Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/16/2024 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 2024
10:06 a.m.
10:06:56 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Sponsor; Laurel Shoop,
Legislative Liaison, Department of Education and Early
Development; Deb Riddle, Division Operations Manager,
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence, Department
of Education and Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Richard Saville, Program Coordinator 2, Governor's Council
on Disabilities and Special Education; Clara Baldwin,
Director, Alaska State School for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing; Jamie Kokoszka, Program Coordinator 2, Governor's
Council on Disabilities and Special Education; Amy Bobich,
Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 111 EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
HB 111 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He thanked the
interpreter for providing services during the meeting. He
provided instructions regarding speaking during the
meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to public school students who are
deaf or have a hearing impairment."
10:08:51 AM
Co-Chair Foster invited the bill sponsor to the table.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE ALLARD, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the legislation. She shared that she is hard of
hearing, and she clarified that "hearing impaired" was not
the correct terminology. She reviewed the sponsor statement
(copy on file):
House Bill 111 is a deaf and hard of hearing
children's bill of rights that establishes consistency
in the information provided to parents by the school
district, allows parents to choose the best method of
communication for their child and requires the school
district to provide services using the parent's chosen
method of communication.
Deaf children are born with the same ability to
acquire language as others. They have the right and
capacity to be educated, graduate from high school,
obtain further education, and pursue a career. They
have the right to have their ability to communicate
and acquire language to be treated as a priority.
Lack of access in the classroom leads to students
missing essential information in lectures and
classroom discussions and can lead to low academic
achievement and lower language acquisition. Children
who are deaf or hard of hearing have the right to
accommodations and access to academic instruction,
school services, and extracurricular activities in
their primary language. Access in their primary
languages gives them the opportunity to benefit from
all services and programs at their school and to fully
access education and society.
Given the unique nature of rural Alaska, some children
who are deaf or hard of hearing may require
residential services as part of their educational
program. HB 111 declares all deaf children have the
right to an individualized education program and that
their parent will be able to choose the method of
communication that will be the most appropriate for
their child.
House Bill 111 establishes that children who are deaf
or hard of hearing have the right to an individualized
education program that identifies their primary
language, considers their prognosis for hearing loss,
provides instruction in their primary language,
provides assistive devices and services, and provides
appropriate and timely assessments in their primary
language.
Seventeen states have passed a Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Children's Bill of Rights.
10:11:42 AM
Representative Allard reviewed the sectional analysis (copy
on file):
Section 1: amends AS 14.30.272 by adding new
subsections:
1. School district must provide parent with
comprehensive information regarding,
a. Hearing technology
b. Different methods of communication
c. Services and programs designed to help
children who are deaf and hard of hearing
d. Information on support and advocacy services
offered by public and private agencies.
2. Parent chooses the method of communication that
will be the most appropriate for their child.
3. Services are delivered to child through
professionals with training, experience and a
background in the chosen method of communication.
d. School District must inform parent of school
districts duties and the parents rights under
section c.
e. In this section,
1. Definition of "bilingual approach"
2. Definition of "cued speech"
3. Definition of "deaf"
4. Definition of "hard of hearing"
5. Definition of "Listening and spoken
language"
6. Definition of "total communication"
Section 2: amends AS 14.30.276 by adding a new
subsection that requires the department to establish
and operate a centralized program for students whose
primary language is American Sign Language, provide
residential services as part of the program,
establishes that a school district may operate the
program under specific requirements, and provide
funding for the students who attend the program
operated by a school districted under this subsection
to that school district.
10:13:14 AM
Representative Ortiz thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill to the committee. He thought there were many good
aspects to the bill. He asked how things may look different
in a rural school district, for example, if the bill
passed.
Representative Allard replied that currently children in
rural communities who are deaf or hard of hearing did not
necessarily have access to a signer. She explained that a
family member could be used as a signer in school. She
relayed that it was not currently mandated to have access
to an interpreter via [Microsoft] Teams.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the bill
would establish the mandate [for an interpreter to be
provided to students].
Representative Allard replied that it was not currently
mandatory. The bill would put the requirement in state
statute. She believed more parents would be able to have
their children in the school districts and classrooms with
the same benefits as their peers.
Representative Ortiz asked if the legislation would result
in any added financial burden to school districts.
