Current Legislative News :
This page will keep you updated on new legislative developments as they occur.
November 2018 Proposed WAC Change
June 12/18 - ESHB 1481 Driver Education Uniformity Implementation
Below please find an update to the outline provided in October regarding implementation plans and status in enacting ESHB 1481. The DTS Program will continue to keep all interested parties informed of progress:
Key Considerations
suspension processes are being developed in consultation with the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (OSPI).
* DOL will be providing technical assistance to program administrators in ensuring certification
standards are met and maintained.
* OSPI programs will be audited to make sure the instructors are qualified according to OSPI, the
school is following the Core Curriculum, accurate records are maintained, and accurate
information of student performance is provided to DOL. Official audits will not begin prior to
September 2019.
* Per section 2 of the State Constitution, DOL has limited authority over school districts. The Department can ONLY suspend certification of a school or school district to teach TSE and cannot
take intermediary discipline action other than suspending or removing Portal/SAW access. DOL
has no authority over individual OSPI traffic safety educators.
should have developed by the time they complete any driver training program in Washington,
regardless of what school they attend.
* There will be a year-long grace period after August 1, 2018 to give all schools time to review the
Core Curriculum and plan how to best make use of it in their programs.
* After the Core Curriculum is released on August 1, 2018, schools may use the “grace period”
during the following year to:
* assimilate the Core Curriculum concepts into what they are already teaching
* develop new teaching materials based on the concepts listed in the Core Curriculum
* wait for the Support Materials (comprehensive lesson plans, videos, quizzes, etc.) that will
be developed by May 2019 and provided by DOL as an option for all schools to use
- ESHB 1481 takes effect August 1, 2018.
- ESHB 1481 largely impacts only the schools administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the only direct impact on commercial driver training schools being the Core Curriculum update requirement.
- School District Program Certification, Audit, and Certification Suspension Processes:
suspension processes are being developed in consultation with the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (OSPI).
* DOL will be providing technical assistance to program administrators in ensuring certification
standards are met and maintained.
* OSPI programs will be audited to make sure the instructors are qualified according to OSPI, the
school is following the Core Curriculum, accurate records are maintained, and accurate
information of student performance is provided to DOL. Official audits will not begin prior to
September 2019.
* Per section 2 of the State Constitution, DOL has limited authority over school districts. The Department can ONLY suspend certification of a school or school district to teach TSE and cannot
take intermediary discipline action other than suspending or removing Portal/SAW access. DOL
has no authority over individual OSPI traffic safety educators.
- Core Curriculum:
should have developed by the time they complete any driver training program in Washington,
regardless of what school they attend.
* There will be a year-long grace period after August 1, 2018 to give all schools time to review the
Core Curriculum and plan how to best make use of it in their programs.
* After the Core Curriculum is released on August 1, 2018, schools may use the “grace period”
during the following year to:
* assimilate the Core Curriculum concepts into what they are already teaching
* develop new teaching materials based on the concepts listed in the Core Curriculum
* wait for the Support Materials (comprehensive lesson plans, videos, quizzes, etc.) that will
be developed by May 2019 and provided by DOL as an option for all schools to use
June/10/18 - Here is a great article from the Everett Herald
Street Smarts
Hey, drop the attitude! Driver’s education changes lanes
As driving classes make a comeback, state imposes new standards for school instruction.
EVERETT — Teens learning to drive soon will have new lessons, ones that go well beyond the rules of the road.
New curriculum is under development that aims to teach teens to think critically about their attitudes and behaviors, and how those affect their driving.
“There’s really nothing in driver education about that right now,” said Angie Ward, a program manager for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. “What kind of driver are you? What things influence the way you drive? … What happens when you get on the road and somebody cuts you off?”
A specialist hired by the state Department of Licensing is putting together the list of core concepts, which likely will be rolled out over the next year.
The work is the result of a new state law that takes effect Aug. 1. Rep. Dave Hayes, R-Camano Island, was the chief sponsor.
The bill started elsewhere: as a way to hold public school programs better accountable by bringing them under the same oversight as commercial driving schools. The state Constitution prevents a full merger of those two programs, but the new bill seeks to at least bring consistency to a constantly evolving industry.
Traffic safety instructors and advocates see the move as a much-needed tune-up, and a signal of further changes to come.
Turning points
Driver education is coming back into favor after falling victim to a perfect storm of tight budgets, testing-focused school and academic studies questioning its effectiveness.
Arlington High School instructor James Brooke remembers when he started teaching driver ed in 1994.
Nearly every ninth-grader took the course. There were 45 hours of classroom time and seven hours behind the wheel. All for free, thanks to a pot of money filled by traffic fines.
“We had the best program in the United States,” Brooke said.
There’s no going back to that past, exactly.
But those tasked with achieving the state’s Target Zero goal (zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries by 2030) hope to beef up programs. It starts with bringing together the state’s two branches of driver education: public schools, overseen by the state superintendent’s office; and commercial schools, overseen by the Department of Licensing.
After curriculum, many see teacher training as the next step.
There’s a long list of ideas beyond that. What about a longer drive test? More behind-the-wheel time for students?
“We’re not done yet,” Hayes said.
The numbers
The need to make sure young people are ready to hit the road is apparent.
Crashes remain the leading cause of teen deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In 2017, there were 2,685 collisions involving drivers age 16-20 in Snohomish County, an increase of 10 percent over 2014, according to the Washington State Patrol. More than one-quarter of the crashes resulted in injuries.
While older studies questioned the effectiveness of driver education, newer research shows that good driver education programs help.
Oregon is one example. That state has a robust driver training program that is partially subsidized by license-related fees.
Recent statistics show that while there are more crashes overall, Oregon teens who had driver education were far less likely to be the ones involved. Previous studies also showed those teens were less likely to receive traffic citations.
A Nebraska study showed similar benefits.
