03/17/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB210 | |
| HB318 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2014
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lynn Gattis, Chair
Representative Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Sam Kito III (Alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the administration of psychiatric medication
to a student; relating to crisis intervention training for
school personnel; and relating to restraint, escort, and
seclusion of students in public and private schools."
- MOVED CSHB 210(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to public school reports of students whose
parents are members of the active duty military service."
- MOVED CSHB 318(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 210
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, PSYC DRUGS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT, AUSTERMAN
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) EDC, FIN
02/12/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/12/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/14 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/17/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 318
SHORT TITLE: ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT: MILITARY FAMILIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
02/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/14 (H) MLV, EDC
03/11/14 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/11/14 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/11/14 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/12/14 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 2NR
03/12/14 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, SADDLER, REINBOLD,
LEDOUX
03/12/14 (H) NR: HIGGINS, HUGHES
03/17/14 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the changes in Version T, on
behalf of one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 210,
Representative Charisse Millett.
LUCY HOPE, Director
Student Support Services
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 210.
CLAYTON HOLLAND, Director
Pupil Services
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 210.
JEANNE GERHARDT-CYRUS, Parent
Kiana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 210.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 210.
PAM RONCONE
Crisis Prevention Institute
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 210.
RON COWAN, Legal Rights Advocate/Investigator
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 210.
CASSIE WELLS, Director
Student Services
North Slope Borough School District (NSBSD);
President, Council of Administrators of Special Education
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 210.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 210.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Liaison
State Liaison Office
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
Tacoma, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 318.
PAUL PRUSSING, Deputy Director
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the fiscal notes during the
discussion of HB 318.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:40 AM
CHAIR GATTIS called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives, Reinbold,
Saddler, Kito III, Seaton, and Gattis were present at the call
to order. Representative P. Wilson arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 210-STUDENT RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, PSYC DRUGS
8:04:01 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 210, "An Act relating to the administration of
psychiatric medication to a student; relating to crisis
intervention training for school personnel; and relating to
restraint, escort, and seclusion of students in public and
private schools." [Before the committee was Version I, adopted
as a working draft on 2/12/14.]
8:04:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 210, Version T, labeled 28-LS0852\T,
Mischel, 2/25/14, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
8:05:21 AM
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett,
Alaska State Legislature, explained the four changes in the new
version, Version T as compared to Version I. He said the section
that dealt with the conditions of the dispensation of medication
was removed since the purpose was to identify drugs for chemical
restraint, but the committee and the stakeholders raised issues.
He indicated that the definition of chemical restraint was
changed reflect the definition used by the federal Medicaid and
Medicare Services program. [On page 4, line 31, and page 5,
lines 1-2, subsection (g), which read, "chemical restraint"
means a psychopharmacologic drug that is used on a student for
discipline or convenience and that is not required to treat a
medical symptom;".
MR. GIALOPSOS said the sponsor felt that the definition gives a
succinct and clear scope of the intent of the medication and
something that no parent or educator would want seen performed
without having any of the encumbrances seen in [Version I].
MR. GIALOPSOS stated secondly, the term "physically escort" is
removed entirely from Version T. The commissioner and educators
suggested these changes, since the original intent was to ban
physically escorting a child in a manner that restricted their
breathing. He indicated that would have been a redundancy since
that person would have been physically restrained in a manner to
restrict their breathing, but it could have had a "chilling"
effect at a time when school personnel have necessary physical
contact with a student "having a meltdown." He said this is
especially helpful for high school and middle school students
and the schools need compassionate teachers.
MR. GIALOPSOS reported that private and religious schools were
also explicitly exempted for two reasons. First, those schools
were exempted due to an absence of enforcement mechanisms.
Secondly, having a legal framework in place in public schools
allows parents in private and religious schools to seek redress,
which is what has happened in many other states.
8:08:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 6, lines 4-6, Sec. 4,
which states a private or religious school is "exempt from other
provisions of law and regulations relating to education except
law and regulations relating to physical health, fire safety,
sanitation, immunization, and physical examinations." The
stated purpose is students' physical health. He wanted to
ensure this language doesn't exempt these schools from potential
criminal restraint and is limited to laws and regulations
relating to education.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered that he is correct. He referred to lines
2-6, which is language that currently exists in statute that
talks about existing exemptions. This would not allow any
school to break the law. He reported that a 20-year old
Department of Law opinion on corporal punishment advised that
private and religious schools can use corporal punishment but
cannot violate the laws in terms of assaulting students. He
concluded the same rationale would apply in this instance.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version T as before the committee.
