then explains the bill’s structure, clarifying that one section applies to kindergarten through fifth grade and another to sixth through eighth grade, with unstructured activity breaks, and the interpretation is confirmed.
Dr. Lindsay Turner — Cited as a Boise State research professor for the Initiative for Healthy Schools who advised that restricting recess can be counterproductive.
Dr. Juliana Cohen — Cited as a Harvard School of Public Health expert who advised that restricting recess can be counterproductive.
Lindsay Turner — Referenced as someone the speaker knows and whose research supports outdoor activity and recess.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Representative Galavis expressed concern that the proposed language might prevent educators from having necessary conversations to redirect student behavior and asked for flexibility so teachers could use discretion in their own classrooms. The subsequent remarks continued that same exchange, referencing Galavis’s concern and the response to it.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Representative Ehart asked for clarification about whether the legislation was advocating for two recesses or just one, essentially reiterating the question about whether the bill called for two recesses.
Janie Ward-Engelking — The speaker addresses Representative Galavese and acknowledges their position.
Janie Ward-Engelking — The speaker asks Representative Galavis to clarify whether the recess language conflicts with other bill language.
John Meese — Initially identified as the first witness/testifier, though the name is later corrected to John Mason.
John Mason — John Mason of FGA Action testifies in support of House Bill 784, explaining that requiring at least 20 minutes of recess for Idaho elementary students would benefit learning, behavior, focus, and student well-being. He argues the bill creates a fair, consistent standard for access to recess without added cost, while still giving schools flexibility in how to implement it.
Mr. Mason — Mr. Mason responds to questions about how the bill could be tailored regarding withholding recess, explaining that the answer depends on the severity and timing of the conduct and suggesting the issue be tied to chronology or unstructured time. He notes he may not have the most updated version of the bill, but says that, given the bill’s goal of improving outcomes from recess, he would generally err against removing or withholding recess.
Debbie Critchfield, State Superintendent — Debbie Critchfield, State Superintendent, testified in support of the bill and argued that recess should not be used as a disciplinary penalty. She explained that some students are on specialized learning plans, including IEPs and 504s, that may prohibit recess removal, and that educators should instead use other corrective actions such as de-escalation, administrator intervention, or other immediate discipline. She said the department is developing guidance documents to help educators manage behavior appropriately, noted that serious or violent incidents would be handled through other school actions, and clarified that the bill does not prevent conversation or discipline before recess. She also indicated that whether accommodations apply depends on the specific provisions of a student’s plan and emphasized that recess should not be carved out as a punishment.