Signal changes
Still, more teens are waiting to get their driver’s license.
Arlington High School is among the few Snohomish County high schools to still offer traffic safety. The school serves about 225 teens each year. That’s far fewer than there were in 1994. The school used to see 150 teens in summer session alone.
One reason is a cultural shift.
“I could not wait to get my license,” Brooke said. “It’s a little different today. They’re so connected to their phones. Driving and meeting up with someone is not as motivating as it used to be.”
But there are other reasons. A big one is cost.
A family can pay anywhere from $400 to more than $900 for driver ed, depending on where they go. Public school programs average $450. Or they can wait until they turn 18 and skip the training.
A new model?
Meanwhile, the Bellingham School District has found a way to return to the past.
The district dropped traffic safety in 2001. Starting this fall, high school students can take a traffic safety class as part of the regular school day — for free.
The aim is to “even the playing field a bit for students and families who find the cost daunting,” said Jeff Tetrick, director of career and technical education programs for the district.
Because a regular class period yields twice as many hours as required for a typical traffic safety program, staff decided to pair it with financial literacy. Besides the rules of the road, the “Traffic Safety and Financial Education” class will teach students such basics as how to make a budget and secure insurance.
The district is spending about $250,000 to start the program, including buying cars, and budgeting for $72,000 in ongoing costs, Tetrick said.
Aging instructors
Bellingham’s move is “revolutionary,” said Alex Hansen, president-elect of the Washington Traffic Safety Education Association.
“If this is the beginning of a trend in Washington, then it will be a wonderful thing,” Hansen said.
In Snohomish County, the few remaining traffic safety programs are holdovers.
Some are in rural areas, like Darrington, where a commercial company is unlikely to profit.
By contrast, school programs aim to break even, said Joni Morrell, a program manager at Northwest Educational Service District 189, which runs traffic safety programs for the Granite Falls and Snohomish school districts.
Mike Shepherd still teaches driver education in Lake Stevens. The program charges $435.
“As long as we can stay in the black, we can have the program and they’ll support it,” Shepherd said.
Beyond budget, most of the remaining local programs also have continued because of passionate instructors like Shepherd.
For those teachers, retirement is on the horizon.
The six instructors who head up Stanwood High School’s program, for example, average 30 years of experience. The program is one of the few to go beyond the state’s minimum standards, with four extra hours of classroom time and six additional hours in a vehicle.
What happens when they leave?
“At this point, we are committed to providing a comprehensive (traffic safety education) program if we have students who want it and we have people certified to teach the program,” said Carolyn Coombs, an assistant principal.
Role models
Waiting and seeing is part of the reason driver education in Washington is not further along, according to Hansen, the traffic safety education advocate.
While he’s skeptical that more changes will be quick to come, he is glad for Hayes’ work and the new curriculum that is coming.
Granite Falls High School traffic safety teacher Tony Helgeson agreed it’s long overdue. Some of the curriculum he uses dates to the 1980s.
Helgeson, who’s been in it for 19 years, says teachers get regular training with experts, use current supplements and are committed to doing the job right.
“We’re in it for education and to make sure they bring applicable skills to the road,” he said.
The new curriculum will expand on what those skills are.
The work reflects a shift in how we think of driving, said Christine Anthony, a spokeswoman for the Department of Licensing. “Namely that driving is a privilege and not a right.”
Still, a change in “our cultural attitudes about driving” also is needed among those of us who have the license to drive, writes Doug Dahl, Target Zero Manager for Whatcom County at The Wise Drive blog.
The top factors in crashes involving teen drivers in our state are speeding, impairment and distraction.
The top factors for experienced drivers? The same three.
“If we want our young people to be safer on the roads, we can start by giving them a better example,” he said.
Melissa Slager: streetsmarts@heraldnet.com; 425-339-3432.
Hey, drop the attitude! Driver’s education changes lanes
As driving classes make a comeback, state imposes new standards for school instruction.
- by Melissa Slager
- Sunday, June 10, 2018 7:31am
EVERETT — Teens learning to drive soon will have new lessons, ones that go well beyond the rules of the road.
New curriculum is under development that aims to teach teens to think critically about their attitudes and behaviors, and how those affect their driving.
“There’s really nothing in driver education about that right now,” said Angie Ward, a program manager for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. “What kind of driver are you? What things influence the way you drive? … What happens when you get on the road and somebody cuts you off?”
A specialist hired by the state Department of Licensing is putting together the list of core concepts, which likely will be rolled out over the next year.
The work is the result of a new state law that takes effect Aug. 1. Rep. Dave Hayes, R-Camano Island, was the chief sponsor.
The bill started elsewhere: as a way to hold public school programs better accountable by bringing them under the same oversight as commercial driving schools. The state Constitution prevents a full merger of those two programs, but the new bill seeks to at least bring consistency to a constantly evolving industry.
Traffic safety instructors and advocates see the move as a much-needed tune-up, and a signal of further changes to come.
Turning points
Driver education is coming back into favor after falling victim to a perfect storm of tight budgets, testing-focused school and academic studies questioning its effectiveness.
Arlington High School instructor James Brooke remembers when he started teaching driver ed in 1994.
Nearly every ninth-grader took the course. There were 45 hours of classroom time and seven hours behind the wheel. All for free, thanks to a pot of money filled by traffic fines.
“We had the best program in the United States,” Brooke said.
There’s no going back to that past, exactly.
But those tasked with achieving the state’s Target Zero goal (zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries by 2030) hope to beef up programs. It starts with bringing together the state’s two branches of driver education: public schools, overseen by the state superintendent’s office; and commercial schools, overseen by the Department of Licensing.
After curriculum, many see teacher training as the next step.
There’s a long list of ideas beyond that. What about a longer drive test? More behind-the-wheel time for students?
“We’re not done yet,” Hayes said.