8:11:09 AM
LUCY HOPE, Director, Student Support Services, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District (MSBSD), said the district has had
policies and procedures regarding the use of restraint and
seclusion in place since 2008. The administrative regulations
adopted by the MSB School Board state that restraint and
seclusion may only be used if the student's behavior poses an
imminent danger of physical injury to the student or to another
person. She said seclusion is also specifically defined in that
regulation as is the need for constant supervision,
documentation, and parent notification. The process of
implementation of restraint is described in the certification
course by David Mandt and Associates, taught by a district
employee and must be reviewed annually by staff members needing
certification. The MSBSD's trainer works about 62 days per year
providing training to 350 staff.
8:12:38 AM
MS. HOPE related the MSBSD has in the past worked with smaller
districts and is willing to provide training needs for training
fees. She stated that the documentation, parent contact, and
review of these incidents are specified in the MSBSD's policy,
similar to those outlined in the bill. In addition, the MSBSD
requires a school nurse or designee check the student during and
following any restraint or seclusion. She said that changing
behavior is best accomplished by strong and healthy
relationships between adults and children and adults build on
these relationships to teach skills, including skills to manage
anger and frustration. She related that the Mandt [System,
Inc.] training is based on developing those relationships with
students. The training teaches students replacement behaviors
and helps the child deescalate behavior. She emphasized that it
also focuses on how to avoid using restraint with students. She
noted that not all staff are trained due to cost and time
constraints; however, appropriate personnel is trained to
address the potential to use restraint or seclusion. She
concluded that this would not add additional burden and would
underline and underscore the MSBSD's policy for student safety.
She highlighted one portion of the bill that the MSBSD does not
have to currently report to the EED, and the MSBSD collects the
data so it could be reported, but it might result in additional
costs to the EED.
8:14:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the district's current policy
if a child acts out in a class. She related her understanding
that it typically means isolating the child. She asked whether
the new policy would cause the removal of all children from a
classroom to allow staff to handle the child.
MS. HOPE answered that seclusion would only be used when a child
poses a danger to self or others and would not be used with
students who were acting up. She stated that seclusion is
clearly defined in statute and is not a "time out" or part of
the hierarchy of discipline or positive behavior support.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described an incident involving scissors
she encountered as a substitute teacher.
MS. HOPE responded that in that type of situation trained staff
should be available to deal with escalating behavior. She
acknowledged it can be difficult for substitute teachers, but
there should be procedures in place.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the "big picture" includes the
other students in the classroom who should be least interrupted.
She wanted to ensure that the students who want to learn are not
being disenfranchised.
MS. HOPE understood her concern.
8:17:35 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked how long she has been working in the district
as a policymaker.
MS. HOPE answered this is her seventh year as a director, but
she has taught in the district since the 1980s. She received
training on de-escalation techniques as a teacher, but the
training has improved over the years.
CHAIR GATTIS lauded Ms. Hope's expertise. She shared the
concern about the reporting aspect. She asked for further
clarification on whether the bill outlines proper statewide
policy.
MS. HOPE agreed.
8:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he appreciated the training
component in HB 210. He stated that applied behavioral analysis
(ABA) is a philosophy and principle that is wonderful in
modifying behavior of special needs and regular students. He
hoped that the techniques embrace these principles.
MS. HOPE answered that it does work on the theory of reinforcing
good behavior and addresses misbehavior with teaching
replacement behaviors and clear-cut consequences. She agreed it
provides the backbone of the ABA, which reduces unwanted
behaviors.
8:21:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed concern about notification
procedures and asked for further clarification on the MSBSD's
guidelines for notifying parents.
MS. HOPE answered that the district tries to notify parents on
the same day although it isn't always possible; however, the
policy is to notify parents within 24-hours. The district
incident form captures the time and who contacted the parent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on
behaviors that require notification.
MS. HOPE responded that students are often sent to the office,
which may or may not result in parental notification; however,
each time a student is taken out using physical action or for
seclusion, notification does occur.
8:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about procedures that include
individualized education programs (IEPs).
MS. HOPE said the techniques and use of seclusion are laid out
in an IEP team meeting and documented in the IEP.
8:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the student restraint and
seclusion requirements in Section 3 [page 2-3] of HB 210. He
asked whether these requirements ask too much of teachers or
aides.
MS. HOPE answered no; the teachers and aides in these programs
have a tremendous amount of training and background as well as
insight into students and which tools to use. She acknowledged
asking someone without training to do so would be asking for too
much.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed.
8:25:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether including a written report
that is maintained in a student's record raises any concern for
that information becoming public or if the student's record is
confidential in perpetuity.
MS. HOPE answered it would never be made public and is kept
confidential but parents may give written permission upfront.
8:26:39 AM
CLAYTON HOLLAND, Director, Pupil Services, Kenai Peninsula
Borough School District (KPBSD), testified in support of HB 210.