Representative Allard replied that school districts already
received a 1.25 modifier in the formula. She stated that
the issue should not have any fiscal consideration because
it was helping children who were deaf and hard of hearing.
She noted the children had the same capabilities as their
hearing peers. She added that the 1.25 modifier was a
financial incentive for school districts.
10:15:50 AM
Representative Galvin thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill forward. She understood there were federal guidelines
and rules the state was required to follow. She asked
whether "this" is already embedded federally. She asked if
1.25 in the formula was enough to ensure compliance with
current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) laws.
Representative Allard replied that the state was following
federal guidelines. She noted an individual online who
could speak to the topic. She stated that the Senate had
coordinated with her on a CS [committee substitute] to
implement the federal guidelines to ensure the state was
covering all its bases. She believed the 1.25 was enough.
She stated intensified funding was not necessary for deaf
and hard of hearing individuals. She explained that the
1.25 would alleviate the cost for an interpreter to be
present or any other needs (e.g., computers or Teams) that
children who were deaf or hard of hearing could access.
Representative Galvin asked about federal guidelines. She
wondered if there were federal dollars that were already
directed at making sure the state was accommodating
appropriately.
Representative Allard deferred the question to invited
testimony.
10:18:18 AM
Representative Hannan stated it was the committee's job to
talk about the fiscal aspects. She referenced Section 2 of
the sectional analysis that specified the department would
establish a centralized program and provide residential
services as part of a program. She did not see any fiscal
associated fiscal notes. She remarked that the costs did
not appear to be borne by a district through a Base Student
Allocation (BSA). She asked where those items were and
whether the state currently operated a residential program
for hard of hearing children.
Representative Allard answered there was a deaf and hard of
hearing school in Anchorage [Alaska State School for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing]. She elaborated that many of the
students were sometimes put with other families who
sponsored them. The students could attend the school during
the day and go home to the sponsor family in the evening.
For example, a student could come from Dillingham to attend
the school and live with a sponsor family. She believed it
was on a volunteer basis unless there was some federal
assistance. She added that the deaf and hard of hearing
school in Anchorage was the only one in the state.
Representative Hannan referenced a presentation provided by
the sponsor in members' committee packets (copy on file).
She noted the presentation specified there were 149 deaf or
hard of hearing children in Alaska. She thought
Representative Allard had said that many of the children
may be attending school in Anchorage. She asked how many of
the 149 children were currently attending the deaf and hard
of hearing school in Anchorage.
Representative Allard clarified that she had stated that
some, not many, of the 149 children were attending the
school in Anchorage. She believed the deaf and hard of
hearing school in Anchorage accommodated approximately 75
children. She could double check that number. In terms of
the fiscal aspect, she agreed that fiscal notes mattered,
but the fiscal note for the bill was $6,000 to change
language. She highlighted that the school district received
fiscal accommodation for children who were deaf and hard of
hearing.
10:20:47 AM
Representative Hannan clarified it was the committee
members' job to make sure they understood [the fiscal
implications]. She stressed that she was not objecting. As
a career educator had definite support and wanted to ensure
the state was accommodating and providing for the education
of all its students. She remarked that it was the
committee's job to know where the monies were. She thought
that $6,000 in regulation did not seem to add better
services for the deaf students in her school district. She
wanted to ensure the legislation would improve service.
Representative Allard replied that the bill helped students
because there would be a statutory requirement for students
to be accommodated with an interpreter and other means of
their preference. She requested to hear from her invited
testifier.
RICHARD SAVILLE, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON
DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION (via teleconference),
introduced himself and asked for a restatement of the
question.
Representative Allard noted that Clara Baldwin the director
of the Alaska State School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
was also available and could answer Representative Hannan's
questions about the number of children who attend the
school. She noted another testifier available online as
well.
Representative Hannan restated her questions. She
referenced Section 2 of the sectional analysis that
specified the department would establish a centralized
program and provide residential services as part of a
program. She asked for details on existing programs and
what the bill would direct the department to offer. She did
not believe the costs were borne by the school districts
through the BSA because the section referenced the
department.
Representative Allard directed the question to Ms. Baldwin.
CLARA BALDWIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF
AND HARD OF HEARING (via teleconference), shared that she
oversaw the Alaska School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(AKSDHH). She detailed that she is deaf, uses American sign
language, and had a voice interpreter with her presently.