The numbers
The need to make sure young people are ready to hit the road is apparent.
Crashes remain the leading cause of teen deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In 2017, there were 2,685 collisions involving drivers age 16-20 in Snohomish County, an increase of 10 percent over 2014, according to the Washington State Patrol. More than one-quarter of the crashes resulted in injuries.
While older studies questioned the effectiveness of driver education, newer research shows that good driver education programs help.
Oregon is one example. That state has a robust driver training program that is partially subsidized by license-related fees.
Recent statistics show that while there are more crashes overall, Oregon teens who had driver education were far less likely to be the ones involved. Previous studies also showed those teens were less likely to receive traffic citations.
A Nebraska study showed similar benefits.
Signal changes
Still, more teens are waiting to get their driver’s license.
Arlington High School is among the few Snohomish County high schools to still offer traffic safety. The school serves about 225 teens each year. That’s far fewer than there were in 1994. The school used to see 150 teens in summer session alone.
One reason is a cultural shift.
“I could not wait to get my license,” Brooke said. “It’s a little different today. They’re so connected to their phones. Driving and meeting up with someone is not as motivating as it used to be.”
But there are other reasons. A big one is cost.
A family can pay anywhere from $400 to more than $900 for driver ed, depending on where they go. Public school programs average $450. Or they can wait until they turn 18 and skip the training.
A new model?
Meanwhile, the Bellingham School District has found a way to return to the past.
The district dropped traffic safety in 2001. Starting this fall, high school students can take a traffic safety class as part of the regular school day — for free.
The aim is to “even the playing field a bit for students and families who find the cost daunting,” said Jeff Tetrick, director of career and technical education programs for the district.
Because a regular class period yields twice as many hours as required for a typical traffic safety program, staff decided to pair it with financial literacy. Besides the rules of the road, the “Traffic Safety and Financial Education” class will teach students such basics as how to make a budget and secure insurance.
The district is spending about $250,000 to start the program, including buying cars, and budgeting for $72,000 in ongoing costs, Tetrick said.
Aging instructors
Bellingham’s move is “revolutionary,” said Alex Hansen, president-elect of the Washington Traffic Safety Education Association.
“If this is the beginning of a trend in Washington, then it will be a wonderful thing,” Hansen said.
In Snohomish County, the few remaining traffic safety programs are holdovers.
Some are in rural areas, like Darrington, where a commercial company is unlikely to profit.
By contrast, school programs aim to break even, said Joni Morrell, a program manager at Northwest Educational Service District 189, which runs traffic safety programs for the Granite Falls and Snohomish school districts.
Mike Shepherd still teaches driver education in Lake Stevens. The program charges $435.
“As long as we can stay in the black, we can have the program and they’ll support it,” Shepherd said.
Beyond budget, most of the remaining local programs also have continued because of passionate instructors like Shepherd.
For those teachers, retirement is on the horizon.
The six instructors who head up Stanwood High School’s program, for example, average 30 years of experience. The program is one of the few to go beyond the state’s minimum standards, with four extra hours of classroom time and six additional hours in a vehicle.
What happens when they leave?
“At this point, we are committed to providing a comprehensive (traffic safety education) program if we have students who want it and we have people certified to teach the program,” said Carolyn Coombs, an assistant principal.
Role models
Waiting and seeing is part of the reason driver education in Washington is not further along, according to Hansen, the traffic safety education advocate.
While he’s skeptical that more changes will be quick to come, he is glad for Hayes’ work and the new curriculum that is coming.
Granite Falls High School traffic safety teacher Tony Helgeson agreed it’s long overdue. Some of the curriculum he uses dates to the 1980s.
Helgeson, who’s been in it for 19 years, says teachers get regular training with experts, use current supplements and are committed to doing the job right.
“We’re in it for education and to make sure they bring applicable skills to the road,” he said.
The new curriculum will expand on what those skills are.
The work reflects a shift in how we think of driving, said Christine Anthony, a spokeswoman for the Department of Licensing. “Namely that driving is a privilege and not a right.”
Still, a change in “our cultural attitudes about driving” also is needed among those of us who have the license to drive, writes Doug Dahl, Target Zero Manager for Whatcom County at The Wise Drive blog.
The top factors in crashes involving teen drivers in our state are speeding, impairment and distraction.
The top factors for experienced drivers? The same three.
“If we want our young people to be safer on the roads, we can start by giving them a better example,” he said.
Melissa Slager: streetsmarts@heraldnet.com; 425-339-3432.
May/2/18 - DOL WAC CR-101 filing on 308-108-150 - Curriculum Scheduling
April 12, 2018 Updates to 2018 Legislative Session
WTSC Bill Tracking
If you are interested in reading more information on all or any of these, please click on this LINK
If you are interested in reading more information on all or any of these, please click on this LINK
|
SHB2970
2ESHB1388
SSB6066
2SSB6189
|
AV
COM
DsD
DUI
LS
ND
OP
Ped|Bike
WZ
|
Autonomous Vehicle Work Group.
Health Care Authority
Tow Truck Driver Cell Phone Exemption.
Blomstrom, Pretrial Conditions.
DWLS 3rd.
Driver Training Education Curriculum.
Child Passenger Safety
Vulnerable Roadway Users.