He said Ms. Hope's testimony covered much of what he wanted to
say. The KPBSD has followed most of what is proposed in HB 210
for several years, including a reporting system. The district
already reports to the state on the number of restraints. The
district hasn't had any seclusion incidents to report. Every
school has a minimum of two trained staff and their trainers are
classified staff in the district. He offered that how schools
look at students and student behavior has been better addressed
and has moved to focus on how to help students become successful
in school, including ABA, or other techniques. He characterized
it as a cultural shift that appears to be happening and
restraint is rarely used. He supported other districts using
these techniques and trends.
8:28:57 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the bill is a clarification of what
is already occurring in the district.
MR. HOLLAND answered yes.
8:29:43 AM
JEANNE GERHARDT-CYRUS, Parent, stated support for HB 210,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
My husband was called to school to witness a 250 pound
principal lying on top of our 9 year old daughter, who
was crying and screaming, "Get off of me, I can't
breathe, you're breaking my arm."
This is not Education!
I am a parent of a child who was restrained multiple
times in grades 1-8. My daughter experiences prenatal
exposure to alcohol and is one of the few in rural
areas to have received a diagnosis.
My daughter experienced high anxiety in school. She
would self-accommodate by hiding under her desk or
removing herself from the classroom situation which
caused visual/verbal overload.
Unfortunately, the teacher's reaction to this "non-
compliance" was usually to get closer to her face, use
more words and talk louder. Far from encouraging
"compliance", this caused increased anxiety and my
daughter would attempt to leave the classroom.
When prevented from self-accommodating, i.e., boxed in
a corner; my daughter would act out physically.
Additionally harmful-staff restraining was untrained,
non-certified and multiple. We had reports of two
adults carrying my daughter down the hall held by arms
and legs towards seclusion.
My daughter was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD.
This year, my daughter is on the honor roll as a
freshman in high school. We are working with the
Complex Behavioral Collaborative [(CBC)] and the
teachers allow her to self-accommodate. Her anxiety
is much reduced and she able to excel in school.
Between her efforts, those of the CBC, staff, and
parents in collaboration, everyone is safer, and she
is reaching towards her potential.
This is Education!
Our students AND staff need training in approved de-
escalation techniques. Inappropriate and unnecessary
restraint and seclusion needs to stop. The physical
psychological damage is too high a price to pay.
8:32:44 AM
MS. GERHARDT-CYRUS paraphrased her daughter's testimony, as
follows:
My history with restraint and seclusion is bad if not
worse with all the people that got hurt because of me.
I have no friends cause everyone [Indisc.]. It was so
bad that when I was in 8th grade I went to a treatment
facility. This year with the right services and no
restraints or seclusion I am doing much better and
have been on the honor roll since the beginning of the
year, due to the fact that I can walk out and sign out
when I need to and go for a walk and clear my head.
Thank you.
8:33:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON appreciated the testimony. She
acknowledged the progress within the school district for meeting
Ms. Gerhardt-Cyrus's daughter. She asked if Ms. Gerhardt-Cyrus
supports the bill.
MS. GERHARDT-CYRUS emphasized that the bill is important. She
related that she had once encouraged her daughter to leave
school and obtain a GED, but now her daughter is hoping to be on
the honor roll for four years.
8:34:58 AM
MIKE COONS stated he is retired but that he has worked in the
area of rescue and life support for over 22 years as a
paramedic, including training others in life support. He
praised the Mandt [System, Inc.] training, which is effective
and important. First, Mandt [System, Inc.] is used when the
person is completely out of control and needs to be restrained
to protect the person or others. Second, it's important to
protect the teacher and students. He referred to Representative
Reinbold's example and stressed the importance of removing the
other students from any situation with scissors, knives, or
other sharp implements. He offered suggestions to avoid
asphyxia, including putting the person on his/her side. He
offered that local fire districts are able to host Mandt
[System, Inc.] training for a nominal fee. In closing, he
encouraged the more people who have the training the better off
a school will be.
8:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the Mandt
[System, Inc.].
MR. COONS suggested that crisis intervention training for the
responders after a major incident includes post action
debriefing.
8:40:29 AM
PAM RONCONE, Crisis Prevention Institute, introduced herself and
said she is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on the
acronym "MANDT."
MS. RONCONE pointed out the acronym is "MANDT" but she did not
see it spelled out on the website.
8:41:42 AM
RON COWAN, Legal Rights Advocate/Investigator, Disability Law
Center of Alaska, stated support for HB 210, and clarified that
Mandt is not an acronym but rather the name of the man, David
Mandt, who created the technique. He continued his testimony,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to comment
on this proposed legislation on behalf of the
Disability Law Center of Alaska, the State's
designated Protection & Advocacy system for people who
experience a disability. I am the primary abuse and
neglect investigator for our agency, and have
previously served as the State's Long-Term Care
Ombudsman and as a regulator.
