05/02/2006 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) || Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| SB48 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SCR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2006
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Berta Gardner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Jeff Hebard - Fairbanks, Alaska
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 48(HES)
"An Act relating to recommending or refusing psychotropic drugs
or certain types of evaluations or treatments for children."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 235(FIN)
"An Act relating to a public school performance incentive
program; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28(HES)
Relating to the innovative application of education technology
tools to provide improved distance education programs in the
state.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 48
SHORT TITLE: PSYCH. EVALUATION/TREATMENT FOR STUDENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SENATOR DAVIS
01/12/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/05 (S) HES, JUD
04/05/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/06 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/12/06 (S) HES AT 2:45 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/12/06 (S) Moved CSSB 48(HES) Out of Committee
04/12/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/06 (S) HES RPT CS 2DP 2NR SAME TITLE
04/13/06 (S) DP: DYSON, ELTON
04/13/06 (S) NR: WILKEN, OLSON
04/20/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/22/06 (S) JUD RPT CS(HES) 5DP
04/22/06 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS
04/22/06 (S) JUD AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/06 (S) -- Continued from 04/20/06 --
04/26/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 48(HES)
04/27/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/27/06 (H) HES, JUD
05/02/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
05/02/06 (H) SCHOOL PERFORMANCE BONUSES
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF HEBARD, Appointee
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Professional
Teaching Practices Commission.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSB 48(HES) as prime sponsor.
RICHARD BENAVIDES, Staff
to Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 48(HES), on behalf of
Senator Davis, prime sponsor.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding Alaska
Statutes relating to CSSB 48(HES).
FRANK TURNEY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48.
STUART THOMPSON
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48.
ANGELA TILLERY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48.
STEVEN PIERCE, Director
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Alaska, Washington, and Montana
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48
REBECCA SMALLEY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48.
SHIRLEY TUZROYLUKE, Chair
Southcentral Native Educators Committee;
Member, Board of the Alaska Native Education Association;
Co-Chair, Planning Committee
National Indian Education Conference
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48.
SONJA KERR, Supervising Attorney
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 48, and provided
information specific to the impacts of SB 48 on special
education students.
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her opinion of SB 48.
TONI JO DALMAN, Special Education Coordinator
Juneau School District
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her opinion of SB 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06:48 PM.
Representatives Seaton, Cissna, Kohring, and Wilson were present
at the call to order. Representatives Gatto, and Anderson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Professional Teaching Practices Commission
3:07:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
a confirmation hearing, appointing Jeff Hebard to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission.
3:07:53 PM
The committee took an at ease from 3:08:29 PM to 3:09:45 PM.
3:09:48 PM
JEFF HEBARD, Appointee to the Professional Teaching Practices
Commission, highlighted his history as an Alaskan resident since
1970: graduate of Austin E. Lathrop High School; graduate of
University of Alaska, Fairbanks; and as a teacher in the state
for 15 years. He stated that he considers it a duty and
obligation to "give back" to his profession, which is his intent
for serving on the commission.
3:11:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked him to articulate a connection
between the health and education aspect of this committee.
MR. HEBARD stated his understanding that the commission's scope
is related to the codes of conduct and ethics for the teaching
profession. Other than situations which might be directly
related to health, he conceded, that he does not expect a close
relationship.
3:12:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that his background is in
physical education, which implies a principle that if children
are not healthy they can't learn. Further, she emphasized that
the teachers are important role models for a healthy life style.
MR. HEBARD agreed and said that as a coach he holds high
expectations for professionals in the educational arena to model
healthy habits for students.
3:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee, forward the name of Jeff
Hebard to joint session for consideration of appointment to the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission. There being no
objection, the confirmation of Jeff Hebard was advanced.
3:15:26 PM
MR. HEBARD asked what would the next step be to his appointment.
CHAIR WILSON explained that having passed this committee his
appointment would be passed to the joint legislative session to
be held Thursday [May 4, 2006].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that there would need to be a
confirmation hearing on the Senate side of the legislature,
similar to today's hearing, prior to the joint session.
3:15:55 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 48(HES), "An Act relating to recommending
or refusing psychotropic drugs or certain types of evaluations
or treatments for children."
3:16:36 PM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska Legislature, as prime sponsor,
provided a recent history and outlined the intent of CSSB
48(HES). She pointed out that this bill is not designed to
preclude or hinder anyone from practicing their profession,
however, it does address the concerns and needs of parents and
children. Further, she stated that this bill has been taken up
at the federal level and that many states have implemented
similar legislation.