Work Zones
|
Delivered to the Governor
Delivered to the Governor
DEAD
3-9 Delivered to Gov
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
Governor Signed
Effective 6/7/2018 Chapter 18, 2018 Laws |
May 5, 2015 - The Governor Signed ESHB 1481 into law on Friday 5-5-2017
|
On May 5th the governor signed ESHB 1481 into Law. Skeet Gaul and David Slipp were present at the signing of this significant bill. Many public school program coordinators, teachers and school administrators will need to know what this will mean to their programs. The WTSEA board will be planning a FREE (to WTSEA Members) 3-hour TSE Coordinator Workshop preceding this year’s conference to address this issue. On Friday afternoon, October 13th, from 1:00-4:00, the DOL, OSPI and WTSEA’s Alex Hansen will present a forum to inform and answer questions regarding the passage of this bill and how it will affect public school programs. Attendance at this workshop will be worth 3-clock hours. This WTSEA Conference Power Workshop is a courtesy to public school staff and programs, but you must register to attend. To register, go to “2017 WTSEA Conference Registration”
|
WTSEA Board members Skeet Gaul (far left) and Dave Slipp (far right) were present for Governor Inslee's signing of ESHB-1481 that brings oversight to
Public School TSE Programs |
April 9, 2017 - ESHB 1481 Passed the Senate!
The bill supported by WTSEA that provides uniformity in Traffic Safety Education has passed both the House and the Senate. It was amended in the Senate, so the House must accept those changes, and then it only awaits the Governor’s signature. The changes are mere technicalities, so it is highly likely the bill will pass and become law in April. If signed, the law will become effective August of 2018.
A LITTLE HISTORY
This bill was first sponsored by Representative Hayes in 2016 (HB 2770), after being approached by an instructor from his district, who was concerned that public schools do not have any oversight to ensure compliance. The DOL and OSPI have different sets of regulations and DOL cannot inspect public school records. OSPI has no auditing staff, so it can’t perform this function either. The need is to ensure that public schools receive oversight, just like the commercial driving schools have. The concept was to have DOL audit public school programs, as they do for commercial driver training schools. They already have the infrastructure and the auditors. Oversight would be uniform in both programs.
HB 2770 did not pass the House in 2016. It stalled in the Rules Committee. But, this suited Rep. Hayes, who knew that the bill needed more work. Rep. Hayes wanted to keep OSPI involved and did not want the bill to hurt public school programs or teachers. So, he assembled a group of stakeholders to advise him on needed changes to the bill before the 2017 session began.
WTSEA was invited as a stakeholder to provide input. Two WTSEA representatives attended a meeting in October and offered verbal input. Following that, detailed written input was submitted to Rep. Hayes. His new draft version was revealed in late December, just before the session began. WTSEA was disappointed, however, that few of its suggestions were reflected in the new bill, which was introduced as HB 1481. Only one suggestion was heeded, that of including CWU, along with DOL, in a cooperative effort to upgrade the Washington State TSE curriculum. To our disappointment however, OSPI was not included in this discussion.
WTSEA built a policy page on its website to inform members of the bill, and of our position. We had five general objections. Most importantly, we wanted the bill to support hiring experienced staff at OSPI, and we objected to the provision that public school teachers would have to be licensed by the DOL in order to continue to teach TSE in the public schools. Whether they were certificated or conditional teachers, their certificates would not be honored. Hayes attempted to amend his bill twice to address these issues, but failed to satisfy our concerns. So, WTSEA opposed the bill in testimony before the House Transportation committee on January 30. The amended bill, SHB 1481, passed the committee on February 20, and was sent to the Rules Committee.
While it waited there to be “pulled” to the House floor for consideration, other legislators and organizations were receiving input mirroring WTSEA’s objections. The WEA’s chief lobbyist alerted the Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA). A member of that group, Christine Kilduff from University Place, was also a legislator. She had also received a letter of concern from a teacher in her district who had been informed through WTSEA’s website and our communications. Rep. Kilduff contacted the teacher, and then decided to write a striker amendment, which struck the requirement that certificated teachers would need to be licensed by the DOL. Moreover, OSPI was added to the agencies to work cooperatively on the curriculum guide with DOL and CWU. This amendment was submitted to Rep. Hayes in the 11th hour, just before the bill was up for a vote in the House. Hayes accepted the amended language, and the new version of the bill, ESHB1481, passed 96-1 on March 7. WTSEA was delighted and changed its position, now in support of the bill, as it passed over to the Senate.
WTSEA testified in favor of the new bill, ESHB 1481, in the hearing before the Senate Transportation Committee on March 27. It passed unanimously and was sent to the Senate Rules Committee. Subsequently, the bill made it through Rules and was considered by the full Senate, passing 43-4 on April 7. Two amendments were added in the Senate version (including language WTSEA suggested to allow for private secondary schools to offer TSE, and language allowing the course to be taught in the mornings). That amended language will have to be sent back to the House for concurrence the week of April 13. If it passes, as we believe it will, the bill will be sent to the Governor for his signature to make the bill law. We expect that to happen by late April.
WTSEA is delighted to support the bill. But, we still have one concern. Our job of advocating is not yet finished.
WE STILL NEED YOUR HELP
WE STILL NEED YOUR HELP
Part of the bill mandates that OSPI, CWU and the DOL work together to create a comprehensive curriculum for both commercial and public school programs. It mandates that this curriculum be created in one year. Further, OSPI retains a significant role in administering TSE and in assisting school districts in the conduct of their programs. But how can OSPI execute this mandate with no experienced staff on board? DOL requested 5.6 FTEs to carry out their new role, while OSPI requested only $20,000, which is inadequate. The bill might pass, but the legislature still needs to include funding for staffing in its budget, which is to be considered soon. This brings us to your part in this process.
We need each of you to contact your legislators and thank them for voting “Yes” on this bill (With the exception of these senators who voted against: Honeyford, Baumgartner, Rivers, and Short; and Representative Taylor in the House).
But, just as importantly, we need you to respectfully request your legislator, regardless of their vote, to support adequate funding in the budget.
We have prepared a message (below) with ideas for you to use. Just follow this link and send part or all of the message to your legislator.
Dear Senator/Representative,
I want to thank you for your support of ESHB 1481 - creating uniformity in driver training education programs. Your vote was very encouraging.
There will now be uniform auditing of TSE programs in all public, private, and commercial driving school programs. Three agencies (OSPI, DOL and CWU) will now cooperate to update our curriculum and teacher-training programs.