As many of you already know, the use of restraint and
seclusion in schools has become a much talked about
issue over the past 10 or more years. The main
reasons for this are the number of injuries and even
deaths that have been linked to the use of restraint
and seclusion in schools. So too, some studies and
investigations have revealed the inappropriate or
misuse of restraint and seclusion in schools.
Legislation to address these concerns has been
introduced in Congress and many states have adopted or
are developing statutes and regulations to provide
rules and conditions for the use of restraints and
seclusion.
8:43:17 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
In our own State, we have received complaints about
students as young as 3 years old being held in
physical restraints by school staff or being picked up
and carried to rooms they can't leave because the door
is locked or someone holds the door handle or puts a
foot or body against the door. In some schools,
utility closets have been used that have no windows or
means to monitor the student for safety. In other
schools make-shift cubicles or large box-like devices
have been built out of plywood. In yet other schools,
padded mats like those used in physical education
classes have been stood up and held by staff as they
surround a student so that he or she is unable to
leave. Frequently, these interventions might not be
viewed by school staff as "seclusion" because a staff
member is present. As a result, even though the
student was subjected to the same potential risks for
injury and trauma as if he or she had been in
seclusion alone, the parents would not necessarily be
notified. In these cases, the parents would not be
alerted to observe for possible trauma, nor was there
a requirement for school staff to conduct additional
assessments of the behaviors, review interventions, or
develop positive behavioral supports with the
participation of the parents, that might preclude
future unsafe behavior. Given the language and
safeguards of HB 210, the above scenario is less
likely to occur and it would create consistent
policies and practices throughout the State.
8:44:42 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The current language of HB 210 provides numerous
protections to those students who may be subjected to
the use of restraint or seclusion, a large percentage
of whom experience a disability. These required
safeguards include notice to parents; written reports;
the use of restraint and seclusion only in emergent
circumstances where other interventions are not
successful; termination of the restraint or seclusion
as soon as the unsafe behavior has subsided; staff
training of an approved program; continuous monitoring
of a student in seclusion; review and analysis of
plans and assessments following the use of restraint
and seclusion; and finally, annual reporting to the
State.
8:45:17 AM
MR. COWAN continued reading from a prepared statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Restraint and seclusion are not evidence-based
educational, therapeutic or behavioral program
interventions. The use of restraint and seclusion is
indicative of the failure of other therapeutic
interventions, not success and therefore should only
be used in rare circumstance. Under the best
circumstances, restraint and seclusion are used only
when a student is displaying behaviors that are unsafe
for the student or others, or where those behaviors
are deemed to be imminent, and where other
interventions are not or have not been successful in
ameliorating the behavior that is unsafe. The
restraint and seclusion is terminated as soon as the
unsafe behavior has stopped. The circumstances
surrounding the unsafe behavior, the unsafe behavior
itself, and the interventions attempted or considered
are re-evaluated, with changes in the student's plan
or additional staff training occurring as necessary.
Under the worst of circumstances, restraint and
seclusion are used when less aggressive, less
restrictive interventions may have been successful in
preventing or mitigating the unsafe behavior or when
they are used for convenience, punishment or to bring
about compliance. As stated earlier, the use of
restraint and seclusion may result in injury or death;
they may also result in creating a traumatic
experience, often to a child whose behavior stems from
other traumatic experiences or a disability.
HB 210 provides needed added protections to students,
while ensuring parents are consistently made aware of
circumstances that may be taking away students'
opportunities for learning, placing their child at
risk, and giving parents the opportunity to work with
school staff to develop interventions that enhance
rather than restrict student learning. Thank you very
much.
8:46:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted a previous testifier suggested post
action training. He asked whether he has any recommendation on
this.
MR. COWAN answered that many of the interventions that are used
include the debriefing aspect and is an important element in
programs that might be reviewed by the EED.
CHAIR GATTIS asked for the sponsor's comments.
8:48:13 AM
MR. GIALOPSOS, on behalf of Representative Millett,
directed attention to page 4, lines [10-18, subsection
(e)], which read:
(e) A school district shall ensure that a review
process is established and conducted for each incident
that involves restraint or seclusion of a student.
The review must include
(1) staff review of the incident;
(2) follow-up communication with the student and
the student's parent or legal guardian;
(3) review of and recommendations for adjusting
or amending procedures, strategies,
accommodations, individualized education plans,
or other student behavior plans, or for
additional staff training.
8:49:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the post-incident review
could result in no additional recommendations.
