WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1939

Turnpike Authority; powers and duties; locations of construction and operation of certain turnpikes; report; removing certain requirements; rules; adhering to laws; meetings; compliance; notice; validity of bonds; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Standridge and 1 co-sponsor

HB 1939 loosens and clarifies teacher evaluations and Merit Teacher Incentive Fund eligibility, allowing NBPTS work, peer/student feedback, and annual ratings for funding.

Authored by Senator Standridge (principal Senate author)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1939

Summary — HB 1939 (Arkansas, 95th General Assembly, 2025)

Subject: Teacher incentive and merit pay; teacher evaluations; Merit Teacher Incentive Fund

Note on status: the provided metadata is inconsistent. The top of the file lists the bill status as “Died In Committee,” but the legislative-action log in the document shows readings, passage, enrollment, and a notification that “HB1939 is now Act 808.” Verify current status on the Arkansas General Assembly website or the official codified statutes before assuming the bill is or is not enacted.

Main purpose

HB 1939 amends Arkansas law to (1) tighten eligibility for certain National Board‑related teacher incentive funds, (2) modify requirements and flexibility for summative evaluations under the Teacher Excellence and Support System (TESS), and (3) revise eligibility and reporting requirements under the Merit Teacher Incentive Fund Program.

Key provisions (by section)

  • Section 1 — National Board incentive eligibility (Ark. Code § 6-17-413):

    • Adds a deadline: a person is not eligible to receive funds under this section unless they have satisfied its requirements by July 1, 2025.

  • Section 2 — Summative evaluation requirements (Ark. Code § 6-17-2805(c), amended):

    • Clarifies that a summative evaluation must produce a written (or digital) evaluation determination covering all domains.
    • Requires use of the appropriate evaluation framework and rubric.
    • Requires multiple sources of evidence (direct and indirect observations, artifacts, data), but clarifies artifacts need not demonstrate every domain component when observation or data are used.
    • Permits school/district policies to incorporate peer observations and student feedback into the summative rating.
    • Allows substitution — in whole or part — of a teacher’s work completed for National Board certification/renewal in place of parts of the summative evaluation.
    • Ensures opportunity for evaluator–teacher discussion of evidence and that feedback be provided tied to the rubric.

  • Section 3 — Annual rating when no summative evaluation performed (adds subsections to § 6-17-2805):

    • Requires schools that do not perform a summative evaluation in a year to perform an “annual rating” that satisfies the Merit Teacher Incentive Fund Program requirements.
    • Defines “annual rating” as a formative or summative end‑of‑year rating based on observations (which may rely on a teacher’s professional growth plan) that includes components of the state‑approved evaluation framework.

  • Section 4 — Merit Teacher Incentive Fund eligibility (Ark. Code § 6-17-2904(a), amended):

    • Lists eligible categories, including:
    • Teachers demonstrating “outstanding growth in student performance” as determined by the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).
      • Directs DESE to calculate value‑added growth model scores where possible and to adopt rules for districts to report value‑added related data (student test scores and prior performance).
      • Requires districts to perform an annual rating at year’s end as described above.
    • Mentor teachers.
    • Aspiring teachers in yearlong residencies.
    • Teachers in subject or geographic areas experiencing critical shortages (as determined by DESE).
    • Other categories as defined by the State Board of Education.

Fiscal impact

  • Fiscal Impact Statement (prepared by the Arkansas Department of Education, dated 4/1/25) states: No Fiscal Impact.

Who is affected

  • Public school teachers (including National Board candidates/recipients), mentor teachers, aspiring/resident teachers, and teachers in shortage areas.
  • School districts and evaluators (changes to evaluation practice, reporting, and possible administrative procedures).
  • Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (responsible for value‑added calculations and rulemaking).

Practical implications

  • Introduces flexibility in evidence and procedures used for summative evaluations (peer observations, student feedback, digital records, and substitution of NBPTS work).
  • Ties districts’ evaluation practices more explicitly to Merit Teacher Incentive funding eligibility and to value‑added reporting.
  • Sets a hard deadline (July 1, 2025) for satisfying the § 6-17-413 requirements to receive NBPTS-related bonus funds.
  • Department of Education indicates no anticipated fiscal cost, but districts may need to adjust administrative practices and reporting systems.

For authoritative status (enacted/lapsed) and final statutory text, consult the Arkansas General Assembly records and the codified Arkansas Code.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.