There is only one thing left to do: That is to properly fund this legislation so it doesn't become another unfunded mandate. I hope you will be able to work with colleagues to find a way to make sure that staff is provided at OSPI, as well as at DOL, to perform the work envisioned in this bill.
For the OSPI staff member, may I suggest a dedicated fund created by a surcharge on traffic tickets? This would be much better than the General Fund, for this program. Violators, not taxpayers, should fund a program that helps produce safer drivers. I like that concept!
Again, Thank You
I want to thank you for your support of ESHB 1481 - creating uniformity in driver training education programs. Your vote was very encouraging.
There will now be uniform auditing of TSE programs in all public, private, and commercial driving school programs. Three agencies (OSPI, DOL and CWU) will now cooperate to update our curriculum and teacher-training programs.
There is only one thing left to do: That is to properly fund this legislation so it doesn't become another unfunded mandate. I hope you will be able to work with colleagues to find a way to make sure that staff is provided at OSPI, as well as at DOL, to perform the work envisioned in this bill.
For the OSPI staff member, may I suggest a dedicated fund created by a surcharge on traffic tickets? This would be much better than the General Fund, for this program. Violators, not taxpayers, should fund a program that helps produce safer drivers. I like that concept!
Again, Thank You
March 12, 2017 - Summary of ESHB 1481
ESHB 1481 passed the House on March 7, and on March 10 it was sent to the Senate Transportation Committee. It has yet to be scheduled for a public hearing. That may happen this coming week of March 13, or next week at the latest.
Here is a link to ESHB 1481. It has been assigned to Senate Transportation but not yet scheduled for a hearing. There is not a fiscal note for this version yet. There probably won’t be until it gets scheduled.
Under ESHB 1481, public school TSE teachers will not have to be double licensed under the DOL. It will allow school districts who have on-staff TSE teachers to keep them with existing requirements, including conditional teachers.
The current OSPI system will be in place and if a district contracts with a private company, those teachers will have to meet similar standards. Ultimately it moves the auditing requirements to DOL. The bill goes into effect Aug.1, 2018. It mandates that the DOL work with OSPI on the transfer and coordination of responsibilities as outlined in the bill.
The current OSPI system will be in place and if a district contracts with a private company, those teachers will have to meet similar standards. Ultimately it moves the auditing requirements to DOL. The bill goes into effect Aug.1, 2018. It mandates that the DOL work with OSPI on the transfer and coordination of responsibilities as outlined in the bill.
Both DOL and OSPI will submit information for the fiscal note to fund the work outlined in the bill.
Below is the explanation provided to legislators in the House as to the changes in the bill:
Makes the following changes to driver training education provided by school districts and commercial driver training schools:
- (1) Strikes all changes to driver training education made in the original bill; (This is legislative code that a brand new bill is moving forward, ESHB 1481.)
- (2) Requires a school district that offers a driver training education course to certify to the Department of Licensing (DOL) that it is operating a traffic safety education program that meets certain curriculum, instructor, record retention, and accuracy in reporting requirements;
- (3) Mandates that DOL develop and administer a certification process for a school district's traffic safety education program in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Superintendent);
- (4) Requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and DOL to jointly develop and maintain a required curriculum for school districts and commercial driver training schools operating a traffic safety education program in consultation with Central Washington University's traffic safety education program staff by August 1, 2018;
- (5) Mandates that a school district that offers a traffic safety education program maintain certain specified records on program instructors and students for three years that must be made available for inspection at the request of OSPI or DOL;
- (6) Permits the Superintendent to require the retention of additional program documents subject to inspection by OSPI or DOL;
- (7) Requires DOL to conduct audits of traffic safety education programs, in consultation with the Superintendent, to verify that curriculum, instructor, record keeping, and accuracy in reporting requirements are being met a minimum of once every five years;
- (8) Authorizes DOL to suspend a school's or school district’s traffic safety education program certification, in consultation with the Superintendent, if the school or school district does not meet curriculum, instructor, record keeping, or accuracy in reporting requirements, or if it fails to cooperate with the audit process;
- (9) Restricts enrollment in a school district driver education course to individuals at least 15 years of age, and restricts behind-the-wheel instruction to individuals who possess an instruction permit or driver's license; and
- (10) Eliminates the requirement that commercial driver training school instructors retake an instructor licensing examination when renewing a license, so long as submission of the license renewal application occurs within six months of the date the previous instructor license expired.
Following are some questions members have raised regarding the bill’s language: (We are seeking clarification)
1) What is the interpretation of Section 3 (2) (b) on page 4, lines 24-27. Under this language, is a public-school TSE program
prohibited from teaching the course, or BTW instruction “before regular school hours” in the morning, or on Sundays?
2) Also, do Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 on pages 10-18 apply to public-school TSE programs or teachers, since they are not
businesses and are not commercial driver training schools?
3) Will OSPI be writing new rules (WACs) for the public school programs to accommodate provisions of this new bill?
4) What records will be required of public school TSE programs and will forms be provided?
5) How will OSPI and DOL inform public school TSE coordinators of the new requirements and prepare them to be successful
during the audits?
6) When can public school TSE programs expect to be audited and how will they be informed?
7) What will the consequences be if minor issues are discovered and what is the appeal process?
8) The standards for a satisfactory driving record are different between the DOL (RCW 46.82.330 (2) and OSPI
(WAC 392-153-010 (2). Most believe the DOL standard is too low (Section 10, lines 32-38, page 14), and the OSPI
standard is too strict. What will be done to reconcile these differences so a uniform standard can be created?
prohibited from teaching the course, or BTW instruction “before regular school hours” in the morning, or on Sundays?
2) Also, do Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 on pages 10-18 apply to public-school TSE programs or teachers, since they are not
businesses and are not commercial driver training schools?