MR. GIALOPSOS deferred to the Disability Law Center of Alaska
for comment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he couldn't conceive of a system
that would require additional changes for the sake of obliging
the statutory directional changes.
8:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 4, line 13 of Version
T, which requires staff review of the incident. She offered her
belief that should happen fairly soon after the incident since
it also benefits staff.
MR. GIALOPSOS did not believe the sponsor would object to an
amendment to include an expeditious staff review so long as it
doesn't impede the function of the school.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
8:51:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, on
page 4, line 11, after "conducted" insert "as soon as
practicable after" and delete "for".
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested Conceptual Amendment 1 should
be on line 13, which read, "staff review of the incident;
perhaps adding "as soon as possible."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked to change Conceptual Amendment 1,
on page 4, line 12 of Version T, after, "review" add, "must take
place as soon as practicable after the incident, and ...."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, upon request read Conceptual Amendment
1, which read, "on page 4, line 12 of Version T, after, "review"
add, "must take place as soon as practicable after the incident,
and ....""
8:54:15 AM
CASSIE WELLS, Director, Student Services, North Slope Borough
School District (NSBSD); President, Council of Administrators of
Special Education, offered support for HB 210. She supported
the testimony given by Ms. Hope, MSBSD and Mr. Holland, KPBSD.
She also supported crisis intervention and de-escalation as
proactive and preventative. Although the NSBSD does not employ
Mandt [System, Inc.], the district does use the Crisis
Prevention Institute (CPI) training, although not all staff is
currently trained to use CPI the district is moving in that
direction.
8:55:18 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for comments on the language the committee
adopted in Conceptual Amendment 1, with respect to debriefing.
MS. WELLS answered that she thought it was appropriate. She
agreed it was important to have staff review their actions for
compliance.
8:56:01 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 210.
8:56:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON acknowledged that there may only be two
teachers in a school and the need to have both trained. Of
course, every teacher should have training and this type of
training should be incorporated as part of teacher education in
the University of Alaska system, she said.
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
8:58:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the fiscal note indicates
$7,000 per year for approving crisis intervention programs, such
as Mandt Systems, Inc. and CPI. He asked for further
clarification on the number of programs that would be approved
and whether the commissioner envisioned this would be a
continual process.
MIKE HANLEY, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said it is an evolving situation; however, he
anticipated an annual review will occur to evaluate the programs
being implemented and to ensure that the current program is used
and the districts are not using outdated programs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the first section of the fiscal note
indicates data collection but not analysis by the EED. He
expressed concern the data will not be used.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that thus far the data has been
collected. He related that this would address a perceived
shortcoming and data will be accessible and available in one
place. The department will know how many incidents occur in the
state and can provide information to the public, without
providing student information.
9:01:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested that the department should
develop a standard form to be submitted to the department. The
EMT does something similar, and she touted the uniformity for
collection of this information. Otherwise schools may submit
information on an independent basis.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY clarified that the department will not
analyze or review the data, but will organize it. The sponsor
has made it clear that analysis is not part of the statute, thus
the low fiscal note.
9:04:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that he is pleased with the
small fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON maintained her concern that organizing
data alone would not satisfy the need and the need for a
standardized form.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged that often information is organized
and put in a pile. She suggested that is a bigger question.
9:05:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 of the fiscal note.
The last sentence of the narrative on paragraph (1) reads, "The
design of a data collection notebook and technical assistance to
support districts in completing the data collection yearly at
$7.0." He asked whether this should include that the data will
be collected on a form acceptable to the department. Otherwise,
it could become an effort.
9:06:01 AM
COMMISSIONER HANLEY answered that this addresses data collection
and speaks to Representative Wilson's concern about having a
uniform method for collecting the data.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III added that in his experience the
department collected data on asbestos surveys done on facilities
and organized it. This information was not collated or reported
but was available for districts to review.
9:07:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify the fiscal note with the
bill. He suggested a possible amendment, on page 4, line 9, to
include the language, "on a form acceptable to the department."
MR. GIALOPSOS said that would clarify the department's intent
and the sponsor would be very open to a conceptual amendment to
that effect.
9:08:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, on
page 4, line 9, after "taken" to add the language, "on a form
acceptable to the department."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes. She
directed attention to page 3, line 29, subsection (d), which
read, "School personnel who restrain or seclude a student shall
provide a written report of the incident to the school
administrator."
CHAIR GATTIS cautioned against constraining the department.
COMMISSIONER HANLEY suggested in page 4, line 19 refers to each
school district reporting to the department and may meet the
intent.
9:10:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2. He moved
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, on page 4, line 19, following
"report" to insert "on a form acceptable".