3:18:22 PM
RICHARD BENAVIDES, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis, presented CSSB
48(HES), on behalf of Senator Davis, prime sponsor, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
In its simplest terms this bill basically states that
a public school may not deny any student access to
programs or services simply because the parent of the
student has refused to place the student on
psychotropic medications, get a psychiatric evaluation
or seek psychiatric or psychological treatment for a
child.
It also spells out what communications are allowed,
who can do evaluations and the protections a parent or
guardian has against being reported to OCS [Office of
Children's Services] simply because they disagree with
psychotropic medications.
We recognize that Psychotropic medications are one of
many treatment interventions that may be used to
address mental health problems. Many times medication
may be recommended and prescribed for children with
mental, behavioral, or emotional symptoms when the
potential benefits of treatment outweigh the risks.
The U.S. Department of Education has clearly informed
educators that medical professionals, not education
professionals, are responsible for prescribing
medication. However, the role of educators in
providing information about a student's behavior is
recognized as an aid to making a diagnosis.
The 2004 reauthorization of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (P.L. 108-446)
requires each state to prohibit state and school
district personnel from requiring a child to obtain a
prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled
Substances Act, as a condition of attending school,
receiving services, or receiving an evaluation for a
disability.
This prohibition does not prevent teachers or other
school personnel from consulting or sharing classroom
based observations with parents or guardians about a
student's academic and functional performance, or
behavior in the classroom or school, or the need for
evaluation for special education or related services.
We have adopted that stance in SB 48 in order to
clarify that public school teachers and school
district personnel may share those observations with a
parent and may offer program options and other
assistance to the parent, but they still may not
compel any specific action by the parent or require
that a student take medication.
Essentially the sponsor feels that any medical
decision made to address a student's needs is a matter
between the student, the student's parent, and a
competent health care professional chosen by the
parent.
As in past versions, nothing in this CS precludes
school personnel from using other means of dealing
with behavioral problems.
3:21:08 PM
MR. BENAVIDES stated that the development of this committee
substitute (CS) has included the Department of Education and
Early Development (EED), the Office of Children's Services
(OCS), and other interested agencies, to create a workable,
passable, bill.
3:21:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referenced page 1, and read [beginning on
line 7]: "school personnel may not, ... recommend to a parent
or guardian that a child take or continue to take a psychotropic
drug ...". He asked for clarification of how that language
would be applied within the classroom.
MR. BENAVIDES directed attention to page 1, line 7, to highlight
the phrase which reads "school personnel may not, unless
otherwise authorized by law, ...", and explained how it relates
to the resource page titled Type C Special Services Certificate
contained in the committee packet. This provides the
descriptive authority for this aspect of the bill, and would
restrict the majority of classroom teachers from making these
decisions, he said.
3:23:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to page 1, line 9, and read "take
a psychotropic drug as a condition for attending a public
school". He challenged whether any school personnel, including
the principal and superintendent, has the authority to prevent
any child from attending a public school. He stated his
understanding that such an act of suspension would be the
purview of the school board.
SENATOR DAVIS described the constructive steps which could be
recommended to a parent or guardian, as alternative behavioral
management suggestions, in lieu of recommending or requiring a
psychotropic drug be administered.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that he is addressing what is
written in the bill, to wit:
"School personnel may not recommend to a parent or
guardian that a child take or continue to take
psychotropic drugs as a condition for attending a
public school. ...". I'm not sure those two lines are
informative, in that that is already true.
MR. BENAVIDES conceded that there is repetition in the bill
regarding measures that are "already a known entity."
3:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO provided a scenario of a teacher being
hindered in creating a learning environment if they comport with
this bill. He asked if it is typical for a teacher to declare
to a parent that their child needs to take drugs to attend
class.
SENATOR DAVIS stated that parents have testified to this type of
direction being given to them by their child's teacher.
However, if a child has been diagnosed and prescribed a drug,
and the parent is hurtfully neglectful in the administration of
the drug, the teacher would be expected to report such neglect
to OCS. Responding to a question, she said that the a school
authority is required to bring issues of observed child neglect
to the attention of OCS. Thus, this bill does not take away or
add new responsibilities to a school authority's role on abuse
issues.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that the person in contact with the
student should be allowed to make professional, observation
based comments. He stressed that a teacher should not be
restricted from questioning a parent whether the student is
being provided appropriate prescription drugs.