3) Will OSPI be writing new rules (WACs) for the public school programs to accommodate provisions of this new bill?
4) What records will be required of public school TSE programs and will forms be provided?
5) How will OSPI and DOL inform public school TSE coordinators of the new requirements and prepare them to be successful
during the audits?
6) When can public school TSE programs expect to be audited and how will they be informed?
7) What will the consequences be if minor issues are discovered and what is the appeal process?
8) The standards for a satisfactory driving record are different between the DOL (RCW 46.82.330 (2) and OSPI
(WAC 392-153-010 (2). Most believe the DOL standard is too low (Section 10, lines 32-38, page 14), and the OSPI
standard is too strict. What will be done to reconcile these differences so a uniform standard can be created?
Let WTSEA know if you have further questions or concerns.
March 8, 2017: Update on SHB 1481 (Now ESHB 1481)
If SHB 1481 passes the House the week of March 6, it will be moved to the Senate and most likely be assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee the week of March 13. At that time, another public hearing will afford you an/or your school district, the opportunity to testify on the bill in Olympia.
If SHB 1481 does not pass, it will "die" for this session. Then, the sponsor, Rep. Hayes, will most likely try again next year.
Our Board has studied and discussed the bill, and still sees problems with it, even after it has been amended. Attached is a list of our concerns, "Bullet Points in Opposition to SHB 1481." It is in pdf form, so you can download and send it to your school district, your legislators, etc.
We would like to have clearer direction from you, our members, especially if the bill moves on to the Senate from the House of Representatives.
If SHB 1481 does not pass, it will "die" for this session. Then, the sponsor, Rep. Hayes, will most likely try again next year.
Our Board has studied and discussed the bill, and still sees problems with it, even after it has been amended. Attached is a list of our concerns, "Bullet Points in Opposition to SHB 1481." It is in pdf form, so you can download and send it to your school district, your legislators, etc.
We would like to have clearer direction from you, our members, especially if the bill moves on to the Senate from the House of Representatives.
Please go to our website and take our survey at the following link:
http://www.wtsea.com/SHB-1481-Survey.html
It is an anonymous survey. We will collate the results in order to learn if the Board is going in the right direction. Your feedback is important.
Please feel free to use the comment section of our website on the Contact Us page in order to provide feedback, or to ask a question.
There is current info and older info about the bill on our website:
http://www.wtsea.com/legislative.html
You may also track the progress of the bill and read all relevant information pertaining to it, listen to public testimony, and contact your legislators regarding the bill at this link:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1481&Year=2017
Be sure to keep checking the "Current News" page for further updates as this bill moves itself through the Legislature.
http://www.wtsea.com/SHB-1481-Survey.html
It is an anonymous survey. We will collate the results in order to learn if the Board is going in the right direction. Your feedback is important.
Please feel free to use the comment section of our website on the Contact Us page in order to provide feedback, or to ask a question.
There is current info and older info about the bill on our website:
http://www.wtsea.com/legislative.html
You may also track the progress of the bill and read all relevant information pertaining to it, listen to public testimony, and contact your legislators regarding the bill at this link:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1481&Year=2017
Be sure to keep checking the "Current News" page for further updates as this bill moves itself through the Legislature.
March 03, 2017 - Update on the Progress of SHB 1481
• On February 28, SHB 1481 was approved by the Rules Committee to proceed to the House floor for the Second Reading. It is in line behind several other bills for debate and consideration on the floor.
• That can happen any time between now and March 8 (next Wednesday) at 5:00 p.m.
• If you haven’t already done so, it would be important to send your two representatives a message indicating how you wish them to vote.
• If SHB 1481 does not pass, it will “die” for this session. Then, the sponsor, Rep. Hayes, will most likely try again next year.
• If SHB 1481 passes the House, it will be moved to the Senate and most likely be assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee the week of March 13. At that time, another public hearing will afford you, or your school district, the opportunity to testify on the bill in Olympia.
• That can happen any time between now and March 8 (next Wednesday) at 5:00 p.m.
• If you haven’t already done so, it would be important to send your two representatives a message indicating how you wish them to vote.
• If SHB 1481 does not pass, it will “die” for this session. Then, the sponsor, Rep. Hayes, will most likely try again next year.
• If SHB 1481 passes the House, it will be moved to the Senate and most likely be assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee the week of March 13. At that time, another public hearing will afford you, or your school district, the opportunity to testify on the bill in Olympia.
WTSEA's Position on SHB 1481
Five Bullet Points Explaining Why SHB 1481 is Bad Policy for Washington State:
SHB 1481 seeks to do the right thing, but in the wrong way. Yes, it attempts to provide a
mechanism for oversight of public school Traffic Safety Education (TSE) programs that
haven’t had any since the Legislature cut the funding in 2002. It also hopes to create more
uniformity by designating one primary agency, the DOL, to provide oversight to both public
school and commercial driver training schools. Good intention. Wrong mechanism. Why?
SHB 1481 seeks to do the right thing, but in the wrong way. Yes, it attempts to provide a
mechanism for oversight of public school Traffic Safety Education (TSE) programs that
haven’t had any since the Legislature cut the funding in 2002. It also hopes to create more
uniformity by designating one primary agency, the DOL, to provide oversight to both public
school and commercial driver training schools. Good intention. Wrong mechanism. Why?