CHAIR GATTIS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER thanked the sponsor for the bill and
suggested that the testimony that has been received in committee
will be well served by the implementation of this type of
policy. He has had personal experience with his son and he
believed that everyone could have benefited from this. He
thanked the sponsor for bringing this forward.
9:12:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 210, Version T, labeled 28-LS0852\T,
Mischel, 2/25/14, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 210(EDC) was reported from the House
Education Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:13 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
9:15:18 AM
HB 318-ANNUAL SCHOOL REPORT: MILITARY FAMILIES
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 318, "An Act relating to public school reports of
students whose parents are members of the active duty military
service."
9:15:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 318,
paraphrased from his sponsor statement. He said that military
families in Alaska face special challenges. Many parents move
every three or four years in and out of Alaska, noting the
state's moving rates are three times the national average. One
or more parents may deploy for up to a year or more on overseas
duty. Students must transfer into and out of school districts
from different states or even different nations. Students must
adjust to different graduation curriculum requirements and face
the social dislocations and the necessity of making new friends.
All these factors can make it difficult and challenging for
students to make normal progress toward graduation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that while the impacts of these
stresses on a military child's educational progress may be clear
to the parents and the students, they are hidden from our local
school districts, the state, and the federal government. He
indicated that AS 14.03.120 already requires annual reports on
school and student performance, including factors such as
accreditation, achievement test scores, exit exam, retention,
drop out and graduation rates, and enrollment changes due to
transfers and other purposes. These are subdivided by gender,
ethnicity, parents' economic status, the students' English
language status, and whether the students are migrants.
9:17:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER reported that the state Department of
Education and Early Development (EED) does not specifically
count or track military students so there isn't any way of
linking these important metrics with the students of military
family status. He related that 37,000 military dependents live
in Alaska, which means many are students that fall in the K-12
system. Currently the U.S. Department of Education Impact Aid
Program collects data on military-connected students by school
district with the primary purpose of helping the district
qualify for impact aid. However, the DOE data does not include
the academic performance of the students or the specific schools
they attend, which reduces the utility of the information.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that HB 318 seeks to capture
information on the academic performance statistics of students
of active-duty military families. It would require local school
districts to gather information on the number, attendance and
performance of students enrolled in the school. It would also
require the department to post this information on the website
along with its published information. The families affected are
those whose parents and guardians are on active duty in the
armed forces of the United States - Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marines, the United States Coast Guard, the Alaska National
Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, or the Alaska State Defense
Force.
9:18:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related that having the information on
the number, attendance, and specific performance could have a
number of benefits. This could help local districts see how
well they do to assist military families, and help the
department design programs to help address the challenges these
students face. This should help improve the count of military
students for the purpose of calculating impact aid and
potentially increase the federal flow of funds to local school
districts. It would also provide guidance to incoming Alaskans
as military families consider where to live and which school
their children will attend. It would also help the Department
of Defense develop policies of its own to better prioritize
funding to identify and provide necessary resources to help
military families achieve better educational outcomes.
9:19:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER added some programs have aides for
students in schools in which parents frequently deploy. He said
this bill would also help the state fulfill its commitment to
military children when the state signed on in 2009 to the
Interstate Compact on the Education of Military Children, which
he helped set up for the Boards and Commission's Office. He
reported that Alaska and 38 other states are committed to help
military students transition properly and the data is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that many organizations nationally
connected with military students' education support endorse
identifying and tracking military student performance and are
working on successful practices that can be replicated. He
recalled a similar element was adopted in HB 278. He hoped that
the committee would help get this important provision in law
adopted and implemented.
9:20:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III related his understanding that the State
of Alaska collects specific information during the student count
period. He asked whether this bill will correlate information
to the specific collection time or if the data collected would
be continuously collected.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered yes to both. He was unsure how
the department will gather information, but the fiscal note
reflects the department's interest in spending time and
resources in developing data collection techniques. He was
unsure whether a "data dump" could occur between the personnel
office of the Air National Guard to the EED or if it will need
to be accomplished through questionnaires. He anticipated that
it would be a combination, but the fiscal note spans three years
of working on data collection techniques.
9:21:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether the intent of the
legislation is to track performance on each individual or the
overall performance of the military student as he/she moves
through Alaska's system.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that it would be more of a
statistical aggregate report versus individual information to
determine trends.
9:22:51 AM
CHAIR GATTIS pointed out it could be helpful to have information
follow the students as they transfer between states.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said Nevada and Texas are the two states
requiring this data collection and five states collect
information. He directed attention to state report cards that
do not include statistics on schools with less than five of a
cohort in attendance to avoid identifying a single individual
student.