The school served a full spectrum of children with hearing
loss. There were some students who required a self-
contained direct instruction classroom. She explained that
the students used American sign language (ASL) receptively
and expressively and were considered full-time students for
AKSDHH. The school also served hard of hearing children who
were independently mainstreamed in a general education
classroom with additional hearing supports through devices
(e.g., FM system, hearing aids, cochlear implants). She
stated there were many different ways students could access
the classrooms.
Ms. Baldwin elaborated that the school partnered with Hope
Community Resources, which had a program called Rural Deaf
Student Supports (RDSS). She detailed that RDSS was a grant
program that was separate from AKSDHH. The RDSS grant used
licensed sponsor families referred to as host families. She
explained that a child from a rural community was not
required to attend the school in Anchorage she noted
there was a history of colonization and forced education in
a way that did not make sense for them and the school
stood ready to provide service in person if desired. The
school also had online outreach and partnered with several
rural school districts to provide additional supports for
instruction. The school consulted with teachers and
provided language and other assessments. Additionally,
students could meet AKSDHH students via video if parental
permission was given in order to meet other students who
use sign language. The cost for the residential program
through Hope Community Resources and the AKSDHH program
were separate. She believed the grant cycle had been
renewed through 2027 to provide rural services for deaf and
hard of hearing children.
10:26:35 AM
Representative Hannan asked if AKSDHH was governed by the
State Board of Education or the Anchorage School District.
Ms. Baldwin replied that AKSDHH was funded by the State of
Alaska through a long standing agreement. The school was
housed in the Anchorage School District (ASD) and received
some additional funding from ASD. The school worked
directly for and through Don Enoch [DEED special education
administrator]. She thanked Mr. Enoch for supporting the
school for many years.
Co-Chair Foster moved to invited testimony.
JAMIE KOKOSZKA, PROGRAM COORDINATOR 2, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL
ON DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION (via teleconference),
provided prepared remarks:
The deaf and hard of hearing community approached the
council for support and the council fully supports
this bill. It so happens that I have some significant
congenital hearing impairment in both ears, and I use
hearing aids. I'm using my own experience as a child
growing up hard of hearing in the state of Alaska as
an example from the council, but it's not my personal
testimony. The information that you've heard today is
true and it happened to me and it's still happening to
children in Alaska schools today.
American sign language was not presented to me and my
family and we were not aware of this option. I'm now
47 years old and my brain is past its prime for
language learning. I was put into the regular
classroom where spoken English was the only mode of
communication. I was forced to wear hearing aids that
were painful that did not fit correctly and had poor
quality sound. My teachers did not know what to do
with me. I spent a lot of time looking at the back of
the teacher's head because they were writing on the
chalkboard, I couldn't see their facial expressions
and I couldn't see their mouths talking and their
voices went into the wall. After that I was
undiagnosed with ADHD at the time, and I had
congenital cataracts in both eyes.
In the second grade I asked my mom if I could go to
speech class like the kid next to me because people
were always correcting my speech. I was told that I
did not qualify. At age 14 I got help with speech
th
through theater class. In the 7 grade I asked for an
IEP because I knew I needed help.
My education challenges were described in detail
throughout my school records that clearly showed that
I needed help, yet they still checked the box "does
not meet criteria for an IEP." I felt behind in my
education and I barely graduated high school. I
learned about vocational rehabilitation through a
fellow student, not my educators. Not much has changed
since the 1980s and 90s. The council urges you to
support HB 111, to help families with children who are
deaf and hard of hearing. Thank you for your
consideration of this bill.
10:29:51 AM
Representative Galvin thanked Ms. Kokoszka for sharing her
personal story and expertise. She was particularly
interested in early diagnoses. She knew there was some
thought about whether the state was fully supporting the
infant learning program and identifying the children when
they were young and properly setting them on the right
path. She wanted to ensure the $6,000 would get what was
needed in regard to early diagnoses.
Ms. Kokoszka asked Representative Galvin to rephrase the
question.
Representative Galvin asked if the bill ensured the state
would be addressing early diagnoses.
Ms. Kokoszka responded affirmatively. She relayed that she
was not a numbers expert and could not speak to the $6,000.