3:29:08 PM
CHAIR WILSON clarified that this language does not specify that
the teacher cannot speak to the parent about their child's
behavior in the classroom, but it does specify that the teacher
cannot inform a parent that their child will be denied
attendance if a drug is not administered.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO reiterated his concerns, and again read
page 1, lines 8 and 9.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked the sponsor for clarification and
said:
This ... does not say that a teacher can't recommend
to a parent or guardian that a kid should take some
drugs it's just that [a teacher] can't say "if your
kid doesn't take drugs [they] can't come to school."
... That's the way I read it, [and] I just wanted to
verify that that's your intent ....
SENATOR DAVIS affirmed Representative Seaton's understanding.
3:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked how the language being discussed, on
page 1, would be applied in a rural school that may have only
one or two teachers.
MR. BENAVIDES responded that in the rural schools the teacher's
level of responsibility is much higher and their authority may
allow them to take up issues from which a teacher in an urban
school would be precluded. He said that the language of page 1,
line 7, "unless otherwise authorized by law," serves the purpose
to expand that authority.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA thus, she said it would be assumed that
they would be type C special services certificated by virtue of
the limited number of personnel in a rural school. Continuing,
she asked for clarity regarding the application of the language
on page 2, lines 4-7 [paragraph (6)].
MR. BENAVIDES confirmed that the rural teacher would by default
become type C certificated. Further, he said that OCS vetted
the language of paragraph (6) to reflect existing procedures and
regulations. He said this restricts a teacher from reporting a
parent to OCS, based solely on a parent's refusal to comply with
the teacher's recommendation that their child be subjected to
psychiatric, psychological evaluation or the administration of
psychotropic drugs.
3:33:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired where the language to correlate
the type C certificate resides within the bill.
MR. BENAVIDES explained that the language on page 1, line 7,
"unless otherwise authorized by law," is the "catch-all" phrase
which satisfies that need.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how a rural school with one or two
teachers, would be "authorized by law," in the event that a type
C certificate was not available.
SENATOR DAVIS reminded the committee that the local or regional
school board would establish appropriate policy, and she
restated that in schools with one or two teachers, those
teachers take up many tasks within the school.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that the intent
would hold the school board responsible to set policy providing
authorization for a teacher, and that authorization would
suffice for the condition set forth of page 1, line 7,
"authorized by law".
3:37:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON referred to the impetus for SB 48, and
the possibility of duplicity in creating statute. He asked what
the inherent problem is that necessitates this specific
legislation; is there a pressing issue occurring in the schools
that needs to be addressed.
SENATOR DAVIS stated that parents have reported that school
personnel have made the administration of psychotropic drugs a
requirement for their children to attend school. She opined
that this bill allows teachers to have conferences, provide
evaluations, express concerns to parents, recommend that parents
seek other professional advice, and provide a resource list to
the parents. However, the bill protects the parents from having
the teacher require that their child be psychologically
examined/diagnosed/administered psychotropic drugs, as a
condition for attending school.
3:40:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON referred to page 3, lines 29-31, and
paraphrased:
"A violation ... constitutes substantial noncompliance
with a school law of the state for purposes of
dismissal of a teacher ...." Does that mean that if
under page 2, lines 18-24, where you say communication
is allowed, but [the bill reads] school personnel
cannot [(A)] "make assertions or recommendations that
violate" the ... prevention of recommending
psychotropic drugs ... "or (B) denigrate, criticize,
punish, or attempt to denigrate, criticize, or punish,
a parent, guardian, ...;"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON stated that this language does not
appear to provide protection for the teacher to have meaningful
conversations with a parent without fear of reprisal leading to
possible dismissal.
MR. BENAVIDES provided that the current Alaska Teacher Practices
rise to the level of dismissal as a punishment, but that doesn't
mean that a teacher would automatically be dismissed;
disciplinary steps would be followed.
3:42:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to the list of community
resources, which might be suggested to a parent, and pointed out
that the list of psychologists who work with children is brief
even in Alaska's largest communities.
SENATOR DAVIS conceded that the list may be minimal, but the
school district should be able to produce an adequate referral
list of services and providers in any given area, and prioritize
names appropriately for a parent.
