North Dakota House passes bill to shorten time for educators to attain lifetime licensure
Jan. 27—BISMARCK — A bill that would reduce the time it takes for a North Dakota teacher to earn a lifetime educator license passed through the House by a substantial margin Friday, Jan. 24.
Representatives voted 79-12 to advance
House Bill 1238,
sponsored in part by Rep. Zachary Ista, D-Grand Forks.
The House Education Committee unanimously recommended the bill for passage Thursday, though the bill received mixed reviews among education circles during a hearing Tuesday.
The bill would make a teacher eligible for a lifetime license when reaching 20 years in their career, instead of the current 30-year mark.
Anyone with a lifetime license who intends to keep teaching shall report to the state's licensing agency, the Education Standards and Practices Board, at least once every five years, the bill states.
Reporting could include any crime a teacher committed or other behavior that could lead to license revocation or suspension.
Nothing in the bill would prevent the board from taking its own action against a teacher's lifetime license, if warranted.
The bill is a holdover from the last legislative session, Ista said, during which it received widespread support in the House but failed on a tie vote in the Senate, with one member absent.
One thing that is different this time is the reporting element, he said, which was a sticking point last time with ESPB.
Much of the support for HB 1238 comes in the name of improving recruitment and retention of teachers.
Ista said the bill would reduce continuing education expenses for teachers, estimating the average educator could save up to $1,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
Also testifying in support Tuesday was Nick Archuleta, president of North Dakota United, the union representing public education and public services employees in the state.
Archuleta said some opponents maintain the bill would cause teachers to stop taking educational credits they might otherwise have earned.
"Not only is that argument a slight to the professionalism of teachers, it also discounts entirely the fact that teachers ... have to take coursework to make lane changes and advance on the salary schedule," he said.
Testifying in opposition of House Bill 1238 were representatives from the state Education Standards and Practices Board.
Executive Director Rebecca Pitkin said most states require continuing education for license renewal.
"Teachers are the model of lifelong learning. Ongoing education, potentially until almost the end of a career, is critical," she said.
Pitkin also said reducing ongoing education requirements for teachers would not promote the profession.
Cory Steiner, ESPB chair and superintendent of the Northern Cass School District, agreed.
"There could be unintended consequences, seeing education as 'less than' other fields, where it should be equal to or more than," he said.
Pitkin said there are currently around 18,000 licensed educators in the state system, with around 10,000 of them currently working.
Providing neutral testimony was Ann Ellefson, director of academic support at the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction.
Ellefson said the state's teachers have easy access to an online educational hub offering professional development, training opportunities and educator resources.
Many of the courses are no cost or low cost across all North Dakota zip codes, she said, while some do charge a nominal $40 fee at registration.
There are 557 active users taking part in 68 courses that include child nutrition, North Dakota Native American studies, science of reading, mathematics and educator ethics, Ellefson said.
On the House floor Friday, Rep. LaurieBeth Hager, a Fargo Democrat and cosponsor of the bill, said the legislation would reduce red tape for teachers.
Rep. Pat Heinert, R-Bismarck, said Friday the goal of the bill is to keep teachers in the profession.
Further action on the bill was not scheduled as of Friday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Congress to grill Kathy Hochul on NY sanctuary laws — and local GOP offers spicy advice over what questions they should ask
ALBANY – State Republican lawmakers offered advice to their congressional counterparts ahead of Gov. Kathy Hochul testimony on Thursday over sanctuary policies – outlining a list of questions to fling at the Democrat. The GOP legislators sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer ahead of Hochul's trip to Washington, DC where she'll be grilled by a congressional panel on the Empire State's sanctuary laws. 'Governor Hochul's sanctuary state policies have played a direct role in the ongoing migrant crisis throughout our state, despite bipartisan concern including repeated warnings from New York City Mayor Eric Adams,' Assemblyman Michael Tannousis (R-Staten Island) wrote in the letter, cosigned by various other New York GOP lawmakers. Advertisement 'We believe that Governor Hochul must be held accountable for her failure to reverse the state's sanctuary policies and recklessness with taxpayer dollars,' Tannousis continued. Gov. Kathy Hochul is set to testify on capitol hill Thursday on New York's sanctuary city laws and its handling of the influx of migrants. Hochul is voluntarily appearing before the House committee on Capitol Hill and will testify alongside Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Advertisement In their letter, the Republican state lawmakers ask the House Republicans to ask Hochul to outline: Why New York continued to accept migrants during the height of the crisis The vetting process for migrants and concerns about public safety A shady $432 million no-bid contract awarded to DocGo to help mitigate the crisis Her justification for roughly $4 billion the state has spent dealing with migrants Why some municipalities weren't reimbursed with costs associated with the migrants Tannousis said he wants the House Oversight committee to follow through after Hochul's testimony to deliver 'accountability.' The governor has tried to navigate a vague middle ground when it comes to the state's sanctuary policy, which is still based on a 2017 executive order issued by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo who is now running for mayor of New York City. Advertisement Assemblyman Michael Tannousis and other Albany Republicans wrote a letter to the House panel suggesting areas where they should hammer Hochul. Michael McWeeney Hochul had promised specifics and clarity over her guidance on how New York would work with federal immigration authorities. Instead, her office only provided a list of four broad categories of situations that would trigger state law enforcement to work with the feds, such as if ICE has a judicial warrant or when relevant to investigating another crime committed in New York. Hochul had previously said she was 'happy to go down' to DC for the hearing. 