9:24:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, to the existing law
which indicates that the information will be provided in a
public meeting of parents, students, and community members. He
pointed out the new language in paragraph 11, reads," (11)
information on the number, attendance, and performance of
students enrolled in the school whose parents or guardians are
...." He asked how a report on the ten U.S. Coast Guard
students attending a school in Homer would be made public. He
questioned reporting this subset when the other categories speak
to summary and evaluation of the curriculum and that type of
information. He anticipated the department would be able to
clarify this.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1 line 8, which requires
reporting on the school's performance and the performance of the
school's students. He deferred to the department to more fully
respond.
9:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the federal and state military
are included in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the legislative legal
drafters included the Alaska State Defense Force in the bill.
He said he would be amenable to an amendment since this branch
is not a military force that is subject to deployment plus it
has limited numbers. He would also be amendable to removing the
Alaska Naval Militia from the bill.
9:28:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the armed forces are
separate from the US Coast Guard and the Alaska National Guard.
CHAIR GATTIS requested a breakdown of the agencies.
9:29:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded that the department would
report on the agencies for the various military families.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether they could be included in
as it creates a group as a whole.
CHAIR GATTIS acknowledged that she didn't object to viewing it
as a group.
9:30:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 26, to the
language "parents or guardians are on active duty" if the family
is in reserves versus active duty that the children would not be
reported.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER deferred to the department to respond.
9:31:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said the intent would be to collect the
data, even for families whose parents are in the reserves. Some
states may differentiate, but that is not the intent in HB 318.
9:32:53 AM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Liaison, State Liaison Office, U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD), in response to Representative
Seaton, said that the office seeks to distinguish between active
duty and Alaska National Guard (ANG). He deferred to the
sponsor, but his goal is to differentiate between students from
active duty military families and the ANG. He reported that 17
school districts in Alaska receive impact aid for 11,000
students. He was aware of nearly 19,000 military connected
active duty kids between the ages of 5-17, but the DOD doesn't
know the specific location.
MR. SAN SOUCI reported that DOD's Impact Aid Program contributed
$1.6 million to Alaska's EED in the Delta Greely district in FY
2013. He acknowledged that the goal is to attempt to help
facilitate data-driven decisions and improve the DOD's
distribution of resources to schools that help and to help
commanders. For example, in San Diego, it wasn't possible to
compare the absentee rate for U.S. Navy families to other San
Diego families due to lack of data. In North Carolina,
questions arose as to the higher incidence of special education
students in the military, which is conjecture without data. The
DOD put $25 million in the FY 2014 budget to provide support to
districts. In addition, reports would be important in all
instances to help provide district support from the federal
government. A school with fewer than five students in the
aggregate may be collected but not reported, as the data could
become useful for specific support. He named a number of
associations, boards, and teacher organizations who support the
collection of this information. Several other states are
adopting codes to provide this information although it is too
early to determine trends. He thanked the committee for taking
up HB 318.
9:38:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that some students have military
advisors. She asked whether the military advisors currently in
the school will be the ones who will collect the data.
MR. SAN SOUCI answered that the DOD has a sub-agency, the DOD
Education Activity, who are the "drivers" in the states. This
agency will work to collect the data, but he was unsure of how
it will be collected in the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged tight budget constraints
which would require using current staff. She offered her belief
the small fiscal note won't add more staff. She hoped the
military advisors would be sustainable and that the state uses
resources it already has in place.
9:40:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the 17,000 students
receiving federal impact aid in Alaska. She asked for further
clarification on the $1.6 million and if that is only to
Delta/Greely School District or for the entire population of
students.
MR. SAN SOUCI answered that the EED received $1.57 million in
federal Impact Aid in FY 13 and Delta/Greely School District
received $48,000. He clarified the numbers previously stated.
He reported that of 80,000 students 11,336 military students are
in 17 school districts impacted by the military. He clarified
that these districts are considered DOD Impact Aid for Military.
The U.S. Department of Education has specific information on
federal funding totaling $106 million from the EED and
districts.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER detailed that federal funding arrives in
Alaska via DOD Impact Aid to compensate communities for the loss
of property taxes for students who live on tax-exempt military
property but attend public schools. In addition, it helps to
compensate the local economy for the loss of sales or taxes
since military families shop at the commissary, which explains
the $106 million. In addition, the DOD also provides federal
Supplemental Impact Aid, which is additional funding to school
districts with more than 20 percent military students.
9:43:37 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the district provided any feedback,
particularly since additional work may be imposed on existing
staff.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered no.
CHAIR GATTIS noted the importance of collecting data but as to
where it is stored, how it is accessed and how it is
disseminated for, the state has "a ways to go." The state needs
to rise to the challenge.
9:44:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that Marty Lang, principal at
Eagle River High School reported he received a federal grant to
help him pay for accounting students for military families. He
noted that it's been hard to get statewide information.