MR. BENAVIDES pointed out that [page 3, line 23] specifies "may"
versus "shall" and the school district has the choice whether to
provide a community resource list.
3:44:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his understanding that the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), requires that children be placed in the
least restrictive environment, and in many cases that is the
classroom. He said:
"The bill does not give the parents responsibilities just the
rights." Thus, a parent who knows their rights, and has a
troubled child that isn't learning, may place blame on the
teacher. He described a scenario of a disruptive child in a
classroom, acting in a disruptive manner and causing harm to a
fellow student. Referring to this scenario, he asked:
In this case, would a teacher not be allowed to
recommend, to the mother, "Perhaps you might want to
look into this behavior because there are certain
medications, drugs, that can help tone [your child]
down so he would fit better into an environment and
not disrupt; he would be able to learn better himself
and not disrupt it." Would your bill prevent a
teacher from saying, "Look what just happened can I
make this recommendation without getting in trouble
for making the recommendation."
MR. BENAVIDES responded that a parent teacher conference would
be the first venue to address classroom behavioral issues. He
suggested that an appropriate teacher recommendation would be to
have the child evaluated to identify what might assist the child
towards a level of behavior that is acceptable. Further, he
said, that federal law would certainly supercede state statute,
and he pointed out the steps and considerations involved when
suspending a child from school.
SENATOR DAVIS directed attention to the inclusion in the
committee packet of copies of AS 14.20.047 and 14.30.045, for
the purpose of this discussion.
3:49:30 PM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
outlined the bill, and reviewed the sections thus far discussed.
She highlighted the language specific to restrictions and
exemptions to clarify the intent of the bill. Further, she
said:
The "unless otherwise authorized by law" proviso on
page 1, line 7, is being read ... very broadly. If
the intention there is to authorize school
psychologists, or type C personnel, or personnel
acting under a school board policy, I would suggest
clarifying that language in an amendment .... ...
Normally a court won't construe a policy as a law, ...
that term may be ambiguous if it's being read "to
include school board policies". ... Page 2 lines 30
and 31, ... if we're ... [excluding] type C
certificated personnel ... from the prohibited
actions, then it's a bit confusing to prohibit
behavioral or mental health professionals that are
defined specifically to exclude teachers in this bill,
to prohibit them from requiring psychiatric or
behavioral health evaluations of a child; it allows
them to recommend for purposes of federal compliance
but not require an evaluation. ... Under IDEA, there
is ... law that parents consent to those types of
evaluations for placement of a child. The practical
effect of prohibiting behavioral and mental health
professionals for other than compliance with federal
law for recommending treatment might be to keep type C
personnel or other school psychology professionals
from recommending these things unless it's only for
the purpose of federal education laws. ... The other
confusion I'm hearing in the committee discussion is
about the suspension or denial of admission and ...
existing law AS 14.30.045 isn't exactly redundant of
what [SB 48] does. It allows a school age child to be
suspended or denied admission to a school for "a
physical or mental condition that in the opinion of a
competent medical authority will cause the attendance
of the child to be inimical to the welfare of other
pupils"... I'm not sure how in practice that language
is applied but obviously it anticipates that there
[will] be some kind of psychological or behavioral
health evaluation of the child.
3:56:57 PM
CHAIR WILSON referred to 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(25), which addresses
state eligibility, and paraphrased from the section which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(25) Prohibition on mandatory medication.
(A) In general. The State educational agency
shall prohibit State and local educational agency
personnel from requiring a child to obtain a
prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition
of attending school, receiving an evaluation under
subsection (a) or (c) of section 614 [20 USCS 1414],
or receiving services under this title [20 USCS 1400
et seq.]
CHAIR WILSON surmised from this language that "special education
children are already covered ..., maybe [other] children
aren't." She asked for clarification of her understanding.
MS. MISCHEL explained that this federal law requires states to
adopt a policy, law, or regulation that addresses the points of
this code, it does not directly regulate the state schools;
however, it may pull funding from schools which do not comply.
Thus, she said, "That's not redundant ...."
3:58:43 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked what the state law specifies, and whether the
state incorporates all children or only addresses the needs of
special education students. She acknowledged that there are
strict rules and regulations in place which must be adhered to,
such as creating individual education programs (IEPs).
MS. MISCHEL responded that the state law requires parental
consent before any recommendations are made. She said:
There is no general provision, like this bill is
proposing, that would apply to all children other than
[children] who are being evaluated for placement
purposes.