She shared that if she had received reasonable
accommodations at a young age (rather than making her wear
hearing aids and thinking it solved the problem) someone
would likely have discovered her ADHD early on. She had not
received the diagnosis until she received good hearing aids
through vocational rehabilitation. She believed it would
have been discovered many years earlier if she had received
early intervention. She added that after she received the
vocational rehabilitation services she had gone from barely
passing in high school to the dean's list in college.
10:33:05 AM
Representative Allard requested to hear from Mr. Saville.
Mr. Saville stated that Ms. Kokoszka was testifying on
behalf of the council. He could not address what the $6,000
would do. He relayed that the bill applied to school
districts, which began with children at the ages of three
to four when they graduate from infant learning programs.
He advised that if there was a need to address early
intervention prior to school districts being involved, it
should be addressed with the Infant Learning Program. He
shared that he is staff for the council working with the
interagency coordinating council for infants and toddlers
with disabilities, which was required of all states by Part
C of IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]. He
thought the bill helped school districts identify and get
resources to parents once school districts were involved.
He did not believe the bill specifically addressed children
prior to age 3.
10:34:52 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. He relayed the
email address for submitting testimony.
AMY BOBICH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
introduced herself and gave her name in sign language. She
shared that she was present to testify about HB 111 based
on two experiences: her own experience as a deaf person and
as a preschool teacher and educator in the State of Alaska
at the State School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. She
relayed that she was born deaf, and her parents did not
know until she was two years old because there had been no
early hearing screenings available at the time; therefore,
she had a late start to her education. She became
bilingual, but she struggled in school, and it took
substantial work to catch up to her hearing peers.
Ms. Bobich shared that as a preschool teacher, she
currently worked with children in the three to five age
group. She had 12 years of experience as an educator,
working with families and their children from birth to five
years of age. She started her teaching career in Alaska and
later taught in Colorado followed by California at a school
for the deaf. She had seen the impact of how a good early
intervention program could support deaf and hard of hearing
children. She had seen many families, especially in Alaska,
that did not know about American sign language. She
encouraged service providers to let people know about the
full range of services. She stated that when a child was
diagnosed there was typically a doctor and audiologist
involved. The forgotten piece of the puzzle was American
sign language, which was a fully accessible and visual
language.
Ms. Bobich provided an example of a hearing baby born to a
hearing family. From birth the baby was exposed to language
and by the time they were three years of age they could
speak complete, complex sentences when entering preschool.
Additionally, the child may have abstract thought and was
developing critical thinking skills. She compared the
experience to that of a deaf or hard of hearing child. She
detailed that for a deaf or hard of hearing child from the
age of birth to three sometimes had access to services and
sometimes they did not. She relayed that American sign
language was often not included in the range of services
provided. The bill would add ASL and would hold people
accountable to ensure parents were offered the choice. She
stated that it would not force people to sign with their
children, but it would inform parents and families to know
about the option.
Ms. Bobich shared that she had a student in her classroom
with no language development services, which caused the
child to be much further behind. She explained that
students who came to the school with no early language
development came in with one word. The children should be
producing full sentences, but without an accessible
language from birth, they were years behind. She stressed
it was a huge gap to fill. She detailed that the children
were not ready for academic learning or ready to read,
write, or do math because there was no foundational
language present to make those connections. She believed
the bill would help ensure the fullest range of services
possible would be available to start as early as possible
[in a child's life]. The goal was to ensure parents were
given the range of services from the moment a child was
born in order for them to fully develop and have the same
possibilities and potential of their hearing peers.
10:40:10 AM
Representative Galvin appreciated Ms. Bobich's vast
experience in early education in various states. She asked
if there were many children showing up in her class at the
age of three to five who would have benefitted from an
early diagnosis and services, particularly in Alaska versus
other states. She was trying to assess how Alaska was doing
with early detection and support.
Ms. Bobich responded that when she worked in Colorado and
California both states provided a class for infants and
toddlers. She stressed that to develop language it was
necessary to be around other people; therefore, the classes
provided for families, infants, and toddlers were
instrumental in language development for the children.