1) Unfunded Mandate - Rightly so, the bill recognizes that public schools are not businesses and
have unique features that require OSPI to remain involved in the administration of public
school TSE programs. Accordingly, the bill retains a significant administrative role for OSPI in
RCW 28A.220.030 and elsewhere. Yet, there is no funding provided for staff to carry out that
role. The fiscal note includes a request for 4.7 FTEs at DOL, and none for OSPI. Therefore, the
bill remains an unfunded mandate, and the language referring to OSPI’s role, and CWU’s role in
curriculum development, are meaningless and unacceptable. The same objectives can be
achieved with less fiscal impact simply by funding 2-3 FTEs at OSPI. (And this can be done so
from a dedicated account source from traffic tickets, so as not to put pressure on funding basic
education) The Legislature should fix what it broke in 2002 by funding the mandate of 28A.220.
have unique features that require OSPI to remain involved in the administration of public
school TSE programs. Accordingly, the bill retains a significant administrative role for OSPI in
RCW 28A.220.030 and elsewhere. Yet, there is no funding provided for staff to carry out that
role. The fiscal note includes a request for 4.7 FTEs at DOL, and none for OSPI. Therefore, the
bill remains an unfunded mandate, and the language referring to OSPI’s role, and CWU’s role in
curriculum development, are meaningless and unacceptable. The same objectives can be
achieved with less fiscal impact simply by funding 2-3 FTEs at OSPI. (And this can be done so
from a dedicated account source from traffic tickets, so as not to put pressure on funding basic
education) The Legislature should fix what it broke in 2002 by funding the mandate of 28A.220.
2) DOL - Wrong Agency for a Public School Program - Regulatory Mindset vs Education Mindset -
The bill will absolutely fail to produce the “quality” program it envisions because DOL auditors
are not educators. The DOL is a regulatory agency with a regulatory, business and driver-
licensing mindset. They lack an education mindset. This is a well-known weakness pronounced
by the commercial driving schools under DOL authority, and is even recognized by the sponsor,
Rep. Hayes, himself. The DOL has no skill or experience in teaching or education, yet they are
assigned responsibility for curriculum development and management of teaching and learning.
There is little confidence that the DOL will be able to hire an appropriate curriculum expert
because the salary offered will be too low to attract a properly qualified person, assuming the
Legislature appropriates the requested FTE in the first place.
The bill will absolutely fail to produce the “quality” program it envisions because DOL auditors
are not educators. The DOL is a regulatory agency with a regulatory, business and driver-
licensing mindset. They lack an education mindset. This is a well-known weakness pronounced
by the commercial driving schools under DOL authority, and is even recognized by the sponsor,
Rep. Hayes, himself. The DOL has no skill or experience in teaching or education, yet they are
assigned responsibility for curriculum development and management of teaching and learning.
There is little confidence that the DOL will be able to hire an appropriate curriculum expert
because the salary offered will be too low to attract a properly qualified person, assuming the
Legislature appropriates the requested FTE in the first place.
3) Nullification of a TSE teacher’s certificate – This bill effectively nullifies the ability of a TSE
teacher to teach in a public school under the certificate already gained. It changes the rules on
current teachers by requiring them to be “double licensed,” paying renewal fees to two agencies
to teach in one public school program. This is wrong for three reasons. One, it treats a TSE
endorsement differently than other subject matter endorsements. It singles out a TSE teacher
to serve two masters for the authority to teach in a public school where they are already
certificated to teach under that endorsement legally, while other endorsements are not subject
to such a requirement for a separate license. It is not OK to treat a public school TSE teacher as
if they are working for a business, when they are not. The DOL authority over licensing of
business professionals under Chapter 18.235 RCW is applicable to businesses and professionals
working for private businesses, not for public school certified teachers. Second, anytime a new
rule comes into effect (i.e. a change in certification and renewal requirements), the state has
always applied the new certification rules only to new teachers becoming certified on or after
the effective date of the new rules, allowing them to continue to teach if they meet the
requirements of the certificate they originally held. This is the purpose and function of a
“grandfather clause.” Continually, Rep. Hayes has professed his intention to “keep whole” public
school teachers. Only a true grandfather clause would do that. But, the grandfather clause in
SHB 1481 is only for two years, 2018 to 2020. Third, the stipulation to have public school
teachers become licensed by the DOL is unnecessary. Since the bill gives DOL auditing and
program approval authority over public school TSE programs, all it has to do is refuse to grant
program approval. If that is denied, the teacher can’t teach TSE anyhow. Further, the DOL can
refuse to renew program approval so long as an offending teacher is allowed by a school district
to teach TSE. Finally, since the public school teacher is teaching under the authority of the
OSPI granted certificate, then that is the agency to apply appropriate discipline through the
Office of Professional Practice, not DOL.
teacher to teach in a public school under the certificate already gained. It changes the rules on
current teachers by requiring them to be “double licensed,” paying renewal fees to two agencies
to teach in one public school program. This is wrong for three reasons. One, it treats a TSE
endorsement differently than other subject matter endorsements. It singles out a TSE teacher
to serve two masters for the authority to teach in a public school where they are already
certificated to teach under that endorsement legally, while other endorsements are not subject
to such a requirement for a separate license. It is not OK to treat a public school TSE teacher as
if they are working for a business, when they are not. The DOL authority over licensing of
business professionals under Chapter 18.235 RCW is applicable to businesses and professionals
working for private businesses, not for public school certified teachers. Second, anytime a new
rule comes into effect (i.e. a change in certification and renewal requirements), the state has
always applied the new certification rules only to new teachers becoming certified on or after
the effective date of the new rules, allowing them to continue to teach if they meet the
requirements of the certificate they originally held. This is the purpose and function of a
“grandfather clause.” Continually, Rep. Hayes has professed his intention to “keep whole” public
school teachers. Only a true grandfather clause would do that. But, the grandfather clause in
SHB 1481 is only for two years, 2018 to 2020. Third, the stipulation to have public school
teachers become licensed by the DOL is unnecessary. Since the bill gives DOL auditing and
program approval authority over public school TSE programs, all it has to do is refuse to grant
program approval. If that is denied, the teacher can’t teach TSE anyhow. Further, the DOL can
refuse to renew program approval so long as an offending teacher is allowed by a school district
to teach TSE. Finally, since the public school teacher is teaching under the authority of the
OSPI granted certificate, then that is the agency to apply appropriate discipline through the
Office of Professional Practice, not DOL.