3:59:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, lines 1-3, and asked:
"Are we ... saying ... that they can't even recommend to a
parent or guardian that they think about doing that. That's the
way I'm reading it."
MS. MISCHEL clarified that page 2, line 1, doesn't refer to
"continued use ... this reads as a new use of a psychotropic
medication," so it wouldn't prohibit a discussion due to a child
who has forgotten the medication, as previously discussed.
However, the proviso on page 1, line 7, "unless otherwise
authorized by law" does apply, and there is some authority for
school boards to adopt a policy addressing a weapons violation
and a suspension of a student. Whether there's a reason for
denial of admission, or a suspension in anticipation of a mental
health evaluation, is addressed in AS 14.30.045. Further, she
said AS 14.30.047 requires a student to submit to the
authorities, psychological evidence that the student expects to
re-enter school after being suspended.
4:02:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON paraphrased from the bill [page 1, lines
6-7, and page 2, lines 1-2], which read:
Prohibited actions. Except as provided in AS
14.30.172-14.30-176, school personnel may not, unless
otherwise authorized by law,
(5) recommend that a parent or guardian seek or
use for a child
(A) a psychotropic medication; or
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that this
language would prohibit a teacher, conducting a parent teacher
conference, from suggesting that this avenue be investigated.
MS. MISCHEL concurred that it would generally be true save for
the language beginning on page 2, line 12, which does not
prohibit personnel from sharing classroom based observations
with the parent without making recommendations for psychotropic
medications or psychological treatment. She counseled that
there may be an implication but the bill prohibits the express
recommendation.
4:03:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested alleviating the afore discussed
situation by proposing an amendment to page 1, line 7:
"[Following] 'unless ... otherwise authorized by law,' [insert]
or provided for by school board policy and or by specifically
trained personnel". She asked whether such an amendment would
"help that issue."
MS. MISCHEL responded that such language would invoke the
discretion of the school board, but whether that would be
helpful is a policy call for the committee to decide.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the sponsor would be
supportive of language to relegate the issue to the school
board.
SENATOR DAVIS answered that doing would dispense with the need
for the bill. However, she said that the school board should
set policy, and that this legislation is to provide guidance for
the establishment of such policy.
4:06:47 PM
FRANK TURNEY, stated support for SB 48, and called attention to
the support material, which he previously submitted for
inclusion in the committee packet: an April 18,2006 letter,
addressed to Mr. Turney, from U. S. Senator Lisa Murkowski; the
City of Fairbanks Resolution No. 4208, introduced by Council
Member Hilling, and subsequently passed and approved April 10,
2006; and the Fairbanks North Star Borough Resolution No. 2005-
23, introduced by Assemblywoman Bonnie Williams, and adopted
April 14, 2005; and a newspaper column from the Fairbanks Daily
Newsminer, headlined: "Councilman backs bill affecting
psychotropic drugs in schools," by Chris Eshleman, Staff Writer.
He said:
I believe SB 48 is a start in the right direction, as
far as prohibiting teachers and untrained school
personnel from recommending to a parent that "your
child might need Ritalin, or an [Attention Deficit
Disorder (ADD)] evaluation before a child can attend
school." ... The child ... could have other problems
that mimic [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(AD/HD)] ... maybe allergies or hearing problems, ...
the child might need a neurologist, or may be in need
of nutrition.
MR. TURNEY expounded on the outstanding questions which continue
to create controversy around the use of the methylphenidate
drugs including their: efficacy, health dangers, over
prescription, and miss use as amphetamine type drugs. He shared
some of his boyhood school experiences, as examples of
alternative solutions for dealing with behavioral problems in
school. He said:
The stepping stone of drugging a child with AD/HD
drugs generally comes from a school teacher or ...
untrained school personnel recommending to a parent
that [their child] might need to take a drug or have
an AD/HD evaluation to attend school.
MR. TURNEY expressed his concern for Alaskan schools hiring
psychologists and psychiatrists who support AD/HD evaluations,
and who support the use of drugs for children. Finally, he
reported that there is a nine hour Ritalin patch, which is now
available. The benefits being that the patch can be removed,
minimizing side effects, and it cannot be "crushed and snorted
up their nose," a current drug abuse problem in Fairbanks.