Colorado provided a toddler class once a week with social
time, a language instructor, and another teacher to support
the families with resources outside of class time. There
were professionals in the room who knew sign language and
could support the parents. California provided an infant
class where parents were taught how to use sign language,
how to establish eye contact, and get attention from their
deaf baby. The class included teaching and coaching for
parents. She underscored that students who had already been
through those classes were much more prepared and on grade
level. They were ready for learning and preschool
construction. She relayed that students who had not
received the services were much more behind. She explained
that Alaska did not have those same opportunities for
parents so when children came to the AKSDHH at the age of
three, they were playing catch up. She would love to
establish a program or classes earlier or make them aware
of sign language. She would love to see Alaska on par with
other states and enrichment of Alaska's birth to three
resources and programs and to ensure parents were aware of
resources that exist. She would love to see classes added.
She noted there were people who could teach sign language
all over the state.
10:44:34 AM
Representative Galvin understood that the bill was asking
school districts to pay attention and to ensure the state
was following ADA laws. She asked what was being done for
younger children. She considered whether there would be an
opportunity for amendments and stated there was some work
to do. She appreciated hearing from Ms. Bobich to
understand that Alaska had infant learning programs
providing early diagnoses, but it did not have
opportunities for taking what had been learned and moving
it into a classroom setting or a setting where parents and
infants were getting similar opportunities that were
available for others. For example, there were preschool
programs for special needs children in Juneau and
Anchorage. She did not believe there were programs for deaf
and hard of hearing children early on in life. She thought
it may be an area for the committee to explore if it was
going to truly hold up the vision of the legislation as
children's bill of rights.
10:46:22 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted he would set an amendment deadline.
Ms. Baldwin provided public testimony representing AKSDHH.
She appreciated the question by Representative Galvin
related to programs for infants and toddlers. She
emphasized that the bill was a steppingstone. The goal was
to ensure the all-communications option was available to
everyone. She emphasized that parents did not have to pick
one communication option. She explained that it was not
possible to sign and talk at the same time, but English and
sign language could coexist perfectly together with other
aids. She relayed that the school had a deaf education
board. She detailed that if the bill passed, there were
other plans to ensure there was a birth to three resource
ready (working in collaboration with the legislature).
Ms. Baldwin stated that there was no right or wrong way to
be deaf or hard of hearing. She believed the important
thing was to be consistent in what families were being
offered in the state. She thought the legislature was the
best place to start. She stated that the passage of the
bill would mean deaf and hard of hearing children could get
a foundational language. She underscored that a child could
not thrive if they did not have language accessible to
them. She asked committee members to imagine a child
struggling through life, getting to school, and the teacher
being faced with holding curriculum back because the child
had to be instructed in language. She stated it was a
struggle for teachers to be able to focus on children who
were ready to learn and children who needed to be taught
foundational language. She stressed it was a huge gap. She
relayed that it could impact a child at any age, but it was
particularly impactful at a very young age.
Ms. Baldwin explained that students were experiencing
language deprivation at home. Sometimes parents were
overwhelmed and did not know sign language and were unable
to effectively serve their children due to a lack of
resources. She elaborated that if children were learning
sign language at school and their parents did not know sign
language, it was a language desert at home. She explained
that it was not the parents' fault, it was due to a lack of
support and not knowing about all of the options.
Additionally, there were no parent sign language classes.
She believed it was very important to establish a state
standard to make parents aware of all of the available
resources. She stated that all deaf and hard of hearing
children could thrive if they were given the opportunity
and language. She underscored that all deaf people could do
exactly what hearing people do. She believed the bill would
make certain of the possibility for school age children.
She thanked the committee for listening.
10:50:09 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if it was accurate to say that the
definitions such as hard of hearing, deaf, listening and
spoken language, cued speech, and bilingual approach were
going into state statute for the first time.
Representative Allard responded that the language would be
in state statute and was already mentioned. She did not
know whether cued speech was in current statute, it was not
practiced in Alaska to her knowledge. The bill tightened up
pieces, but the items in the bill were already in
regulation.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated the deaf and hard of hearing
community included children, adults, and senior citizens
and it was an important part of the community. He stated
that everyone around the table knew someone such as a close
family member or other. He remarked that the topic of
school districts pertained to a subset of students, and he
thought the bill was directed towards public schools
including charter schools. He asked if the bill would
address correspondence schools.