'I'll tell them our policy in the state of New York is not to use state resources, our state police, to enforce the civil infractions,' Hochul said earlier this year.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Phil Murphy skated to the NJ governor's mansion. Mikie Sherrill might not have it so easy.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill was the vanguard of the anti-Trump backlash in 2018. Just months after the political unknown declared her Democratic candidacy for Congress and began raising money at a fast clip, the 24-year Republican incumbent bowed out rather than face the first competitive general election of his career. Sherrill easily won what had long been a safe Republican district in a blue wave election that flipped the House. Now, Sherrill stands as Democrats' bulwark against a red tide after winning the party nomination for New Jersey governor Tuesday night. With Democrats out of power in Washington and trying to chart a path in the second Donald Trump presidency, Sherrill's campaign to lead a reddening New Jersey may present a road map. During her victory speech Tuesday night, the former Navy helicopter pilot compared the fight against Trump to the American Revolution. ''Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered,'' Sherrill said, quoting Thomas Paine. 'And as always, New Jersey rose to the challenge. By December, General Washington led his daring crossing of the Delaware and turned the tide at Trenton and Princeton. And here we are nearly 250 years later and New Jersey once again stands at the front lines.' But Sherrill likely won't be able to skate into office the way Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy did eight years ago. Back then, Murphy had the state and national political winds at his back: Republican Gov. Chris Christie was ending his two terms as the most unpopular governor since the advent of polling, and Trump was deeply unpopular in New Jersey. Since then, Trump has made gains in the typically blue state. He lost New Jersey by just 6 points last year, and Republicans are optimistic that the GOP nominee, Jack Ciattarelli, can win back the governorship. He nearly defeated Murphy in 2021, and he won the nomination Tuesday night with a whopping 68 percent of the vote and Trump's backing. 'What Mikie won with Tuesday night wasn't just anti-Trump,' said Dan Bryan, a Democratic strategist who worked for Murphy. 'It's: We're going to stand up for New Jersey. Jack Ciattarelli is going to stand up for Donald Trump.' It's not clear whether the same anti-Trump message from Sherrill will have the same resonance, with recent polls showing either that Trump is mildly unpopular in New Jersey or that voters are split down the middle on him. Ciattarelli — whose endorsement by Trump last month made his nomination a fait accompli — anticipated as much in his own Republican victory speech. 'If this campaign were a drinking game and you took a shot every time Mikie Sherrill says 'Trump,' you're going to be drunk off your ass every day between now and November 4th,' he said. Bob Hugin, the Republican state chair, said he anticipates Trump will even come to New Jersey to campaign for Ciattarelli. 'He was toxic in 2018. Now he's a positive force for change,' Hugin said in a phone interview. Ciattarelli on Wednesday immediately headed to voters who have long been part of the Democratic base, visiting a bakery in heavily Hispanic Dover, in Morris County, as his first stop. In the 2024 election, Hispanic voters in North Jersey drove much of the state's shift toward Trump. Even prior to Sherrill's win on Tuesday, Ciattarelli has attempted to get ahead of Democratic messaging that focuses on the president. 'Last time I checked, what does Donald Trump have to do with our property taxes?' Ciattarelli said at a recent town hall. 'I'm going to make sure that this spotlight stays on New Jersey issues. … We're not going to let them get away from Phil Murphy's failed record. That's all we're going to talk about for the next five months.' New Jersey consistently ranks as having the highest property tax rates in the nation, and Republicans see Democratic vulnerabilities in rising energy bills and the struggles of NJ Transit. Sherrill faces another unique challenge that Murphy did not have in 2017 during his first campaign: having to differentiate herself from the Democratic incumbent. It has been decades since Democrats have won the governorship three terms in a row in the Garden State. She has pushed back on accusations that she is 'Murphy 2.0,' as Ciattarelli called her in his Tuesday night victory speech. After a Democratic debate during the primary, Sherrill told reporters that her background and experience is 'completely different' from Murphy, and her 'vision for the state is very distinct.' Murphy at times has also taken more of a conciliatory approach toward Trump. And polls don't show Murphy to be the same kind of albatross on Democrats that Christie was for Republicans. 'He's not going out with a bang, but he's not going out with people hating him. It's more a sense of getting a little itchy for change,' said pollster Patrick Murray of StimSight Research. 'The question is whether change necessarily has to be the other party.' Democrats argue that messaging about Trump is still potent and can help them articulate the case against Ciattarelli. LeRoy Jones, the state Democratic chair who backed Sherrill through the primary, said Democrats will be able to hit Republicans on pocketbook issues thanks to the Trump administration's tariffs. 'Those core kitchen table issues, as well as the infringements on people's constitutional rights, will loom large in this election,' he said. Throughout the primary, Democrats also used Elon Musk, the former head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency who has since been on the outs with the administration, as a foil in their messaging. Sherrill's opponents sought to take her down by linking her to Musk — pointing to previous donations she took from his company's super political action committee — but those attacks were ultimately unsuccessful. Even though Musk is not involved much at the moment, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin argued that the approach of going after the Trump administration is still the right move. 'Musk may be out of the picture, but the bad policies and bad practices that he and Trump pushed in the first place are still around, so none of that changes,' Martin said. 'The message is still the same, which is, Donald Trump promised he was going to improve people's lives on day one. He has refused to do that.'