4:14:38 PM
STUART THOMPSON, stated support of SB 48 and paraphrased from
the following prepared statement [original punctuation
provided]:
I'm testifying in support of SB 48 passage. The aspect
of the bill most relevant to your committee is that it
just enforces occupational competence for the public
good. The essence of occupational licensing.
Government always gets a bad name when it isn't
consistent in its regulation of businesses and
professions. Occupational licensing is the government
device to ensure a minimum level of competence in
people practicing a craft on the public. The public
understands the legitimacy of such regulation and the
state bureaucracy to implement it. The conceptual flag
for this is the public conviction that it's bad for
people to practice medicine without a license. This
bill makes a plain attempt to channel parents to
people trained to give professional level service and
advice. It should be obvious that teacher and school
administrator training is not designed to make such
people competent to practice medicine, nutrition,
psychology, psychiatry or spiritual counseling.
I wish to focus my testimony on why what is seemingly
common sense needs specific law to enforce it. What we
are facing is dramatization of the greatest collective
failure humanity has, an incompetent ability to
understand human behavior. This manifests in the
almost universal fear of human irrationality,
minimally psychological disorders like what's called
Attention Deficit, and at its extreme form: madness.
People who are afraid naturally grasp at anything to
settle confusions and threats caused by what they
fear. So naturally, faced with inexplicable behavior
of children, parents and others grasp advice from
nearly any source they conceive to have repute. Thus
heavy pharmaceutical marketing and advertisements
pushing the apparently scientific idea that man is a
chemically motivated, stimulus-response animal exerts
tremendous influence. A vacuum of understanding is
filled with the alluring concept that Johmny's mental
problems are caused just by chemical imbalances that
are treatable with drugs. This directly tempts one of
humanity's most dangerous weaknesses -- lust for
shortcuts. This lust has been preyed on since the days
of snake oil salesmen and granny love potions; the
progenitors of modern pharmaceutical companies.
So out of fear, inadequate understandings and lust for
shortcuts, we have the source of child over-
medication. The abuse of legal drugs in the over-
medication of children should concern you almost more
than any other form of substance abuse. Why? Because
once a child or youth becomes convinced -- through
adult and social encouragement -- that drugs are the
simplest solution to becoming normal or happier, he's
primed to explore illegal drugs using the same
justification. Legality pronouncements hardly impress
those already rebelling against robotically enforced
authority.
Let me close with a brief analogy to make this bill
real to you personally. Let's say that the chairman of
your committee perceived that a member chronically has
a hard time paying attention to testimony and taking
the time to study materials coming before the
committee. Symptoms jumped on include a glazed look to
his face, and next to no interaction and involvement
in the committee process. Let's say that the chairman
had the power to direct the member to get treatment
for attention deficit. Otherwise he'd face being
reported to legislative ethics for refusing to get
treated for a condition perceived to disable that
representative from performing acceptably. How would
you feel if this process was based on minimal
understandings of committee chairmen and legislative
ethics personnel?
I don't ask you to blindly agree with me. Don't just
depend on the scientifically weak psychology experts,
who've replaced the tractability treatment fads of
beatings, electro convulsive therapy and lobotomies
with a fresh fad of psychotropic drugs. I ask you to
use your own minds about what's at stake
4:19:48 PM
ANGELA TILLERY, stated support for SB 48, and opined that the
number of children being evaluated and placed on drugs is a
growing problem. Due to the continued recommendations for such
treatment from the local school, she has chosen to home school
her children. She explained that "the problem with teachers
telling parents that their children need to be evaluated,"
resides in the means by which the diagnosis is obtained. She
described her experience of how children are placed on these
drugs: the teacher makes a recommendation to the parent for the
child to receive an evaluation; the teacher provides a classroom
evaluation for the health care professional to review; in the
absence of other tests, whatever the teacher has provided
becomes the determining factor for the pediatrician,
psychiatrist, or psychologist; other possibilities for a child's
behavior are not addressed and eliminated, possibly an
oversight; a diagnosis/prescription is dispensed; and the child
is placed on drugs, thus returning to school in a more calm
manner. Pointing out that these drugs can have dangerous side
effects, she explained: the Federal Drug Administration [FDA] is
considering placing a black box warning on the labels of this
family of drugs; anyone with a history of sustained use of these
drugs is considered ineligible for United States military
service; and at one time eight out of thirteen school shootings
had been committed by teens who were being medicated with
prescribed psychotropic drugs known to cause violent or suicidal
behavior. Further, she said that parents need to be better
informed of why children may display extreme behavioral
problems, and she named several health issues with similar
symptoms including the early onset of diabetes, exposure to
mercury, heart disease, diet, and vitamin deficiencies.