4) Unequal treatment of Conditional Teachers - The bill also treats conditionally certified
teachers differently, requiring them to meet all of the requirements of 46.82.330, while
exempting the requirements of paragraphs (2) (d) and (e) only for a teacher certified under
28A.410 “with a regular certificate who has obtained a traffic safety endorsement or a letter of
approval to teach traffic safety education from the superintendent of public instruction.”(Page
8, line 13) This is also unfair, as it treats one class of teachers (conditional teachers) differently
than others, even though they have already received training that meets or exceeds the
requirements of paragraph (d). Once again, the rules are being changed for teachers who have
already met current requirements. Such treatment of OSPI certificated teachers in the public
schools, barring them from being able to teach according to the certificates they already hold is
unprecedented. This should not even be legal to do, but even if it is, as the code reviser claims,
it doesn’t meet Rep. Hayes’ self-proclaimed goal of keeping teachers “whole.” The implications
of this language are catastrophic to a TSE program which relies on conditional teachers to
offer a TSE program. The burden of time and expense to be retrained will be prohibitive.
teachers differently, requiring them to meet all of the requirements of 46.82.330, while
exempting the requirements of paragraphs (2) (d) and (e) only for a teacher certified under
28A.410 “with a regular certificate who has obtained a traffic safety endorsement or a letter of
approval to teach traffic safety education from the superintendent of public instruction.”(Page
8, line 13) This is also unfair, as it treats one class of teachers (conditional teachers) differently
than others, even though they have already received training that meets or exceeds the
requirements of paragraph (d). Once again, the rules are being changed for teachers who have
already met current requirements. Such treatment of OSPI certificated teachers in the public
schools, barring them from being able to teach according to the certificates they already hold is
unprecedented. This should not even be legal to do, but even if it is, as the code reviser claims,
it doesn’t meet Rep. Hayes’ self-proclaimed goal of keeping teachers “whole.” The implications
of this language are catastrophic to a TSE program which relies on conditional teachers to
offer a TSE program. The burden of time and expense to be retrained will be prohibitive.
5) It Nullifies the need for anyone to take the CWU Endorsement Courses, thus ultimately
Ending Public School TSE Programs - If one can simply receive a DOL license under 46.82.330
by taking DOL-approved course of merely 60 hours at a current cost of approximately $500, why
would anyone take a series of four rigorous, university accredited courses at the current expense
of $4,000 for 14 credits (140 hours) of training? This bill will kill the demand for those courses.
Once the endorsement courses are no longer being offered (currently only in the summers by
CWU), OSPI has already declared they will cancel the TSE endorsement. This will have the effect
of killing the public school TSE programs over time. It will also degrade the quality of teacher
training in our state. Those two consequences ought to be rendered unacceptable. It becomes a
safety issue. The bill must be amended to prevent this domino-effect from taking place.
Ending Public School TSE Programs - If one can simply receive a DOL license under 46.82.330
by taking DOL-approved course of merely 60 hours at a current cost of approximately $500, why
would anyone take a series of four rigorous, university accredited courses at the current expense
of $4,000 for 14 credits (140 hours) of training? This bill will kill the demand for those courses.
Once the endorsement courses are no longer being offered (currently only in the summers by
CWU), OSPI has already declared they will cancel the TSE endorsement. This will have the effect
of killing the public school TSE programs over time. It will also degrade the quality of teacher
training in our state. Those two consequences ought to be rendered unacceptable. It becomes a
safety issue. The bill must be amended to prevent this domino-effect from taking place.
February 28, 2017 - Update on the Progress of HB 1481 (Now SHB 1481)
SHB 1481 - 2017-18
Creating uniformity in driver training education provided by school districts and commercial driver training schools.Sponsors: Hayes, Bergquist
Please use this link to view the bill, listen to the Public Hearing and the Executive Session, and to track the bill’s progress:
As of this date (February 28, 2017), SHB 1481 is in the Rules Committee of the House.
• The public hearing was on January 30.
• Following that, Representative Hayes experimented with several amendments, attempting to address the concerns over the requirements to license public school teachers under DOL authority.
• On February 20, the amendment was published and the new bill, SHB 1481, was voted on in the Executive Session of the House Transportation Committee. Representative Hayes explained his amendments, which were approved and substituted into the bill, and the bill passed unanimously in the committee. Chairwoman Clibborn thanked Rep. Hayes for addressing the concerns of the teachers and praised the bill as a good bill, encouraging its passage. It isn’t quite true that the “concerns” of teachers were completely addressed.
• On January 25, the WTSEA board reviewed and discussed the new bill with amendments and voted 10-0 (with one abstention, and two not present) to oppose the new bill.
• WTSEA has five specific objections to the bill, as outlined in the document below, “Bullet Points in Opposition to SHB 1481.”
• Members are encouraged to share the document with their school districts and their respective legislators. You may use this link to look up your representatives:
• Following that, Representative Hayes experimented with several amendments, attempting to address the concerns over the requirements to license public school teachers under DOL authority.
• On February 20, the amendment was published and the new bill, SHB 1481, was voted on in the Executive Session of the House Transportation Committee. Representative Hayes explained his amendments, which were approved and substituted into the bill, and the bill passed unanimously in the committee. Chairwoman Clibborn thanked Rep. Hayes for addressing the concerns of the teachers and praised the bill as a good bill, encouraging its passage. It isn’t quite true that the “concerns” of teachers were completely addressed.
• On January 25, the WTSEA board reviewed and discussed the new bill with amendments and voted 10-0 (with one abstention, and two not present) to oppose the new bill.
• WTSEA has five specific objections to the bill, as outlined in the document below, “Bullet Points in Opposition to SHB 1481.”
• Members are encouraged to share the document with their school districts and their respective legislators. You may use this link to look up your representatives: