Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/15/1999 03:08 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 70 - PUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEYS Number 1996 CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 70, "An Act relating to questionnaires or surveys administered in public schools." Number 2029 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON explained that HB 98 amended the code to create ASA 14.03.110 in 1979. At that time, Av Gross, the Attorney General, interpreted that bill to say: "The use of broadly based anonymous surveys of school-aged children to determine the frequency of alcohol, drugs and child abuse tools used in the efficiency of a government programs would be precluded by the bill." When the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) was done last year, there was some consternation in some places in the state. It asked the question if parents needed to be in the loop and did their permission for their children to participate need to be active or passive. Passive permission means if the school doesn't hear from the parents, it is presumed to be okay. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated that constituents asked that this legislation address and clarify the legal position. The first attempt was to insert the word "personal" so it would read "personal family matters" into the code, but the DHSS said that would make it too tough to get the survey done. They worked together and came up with HB 70 which allows a one-time-per-year blanket parental approval for their children to participate in anonymous surveys. The parents would still be notified before the survey is given. The department will still say that it is too tough, and the logistics of it will preclude it happening, and some districts will opt out. They only need one-eighth of the student population in order for the survey to be valid. He contends that most school districts will be easily able to identify the children who have the annual blanket permission. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 70, version 1-LSO263\G, Ford, 4/6/99, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version G was before the committee. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON noted the DHSS has told him the raw data gathered is valuable. He agreed it is of some value to find the magnitude of the students' social problems, and there are funding streams available if the state has participated in gathering this data. He is not against the survey but wants the parents to be actively involved in the process. He noted that in Sitka, after they chose active parental permission, they now have groups of parents and students who meet to discuss and deal with some of the problems illuminated by the survey. TAPE 99-37, SIDE B Number 2181 MARY ROSENZWEIG, Executive Director, Substance Abuse Directors Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She thanked the committee for understanding the importance of the YRBS. The YRBS is the only good standard they have to target prevention programs and to measure how well their programs are working. She noted that she didn't have a copy of the proposed CS in front of her but said the blanket permission really adds to no value except that it is administratively burdensome and introduces an element of bias to the study. No one really knows about the children whose parents checked the no box. They don't know if the parents were just in a bad mood that day or if they always say no when presented with this type of question. They wonder if the children who don't participate in the study are more or less likely to have risk behaviors. They just won't know about those children. MS. ROSENZWEIG offered their support for the second part of the amended version which makes parents more involved. Parent involvement is paramount to substance abuse prevention. If parents see this study presented to them, and they don't want their children to participate, even though the association would like to have that data, they believe the parents have the right to say no. They are in support of amending the bill to require that parents be given notice of the survey and that parents be given the opportunity to refuse to have their child participate. That will allow for parent involvement and continued data collection. Number 2065 ANDREE McLEOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage as a parent. She supports whatever bill they put forth that will ask parents to give written permission. She wants to know whenever her child is going to be asked questions that deals with his behavior or anything else; then she can teach him about privacy matters, who to divulge that information to, what kind of information to divulge; it is her responsibility, duty and right. She has a lot of information she would like to send to them, including a resolution that the Anchorage Assembly passed, a joint meeting of the Anchorage school board and assembly, where Bob Christal, Superintendent of the Anchorage School District, reported that the municipal Health Department and the state of Alaska are the primary beneficiaries of this survey [YRBS] and not the schools. He stressed that it is an issue that the district gets very little benefit from. He added that if the survey is done, it will be at the request of groups outside the district that need this information. This is nothing to do with education. It diminishes the study time of students. They already have to be assessed to get their diplomas. This only gets in the way. MS. McLEOD referred to a letter from Marjorie Speers, Ph. D., Deputy Associate Director for Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, to Dr. John Middaugh in the state epidemiologist office. Dr. Speers states that the YRBS is not even research, it is just for the state to know the numbers. MS. McLEOD believes that the boundaries for privacy are being disregarded and violated. The law states simply that schools have to get written parental permission for field trips, school activities and immunizations. "All of a sudden, written permission is being scrutinized as to what it means. It's not scrutinized for a field trip. Kids stay in school if they don't have permission. They don't go to a school activity, they can't belong to one because written permission isn't there. But all of a sudden now it's okay not to have written permission. It'll be okay to say no. The right thing to do is to put in whatever bill to protect the rights of parents and families to privacy." Another way to get this information is through a key informant survey which is more reliable and cheaper. She said she also has paperwork that follows the money trail. The federal law states that the prior written consent of the parent is needed to protect pupil rights. She believes that the state has not been doing it right, and she urged the committee to get it right. Number 1872 DEE HUBBARD testified via teleconference from Anchorage as a parent. She told the committee that there are other surveys being done in schools that parents don't find out about until after the fact. She brought their attention to the letter in the packets from Marti Hughes which talked about what happened to her son's high school class last year. Parents don't know how many other surveys are out there, but they would like to know because they are paying for them. She agreed that there often is a problem in a student-teacher relationship where students won't say no if they are