However, she said that "our society wants a quick fix, a pill
that will solve the problem." Finally, she opined that the only
reason the parents consider that their child should be
administered drugs is because they trust the person in a
position of authority who makes the recommendation.
4:26:00 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether she was ever told that her child
could not attend school unless drugs were administered.
4:26:26 PM
MS. TILLERY answered no, but said that she was continually
counseled to have her children tested for AD/HD, due to their
disruptive behavior.
STEVEN PIERCE, Director, Citizens Commission on Human Rights,
Alaska, Washington, and Montana, stated support for SB 48, and
said that he has helped to enact similar legislation in other
states. He opined that SB 48 should serve to clarify the roles
of the school personnel, and to empower the parent to take
responsibility for their child. He acknowledged that schools do
tend to be the primary source of referrals for children to be
diagnosed and prescribed drugs. However, he said this type of
legislation is meant to "level the playing field," in an area
where there is a marketing campaign to place children on drugs.
REBECCA SMALLEY, stated support for SB 48, and related her
experience with raising a child who was inattentive. Upon a
teacher's recommendation, she had her child tested at the
doctor's office for a variety of possibilities. However, when
she inquired about having the child tested for AD/HD she was
surprised to find that a test does not exist for this diagnosis,
as is the case for depression and a myriad of other behavioral
conditions. Thus, she discovered "that these diseases are only
categorized by some other person's opinion of what is considered
acceptable behavior." She said:
I don't believe that a person who is not qualified to
assess a person's mental condition ... should be
allowed to require a parent to have their child ...
undergo [an] evaluation as a requirement to continue
their education. Nor do I believe that a parent
should be forced under [threat of] expulsion ... to
drug their children to obedience."
SHIRLEY TUZROYLUKE (ph), Chair, Southcentral Native Educators
Committee; Member, Board of the Alaska Native Education
Association; Co-Chair, Planning Committee, National Indian
Education Conference, stated support for SB 48, and said that
the Native children are marginalized in Alaska's school system.
She described how that occurs, and she opined that other ethnic
groups also experience the same lack of success in the
educational system. She stated:
It is quite disturbing to me that there may be a
possibility that a child would be placed on a drug
rather than steps taken by the educators to learn how
to serve them better. These same objections apply to
behavioral evaluations; the potential for
misunderstanding is high ... and in my experience
they're quite intrusive.
4:37:01 PM
SONJA KERR, Supervising Attorney, Disability Law Center of
Alaska, stated support for SB 48, and offered language to allow
the bill to interface with the regulations regarding children
with disabilities, by paraphrasing from the following written
statement [original punctuation provided]:
We would very much appreciate your attention to the
following issues that perhaps could be done through a
floor amendment:
1. Page 2, Paragraph 6, Lines 4-7. This
section, as written, seems to encourage the referral
of children to OCS [Office of Children's Services]
whose parents refuse consent to psychotropic drugs.
Our suggestion is that with respect to children with
disabilities, any such concern should be brought first
to the child's IEP [individual education program]
team. Our recommendation is to amend this section to
add: "Absent a life threatening emergency, for
children who are on IEPs, the teacher should first
convene an initial evaluation meeting or an IEP team
meeting to discuss any such concerns consistent in all
ways with 20 U.S.C. 1415 and related regulations in
the Code of Federal Regulations."
2. Page 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 24-27. This
section, as written, will lead to confusion about
special education students and their discipline as we
have special disciplinary procedures. Our
recommendation is to amend this section to add:
"Nothing in this section shall be done contrary to 20
U.S.C. 1415(k) and related regulations in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
3. Page 3, Lines 22-28. This section, as
written, may conflict with the provisions of the IDEA
[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] that
require school districts to provide parents a written
list of information of independent educational
evaluators who may be contacted by parents to have
their children evaluated. Our recommendation is to
amend this section to add: "Nothing in this section
shall be done in a manner contrary to 34 C.F.R.
300.502; 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1) and (d)(2)(A).
