Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 08:35 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to educational programs and services
for children with disabilities and other exceptional
children and to persons with a handicap; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Larson noted that members had received a letter
from Marc Grober, Attorney addressing concerns regarding HB
235 (Attachment 2).
MYRA HOWE, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION presented the members with a written response to
Mr. Grober's concerns (Attachment 3). She explained that
5
the State is required to submit an annual plan describing
how Alaska will serve exceptional children. The State has
received conditional approval of their FY 92 - 94 plan.
Statutory and regulatory changes are needed to bring the
state into compliance with federal law. The State will lose
$8.3 million federal dollars if compliance is not met.
Ms. Howe referred to section 8. She noted that the
Department must allow for a parent hearing upon denial for
placement of a child in special education services.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-78, Side 2)
Ms. Howe reviewed HB 235. She noted that in section 21,
rehabilitation services is added to the definition of
related services. Section 23 adds two new categories of
autism and traumatic brain injury. The definition of
education records has been expanded. Other changes have
clarify language to assure clearer authority of the
Department of Education.
Co-Chair Larson provided members with Amendment 1: "Each
school district shall develop an individualized education
program for every exceptional child" (Attachment 4).
Ms. Howe clarified, in response to a question from Co-Chair
MacLean, that there is no federal requirement for a three
year reevaluation of students. The Department has opted for
a three year review to reestablish eligibility. If a child
upon reevaluation is found to no longer meet the criteria
they will be allowed to finish their current program.
Representative Martin noted the costs associated with
keeping exceptional children at a high level. He asked how
the cost of evaluation compares to the cost of the programs.
Ms. Howe could not answer. She noted that there is an
annual evaluation requirement.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the use of "shall" vs.
"may" in Amendment 1. Ms. Howe replied that school
districts could create a criteria so high as to not have any
"gifted" students.
Co-Chair Larson reiterated Representative Grussendorf's
question regarding the use of "shall". Ms. Howe stressed
that regulation already requires that each school district
have a program for exceptional children.
Ms. Howe explained, in response to a question by
Representative Parnell, that the school districts submit
plans for their programs to the Department of Education.
The general standard is for IQ's of 130 and above.
6
Representative Grussendorf expressed the opinion that IQ
tests are culturally biased.
WILLY ANDERSON, NEA-ALASKA expressed support for HB 235. He
stressed that the State will lose $8.3 million dollars in
federal funds if HB 235 is not adopted.
Representative Martin complained that "exceptional" children
programs can be misused by school districts.
Co-Chair Larson noted that the only opposition to HB 235 was
based on the fear that gifted and talented programs which
are provided for in regulation may be discontinued. He
explained that Amendment 1 would guarantee that programs are
continued. Co-Chair Larson MOVED to ADOPT, Amendment 1.
Representative Martin questioned the use of "every"
exceptional child. He felt that there would be an increase
cost to the State.
Ms. Howe clarified that Amendment 1 would not change current
practice. She noted that "gifted children" is defined by
each school district. Representative Martin noted that
"gifted" and "talented" are defined in HB 235.
Representative Martin OBJECTED to Amendment 1. A roll call
vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Parnell, Foster, Larson, MacLean
OPPOSED: Martin, Grussendorf, Hanley
Representatives Therriault, Brown and Hoffman were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
Representative Hanley noted that the definition of "gifted
and talented" children does not include all the previous
categories. Ms. Howe explained that the Department was
advised by the Department of Law to not include each
specific category in statute. The Department of Law advised
that it would be better to address specific requirements
through regulations.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that parents
"brow beat" school districts to allow their children in the
gifted and talented programs. Representative Martin agreed.
Co-Chair MacLean MOVED to report CSHB 235 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
7
CSHB 235 was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Education, dated 3/24/93.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|