9:45:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the portion of the bill
requiring open reporting, and asked if the U.S. DOD intends to
have the data reported in this manner. For example, would every
school have a public meeting and identify the five students.
MR. SAN SOUCI referred to [page 2, lines 25-28 to paragraph
(11)] of HB 318. He indicated the DOD agrees with the reporting
language. He stated the intention is to have access to data to
develop trends. He deferred to the sponsor to comment on the
remainder of the bill, which is current statute, noting that he
doesn't wish to create any additional burden. He envisioned the
data collection would be part of the routine information schools
gather on students at the beginning of the year to capture the
military connection.
9:47:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the DOD's intention is to
have access to the data and information, without publically
broadcasting the data.
MR. SAN SOUCI agreed. He said it is not the DOD's intent to
expose individual students or subject military children to
scrutiny.
9:48:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, and the Alaska
State Defense Force agencies.
MR. SAN SOUCI answered that the DOD is most concerned with
active duty military, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the Alaska
National Guard, and any reserves, but not the Alaska Naval
Militia and the Alaska State Defense Force, although he deferred
to the sponsor.
9:49:36 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification on the public
meeting and disseminating information on less than five military
students in a school.
PAUL PRUSSING, Deputy Director, Teaching and Learning Support,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), explained
that this would amend the report card to the public on the
department's website. A person could click on a school and
acquire information, such as how many Alaska Native and
Caucasians or special education students are in a school. This
bill would add a category in the subgroups listed to include
military personnel. He described the data collection and
indicated the source of information for the student report is
the Online Alaska Student Information System (OASIS) and the
complexity of the fiscal note is because it's more than a simple
Excel spreadsheet being sent to the department, such as in HB
210.
9:50:58 AM
CHAIR GATTIS asked for further clarification that if the
information is uploaded in July it relates to the prior year
data. She questioned the reasons parents fill out paperwork
twice a year for schools.
MR. PRUSSING answered that the fall and spring testing results
and other information from the past year is reported.
CHAIR GATTIS remarked that the information gathered could be
used to allow parents to obtain tutoring for their children;
however, she admitted it's just one of her pet peeves.
9:52:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III understood the data is collected via
OASIS and published in July. He asked for further clarification
on whether information on students of military families is
collected and if it is time critical.
MR. PRUSSING answered that data collection will be considered as
part of fiscal note. He envisioned the department will need to
reflect on the best way to collect data. It is envisioned
currently to compile it via OASIS, the main data collection for
all districts, but it's something that could evolve.
9:54:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, lines 12-14,
[paragraphs (2) and (3), which is the only place results of
norm-referenced achievement tests and results of state
standards-based assessments in reading, writing, and
mathematics, is reported. Everything else in this section seems
to relate to broader reporting on drop-out rates, achievement,
or graduation rates. He expressed concern that this seems to
require detailed performance reporting for the military
subgroup, which would be different than other subgroup
reporting.
MR. PRUSSING answered that information is being gathered on the
military students regarding attendance and performance, but
having the confirmation that they are students of military
families will not occur. He offered his belief that paragraph
(11) just gathers one piece of information.
9:56:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained concern that the data
collection is for a subcategory for students of military
families as a statutory requirement in HB 318, but the statutes
don't indicate a parallel reporting standard for other student
groups.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether the other subgroups reported on in
this manner.
MR. PRUSSING answered yes; part of the accountability system
requires annual measureable objectives for each subgroup and
each school reports this information. He said the department
has not expressed concern.
9:58:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled the "No Child Left Behind"
(NCLB) program required this information, that it a source of
pride for some schools and is included in their public website
postings. She acknowledged that for certain small districts may
have an issue but other areas find it helpful.
10:00:06 AM
CHAIR GATTIS closed public testimony on HB 318.
10:00:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, on
page 2, line 28, after "Guard," to delete "the Alaska Naval
Militia, or the Alaska State Defense Force."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON deferred to the sponsor but said the DOD
indicated interest in active duty military members. He offered
his belief that including the state entities will detract from
the target information.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, as sponsor, agreed with Conceptual
Amendment 4.
10:01:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether the amendment before the
committee was Amendment 4 or if it should be Amendment 1.
10:01:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Conceptual Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD removed her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, on
page 2, line 28, after "Guard," to delete "the Alaska Naval
Militia, or the Alaska State Defense Force."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, as sponsor, agreed with Conceptual
Amendment 1.
10:02:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:02:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 318, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
318(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
10:03:29 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0318A.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB318-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 DOD White Paper.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 MCEC Brochure.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 318 |
| CSHB210-T Version.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| CSHB210 T Version-Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| CSHB 210 T Version-Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |
| HB210 - Cowan testimony.pdf |
HEDC 3/17/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 210 |