4. Additional provision specifically on Child
Find. We are aware of many problems of
misidentification and also over identification of
students with minorities. At the same time, the
IDEA's provision of Child Find requires an affirmative
effort on the part of a school to identify disabled
children. 20 U.S.C. 1401, 1412 Because of that, we
should clarify that nothing exempts the school
districts or teachers from affirmatively identifying
students with disabilities under their Child Find
duties. Our recommendation is to amend the bill
(somewhere) so that it states: "Nothing in this bill
may be utilized as a defense by a school district
where a parent contends that the school district has
failed to identify their student as a student with a
disability." 20 U.S.C. 1401(3); 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R.
300.11.
4:42:47 PM
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), stated concern for the scope of SB 48,
and pointed out that this bill is not only about Ritalin. She
asked the committee to address two aspects of the bill: If a
doctor has stated the need for a student to be administered
medication, for the individual's safety as well as the safety of
others, and if the student and parent refuse, what recourse does
the school administration have for allowing this possibly
dangerous student onto campus. And the section of the bill
which states that "[teachers] may not make a report of suspected
neglect or abuse" is contrary to school personnel being
mandatory reporters and subject to criminal penalties for
failure to do so; which creates some confusion on how this would
be handled.
4:45:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 2, lines 1-3,
paragraph (5), and asked if this language is problematic or does
it fall within the guidelines of current school policy.
MS. FRANCIS responded that school administrators do not want to
be hindered in their authority for removing a child if the child
poses a threat to themselves or others. She explained that the
guidelines established in the bill continually refer to other
statutes, which will make it difficult and confusing for school
administrators to interpret and implement accurately.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON following up, he asked whether it would be
less confusing if on page l, line 7, the language was amended to
inserted clarification of who would be authorized by law to make
these types of recommendations.
MS. FRANCIS maintained that such an amendment would not serve to
address and clarify the concern for school personnel being
legally bound as mandatory reporters. Neither would it address
the issue of ensuring the student safety issue as she previously
described.
CHAIR WILSON interjected that page 1, line 7, clearly states
that "school personnel may not, unless otherwise authorized by
law," and the law requires school personnel to be reporters.
Thus, she opined that this language serves to address that
aspect.
MR. BENAVIDES pointed out that page 2, lines 20-29, specifically
reference the law which addresses the mandatory reporting
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether AS 47.17.020 is the statute
which establishes the mandatory requirements for reporting.
CHAIR WILSON stated for the record, "We have nods to the
affirmative."
4:50:12 PM
TONI JO DALMAN, Special Education Coordinator, Juneau School
District; stated that as a past school psychologist, and
administrator she considers the language of this bill to be
confusing. She described the "extreme" behaviors which she has
observed in present day children, versus those of previous
decades. It is the ethos of the public schools to have an open
door, provide an education for every child, and turn no children
away. To accomplish that task, she pointed out that it is
important to be able to speak to parents meaningfully about
their child's behavior without fear of violating the law, and
making suggestions is an important aspect of the teacher/parent
dialogue. She said:
I do believe teachers are in no position to say [to a
parent], "You must consider medication, or you should
consider medication." [Teachers ] are in a position
to say and describe the behaviors that they work with
all day long; they work with children six and one half
hours a day."
MS. DALMAN reiterated that the language of the bill is confusing
and referenced page 2, lines 1-3. Here, she said the bill
suggests "that perhaps those discussions could not legitimately
take place and that is not OK." She maintained that the
opportunity for collaboration must exist, and she pointed out
that the Juneau School District currently employs five
psychologists, a counselor in every school, and mental health
professionals from various agencies who serve the children in
the schools every day. Further, she said the district hires
teachers who have special degrees in working with children who
have behavioral disorders. She acknowledged the good intentions
behind the bill, and she said that it is the purview of OCS, not
the school personnel, to make certain determinations regarding a
child's welfare. Finally, she said, "It's our job to teach
[children]. We want to find a way that we can work
collaboratively with everyone on how to do that safely and
meaningfully ...."
4:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the classmates of an
"affected" child would be impacted by such a classmate's
behavior.
MS. DALMAN responded that some children display such extreme
behavior that it does influence the ability of their classmates
to learn, and to be safe in the classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON provided a suggestion for the forward
movement of SB 48, in consideration of the hour, and the pending
committee amendments.
The committee took an ease from 4:58:57 PM to5:03:19 PM.
5:03:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON explained her intentions for holding the bill and
addressed the gallery with appropriate instructions.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee meeting was recessed at 5:04 p.m. to a call of the
chair. [The meeting was cancelled May 3, 2006.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|