Mark Sauter — Asked whether there were minutes to approve and moved to approve the minutes from February 27th and March 3rd.
Dale Hawkins — Was noted as not yet having joined the committee and was scheduled to be up first.
Dale Hawkins — Was called upon to present House Bill 785.
Dale Hawkins — Answered questions and requested a due pass recommendation for House Bill 785.
Dale Hawkins — Responded that the matter would be left to school board discretion.
Dale Hawkins — Worked with the State Superintendent on the bill.
Dale Hawkins — The committee returns to the next scheduled item after finishing House Bill 785.
Dale Hawkins — Explained that he was late because of a JFAC vote and introduced RS-33-6-23.
Dale Hawkins — Introduces House Bill 784 after the prior motion is approved.
Dale Hawkins — Explained House Bill 784 and requested the committee hold the bill while the RS advances.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Redmond discusses recess discipline policy, arguing that teachers should address minor disruptive behavior quickly and that recess should not be withheld as punishment. He distinguishes disruptive conduct from serious physical aggression, saying the latter should be handled by administration and possibly parents. He notes that the bill is aimed at disruptive behavior, cites research and parent complaints about whole classes losing recess, and confirms that such practices do occur. The discussion then turns to how to move the RS/bill forward, with Redmond expressing willingness to work on wording changes, asking about the proper motion, and suggesting the measure could still advance while allowing further refinement and testimony.
Dale Hawkins — The chair was referenced as someone expected to remind the committee about time and procedure.
Jordan Redmond — Presented House Bill 785 and explained that it addresses inappropriate online behavior by students toward public school employees or other persons.
Jack Nelsen — Representative Nelsen raises a question about how public records requests would work for school boards, specifically what information must be made public and how privacy concerns are handled. The question is then reiterated, and the response explains that the matter would be left to the discretion of the school board.
Jack Nelsen — Jack Nelsen raised a point-of-order question and asked whether the RS could simply be held in committee until a later time, expressing concern about the bill ending up in General Orders. The chair then referenced Nelsen in the course of giving procedural guidance.
Jack Nelsen — The chair corrects and apologizes to Representative Nelson, referring to him as Mr. Nelson/Representative Nelson.
Clint Hostetler — Is called on after the discussion and appears to make a motion, though the bill number is likely mistranscribed.
Clint Hostetler — Moved to send House Bill 785 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Clint Hostetler — Moved to introduce RS 33623623; the name appears to be a mishearing of Hostetler.
Clint Hostetler — Likely intended by the transcript's 'Hustettler' reference.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler was called to speak and then moved to hold House Bill 784 in committee while also referencing the introduction of RS 33620.
Debbie Hitchfield — Identified herself as State Superintendent and stated support for the bill.
Tammy Nichols — Referenced as one of the committee members who may disagree about withholding recess for in-class performance.
Tammy Nichols — The speaker addresses Representative Nichols and others while arguing that educators should have discretion in the classroom to redirect behavior without losing instructional time. The discussion asks whether some accommodation could be made for educators to exercise that discretion, and continues with references to a colleague’s question and the need to distinguish between levels of discipline in policy.
Dave Lent — Implicitly referenced as the chair in the committee setting.
Dave Lent — Referenced as Mr. Chairman in the exchange.
Dave Lent — Referenced as 'our good chairman' in discussion of special education qualifications for behaviors.
Dave Lent — Dave Lent is repeatedly addressed as Mr. Chairman/the chair during a procedural discussion about handling the RS and whether it should be returned to the sponsor. The exchange also notes that the chair can bring the matter back up, and it concludes with the chair interrupting to move the meeting toward testimony.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative So ia Galaviz discusses her concerns with the bill’s restrictions on withholding recess for disciplinary purposes. She references prior conversations with the sponsor, explains that she supports recess but believes teachers need flexibility to address misconduct, and gives classroom examples such as lunchroom behavior where a restorative consequence during recess might be appropriate. She argues the bill would prevent using recess for restoration when the misconduct occurred elsewhere, asks how teachers can respond if recess and instructional time are both limited, and notes that she has previously discussed the need for clear policy language so parents know when recess may be withheld.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative So ia Galaviz was involved in a brief procedural exchange: she asked a question, and the chair then provided instruction to her.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative Galaviz and other speakers discussed concerns about the bill’s recess language and wording, noting that guidance documents might help clarify legislative intent. The exchange emphasized that wording matters, that the language may be restrictive or potentially conflicting, and that any changes should be made collaboratively with Representative Galaviz.
Dr. Lindsay Turner — Representative Redmond cites Dr. Lindsay Turner of Boise State and the Initiative for Healthy Schools as a researcher whose work suggests that restricting recess can be counterproductive; the follow-up remark groups her with another researcher as part of the same body of study on this issue.
Dr. Juliana Cohen — Representative Redmond says he met with Dr. Juliana Cohen of the Harvard School of Public Health and cites her research, along with another researcher, as supporting the view that restricting recess can be counterproductive.
Lindsay Turner — Referenced again as someone the speaker knows and whose research supports outdoor activity and recess.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias questions the rationale for distinguishing between misconduct that occurs during recess versus elsewhere, asking why the timing of the behavior should determine whether recess can be withheld. He follows up by asking whether serious misconduct already covered by criminal law or school handbook rules could justify withholding recess.
Chris Mathias — Addressed as Representative Mathias while the chair clarified procedure.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias questioned John Mason about the bill’s discipline language, focusing on whether major behavioral incidents should be handled differently depending on when they occur. He asked specifically about the distinction between lunch/recess or other unstructured school time versus structured instructional time, and whether violent or aggressive behavior during recess should be treated differently from the same conduct during class.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias asked whether questions about the recess language were in order and then sought clarification on whether it applied to eighth graders. He raised concern that students might exploit recess if discipline could not be imposed for misconduct during recess. Representative Redmond responded, joking that Matthias was being overly sensitive before addressing the question, and the exchange continued with further clarification about the grade-level limits of the recess language.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Barbara Ehardt questions Representative Redmond about recess policy, asking whether whole classes are being held back from recess, whether that practice is acceptable, and whether the legislation was ever advocating for two recesses rather than simply ensuring one recess.
Barbara Ehardt — Was about to ask a question, but the chair interjected first.
John Mason — John Mason of FGA Action was introduced as the first witness, briefly dealt with audio/unmuting issues, and then delivered testimony in support of HB 784. He argued that adding frequent recess periods improves student focus, reduces behavioral issues, supports health and positive classroom outcomes, and can be implemented in a way that gives schools flexibility without added cost. The segment ends as Representative Mathias begins questioning him.
Mr. Mason — Mr. Mason was asked how the bill could be tailored so recess could be withheld only for serious misconduct rather than minor issues. He suggested the language should be tied to chronology and the distinction between unstructured time and classroom time, while noting he may not have the most current bill text. In follow-up, he said the answer depends on the severity and timing of the conduct, and that the language could be broken out by severity. He ultimately said he would err against removing or withholding recess because of the bill’s behavioral goals.
Debbie Critchfield, State Superintendent — Debbie Critchfield, State Superintendent, testified in support of the bill while noting that some language may need adjustment. She explained that some students on specialized learning plans already cannot have recess removed, and that the department is developing guidance to help educators de-escalate and use other behavior-management tools. She said that when students are physically aggressive, they would typically be sent to the administrator’s office, and that lunch recess and the eating period could satisfy the bill’s requirements. She also indicated that immediate correction or de-escalation before recess could be appropriate and that the bill would not prohibit discipline or conversation. In response to follow-up questions, she said supports for students with IEPs or 504 plans depend on the specific plan provisions and parent decisions, and she reiterated her belief that recess should not be used as a penalty, expressing concern that carve-outs could allow recess to be removed.
James Woodward — Representative Redmond was referenced in connection with ongoing discussion about possible language adjustments and the structure of recess requirements, including remarks made in response to Representative Matthias and a discussion with the superintendent.