given a choice to participate in a survey. In Anchorage schools, if there is no parent permission the child will not go on a field trip. MS. HUBBARD had seen the YRBS after the fact in 1995 and asked the middle school principal if she would have let her child take this survey, and the principal said "Absolutely not." Ms. Hubbard's husband was furious when he saw the survey. He commented that it reminded him of when he attended the Bureau of Indian Affairs school and was subjected to pervasive surveys and questions where they had no choice but to answer them. MS. HUBBARD referred to the statement last week that they are missing the children they really want to survey. She wonders if the survey is targeting certain groups of children. She would like an answer to know how the targeting is being done. Finally, as a parent, she has not turned the right of educating her children over to the state. She is a taxpayer, a property owner and she wants to know what she is paying for. Irrespective of who is administering this survey, she is paying for it. She wants the right to be able to say yes or no. She would most likely say no to a blanket permission at the time of registration. Number 1686 DIANE ETTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage as a parent. She is in favor of any measure that gives parents active permission before any survey. She feels parents need control over some part of their children's lives. A survey is totally non-academic part of school. There should be no reason it would be imposed without active parental permission. In addition, she favors any measure that would cut down on unnecessary, non-academic activities taking up classroom instructional time. The erosion in classroom instructional time is a huge concern for her. Already there are in-service days, half days during parent-teacher conferences, shortened days for school assemblies, time taken in class to register for next year's classes and fill out teacher evaluations, time to take standardized tests, the upcoming benchmark exams and exit exams. She is concerned that they are losing instructional time in huge chunks, and she strongly objects to administering any survey in school that would further erode instructional time when it is something unrelated to academics. Parents must have active parental consent to help control this trend and to be fully aware of each survey given to their children. She suggested doing the surveys somewhere else besides in school like shopping malls, state fairs, sporting events and any number of places to get large groups of children in a random sampling. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON explained that this bill allows for the parent to give one time per year permission to participate in an anonymous survey, but it also requires that the parent be notified before the survey happens and be given another chance to opt out. He asked if that meets her criteria for keeping the parents informed. MS. ETTER responded that she is not in favor of any survey that is not academic being given to her children without her permission prior to that survey. Number 1530 BETH SHOBER, Health Specialist, Teaching and Learning Support, Department of Education (DOE), came forward to testify on behalf the DOE to express some of their concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this proposed legislation. There are two major areas that could possibly be impacted dependant upon the interpretation. One is on curriculum and implementation of curriculum, and the other is on counseling services within the school. She shared copies of an article called "Emotional Lessons" which appeared in "NW Education, Spring 1999". Perhaps the intent is not to impact curriculum in the implementation of programs, but it could be interpreted that way. This article is an example. It speaks very well to the issues of dispelling fears after a crisis like the one experienced in Bethel. This article highlights some things happening in Bethel, Alaska now as a result of the school shooting there in 1997: children are being allowed to share common feelings and to discuss them. Students in Bethel are processing through the heartache produced by the school shooting. Under the broad, possible interpretation of this legislation, that program would be in conflict. The article shows specific examples of how that might be interpreted as in conflict of this legislation. MS. SHOBER expressed concern regarding the counseling needs of high-risk students in the schools. Often counselors and teaching staff find it difficult to gain written permission from parents or guardians of those students who are displaying the greatest need for intervention. This population certainly may not make up the bulk of students receiving services, however, their needs may be more extreme. Although several attempts are often made to reach these families to secure written permission, the follow-through on the part of the family is very difficult at times. Counseling staff may feel compelled to intervene on behalf of the student after making a good-faith effort to reach and receive written parental permission without success. Even after services begin in schools, counseling staff continues to attempt to include family members in the services that are being provided. Examples of these services could be anger management, good decision making and risk reduction, refusal skills, and so on. If the assessment by a trained counselor determines that the student is in need of more intensive therapeutic intervention, he will refer the student to the appropriate agencies outside of the school building. None of those assessments or those counseling services could be provided under the possible interpretation of this legislation. Number 1364 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON gathered that she was referring to Section 1 (a) where it refers to written consent for psychological testing. MS. SHOBER answered yes, in part through the counseling concern, that would be the case. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the logical inference from DOE's perspective would be that, in addition to providing education, the school should be able to provide counseling, for example, psychological treatment, without the parent's permission. MS. SHOBER believes the DOE is saying, dependant upon the interpretation of the words, that students are exhibiting behaviors that are not allowing them to sit and participate in a regular classroom structure. For example, in the article, elementary students are dealing with lots of anger management and social skills that don't make it possible for them to participate in the regular curricular activities. Lots of times counseling staff will attempt to intervene and help that student get back on track. The attempt to make contact with parents before they try to do anything with the child may be the cause of some of these problems. It has come to the attention of the department that often times it is not possible to get written permission. Parents have the form but forget to send it in; follow-up phone calls don't result in getting the written permission back. The bottom line is the student is left without any kind of intervention services; the class is left struggling with how to incorporate the behavior into the curricular day; and the counselors are trying to intervene on behalf of the student to help assist in any way they can. MS. SHOBER agreed that intensive psychotherapy is not the role of a school counselor, but often times in those kinds of assessments in helping students get back on track with their behavior problems or social interaction problems, it comes forth that there are some other problems that are evident that are in need of greater psychological help. That is when the counselor would work with the family to refer to an agency outside of the school. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON sees the dilemma and is trying to help. He doesn't want the school doing any heavy-duty psychological counseling with the student without the parents' knowledge. Finally, if the parents refuse to get involved, there may be a child in need of aid. The parents who it is the most difficult to get permission from and get them involved are often the ones that have the students who need the most assistance. He asked Ms. Shober if the school got permission at enrollment for the school counselor to be able to interact with the student, would that help her concerns. MS. SHOBER believes that would answer some of the concerns. Number 1082 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what is the alternative to having the counselor not intervening in those situations when the students are off track. MS. SHOBER said it depends case by case because every student is different. Students who are unable to cooperate, share, listen, stop harassing or hitting their neighbors, playground harassment, fighting, the DOE feels those type of behaviors are destructive to the overall academic success of students. They are attempting with schools to offer every kind of assistance possible to change those behaviors. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what happens in schools without those intervention services. Number 0972 MS. SHOBER said each district has adopted its own discipline plan so it varies. Some districts don't have the staff to do anything at this point, and they are barely getting by. Other districts have very extensive programs and immediately help those students. CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL commented that when any counseling goes on, the parents are encouraged or involved at a very early level. MS. SHOBER indicated that there is always the attempt to make contact with those parents and help discuss and offer help in a variety of ways. The concern is many times the parents are not responding when the student is having difficulty during the school day and they are struggling to work out the conflicting pieces. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON referred to page 2, line 30 (e) "Written consent required under (a) of this section is valid until the commencement of the subsequent school year," and commented that his reading of the legislation is that all the things on page 1 are covered. He told Ms. Shober if she gets a legal opinion that he is wrong, and it doesn't cover her concerns, he will call this back to the committee to amend it. Number 0735 DOUGLAS GARDNER, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas and Mining Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to testify representing the Departments of Law and Health and Social Services DHSS, Division of Family and Youth Services DFYS. He doesn't represent the Department of Education, but he offered to attempt to answer any questions the committee may have. He reviewed the CS with the DFYS and they had some problems with subsections (h) and (i) so he offered an amendment to clarify the problem. He doesn't believe it was Co-Chairman Dyson's intention to give an opportunity of different interpretation of some of the reports-of-harm requirements in AS 47. The two departments proposed that subsections (h) and (i) be scaled down to just (h). The focus of (h) would be to track AS 47.17.020 and AS 47.17.027 which are the reporting requirements that school officials are well trained to follow. It is the department's view that these subsections might give a court pause and there are long-term interpretations that they wouldn't want to see upset. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Gardner to show them exactly where the wording differs. Number 0520 MR. GARDNER replied that they essentially added the underlined language and took out the language in capital letters and brackets. He said he wasn't sure what the legislation was trying to achieve, they made the assumption that Co-Chairman Dyson was trying to track the normal reporting requirements in AS 47.17 and wasn't trying to change those, and in (i) he was trying to make it clear that the DHSS is exempted from notification requirements. CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON explained they didn't want this parental permission to keep the department from reporting a child in need of aid. MR. GARDNER said they just wanted to be clear that the reporting requirements haven't been changed, and they changed the language to use the language in the existing statute. Number 0402 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Gardner to comment if they are on the right track in regards to the concerns expressed by Ms. Shober. MR. GARDNER said he isn't familiar with that area. He would have to follow up later. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for clarification on some of the deleted language. TAPE 99-38, SIDE A MR. GARDNER answered that the deletion of some of the language in subsection (h) was done because that issue has been addressed in other statutes. He explained that there are situations that need to be reported to the DHSS or law enforcement agencies and not to the parents. Number 0110 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read: (h) Unless the matter must be reported to the Department of Health and Social Services under AS 47.17.020 or the records or information were received in the course of an investigation by that department under AS 47.17.027, a school employee or agent who believes that a situation exists [IF, AFTER RECEIVING RECORDS OR INFORMATION, A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE OR AGENT BELIEVES THAT A SITUATION EXISTS] that presents a serious threat to the well-being of a student, the school employee or agent shall notify the student's parent or guardian without delay. [IF, HOWEVER, THE MATTER HAS BEEN REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO NOTIFY THE STUDENT'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF ANY POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE STUDENT'S RETURN HOME FORM SCHOOL.] [(I) THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN (H) OF THIS SECTION ONLY IF THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE STUDENT WOULD BE ENDANGERED BY NOTIFICATION OF THE STUDENT'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN OR IF THIS NOTIFICATION IS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.] CO-CHAIRMAN COGHILL asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0160 CO-CHAIRMAN DYSON stated that he is committed that if Ms. Shober or Mr. Gardner find anything that needs to be fixed in this legislation, it will be fixed. If there is an unintended result of this legislation and it ends up being an insurmountable barrier to getting the survey done, he is committed to fixing any problems. It is not his intention to mess things up. Number 0381 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move the proposed CSHB 70, version 1-LSO263\G, Ford, 4/6/99, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 70(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|