Representative Allard responded that correspondence school
children learned at home. She thought that the parents
would take their child in if needed. However, if a student
was a part-time correspondence student who was also part of
a charter school or neighborhood school, the supports would
be available for them.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated that a couple of years ago he had
sponsored a broadband bill that was a brand new section in
law. He had learned much more about broadband than he ever
thought he would. He saw some similarities in the current
bill in terms of entering a different phase that had not
really been talked much about and putting it in state
statute. He was a strong supporter of the bill and the deaf
and hard of hearing community and a strong advocate of
making something like the bill happen. He compared it to
the Alaska Reads Act passed in 2022 that was well
intentioned but not properly resourced. He explained there
were many school districts that were struggling to carry
forth the mandates that were all well intentioned and
laudable. He wanted to ensure that when the legislation
passed that it was properly resourced. He highlighted there
were 54 school districts throughout the state. He
referenced putting together individualized education plans
and ensuring the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) had the means to do what was needed.
Additionally, he wanted to look more closely at Section 2
of the bill that included words like "shall, must, and
may." He suggested perhaps the committee could have the
discussion more online.
10:54:53 AM
Representative Allard appreciated the comments. She noted
she had supported the broadband bill. She highlighted the
importance of deaf and hard of hearing children. She
remarked that even though there were only 149 deaf and hard
of hearing children at AKSDHH, one of the reasons she
brought the bill forward was due to one school district
that had taken the interpreter away from a child and the
child had no longer had the means to receive an education
through their known language of ASL. She stated it had
impacted the child and was unfair. She underscored that all
deaf and hard of hearing children should be treated just
like their hearing peers.
Representative Allard shared her personal story. When she
was about two years old, she had hearing tubes put in. She
shared that the tubes fell out and by the time she was in
third grade (in the 1970s) she had been sitting in the
front of the classroom with scotch tape over her mouth
because her teacher thought she talked too much and
interrupted people when they spoke. She had been unable to
hear her teacher and her teacher had been very frustrated
with her. She noted that her teacher, parents, and school
nurse had been unaware of what she was experiencing. She
had eventually been moved to the back of the classroom and
she had a very difficult time. She shared that as a result
her speech started slipping. She had eventually received a
speech therapist, which had improved her life.
Representative Allard shared that she had joined the
military. She detailed that during her service she had
received extensive damage to her eardrums as a result of an
incident where she had been standing close to a tank. The
combination of the noise and heat from the tank ruptured
her eardrums. She received health insurance through the
Veterans Administration and had hearing aids that cost
about $9,000. She stated that the ability for children to
have access that she did not have at a young age was vital.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
10:58:24 AM
Representative Stapp remarked that typically a
correspondence child would have an individualized learning
program with the school district they were a part of. He
imagined they would use their allotment in the event they
needed individualized ASL learning from a tutor. He
remarked that it was all currently up in the air. He
thought it was likely unnecessary to include language
pertaining to correspondence in the bill because all
correspondence programs were within public school
districts. He believed using the words "school district"
was likely sufficient.
Representative Josephson requested to ask questions of the
department. He remarked that the bill contained a lot of
duties associated with DEED, yet he did not see any
associated costs. He asked if the bill was designed to be a
template that would be filled in with proper funding at a
later date. He asked for the department's viewpoint.
LAUREL SHOOP, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, deferred the question to a
colleague.
DEB RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DIVISION OF
INNOVATION AND EDUCATION EXCELLENCE, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, many of the things in the
bill were already done by the district and DEED's special
education team was working with the district to help do the
work. She referenced language in the bill that referred to
getting a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. The work
was currently taking place through AKSDHH and there was
funding in place. The bill would put the language in
statute, which would enable DEED to build some regulations
to provide guidance to the districts as to what needed to
be done to help students who were deaf and hard of hearing.
Representative Josephson asked what the bill asked of the
state's 54 superintendents. He asked if the bill would
result in a waiting pattern where districts would be
waiting for DEED to provide funding or if it was a mandate
requiring districts to step up their game. He noted it
could be interpreted in both ways.
Ms. Riddle responded that as students were identified
through their IEP and services were decided, the district
would need to figure out how to go forward. She explained
that DEED helped districts with the decisions and options.
She elaborated that individual education plans were created
to help meet the needs of each student and it was up to the
district to determine how to meet the needs. The department
could help determine the best route in terms of using the
school or available services. The department did not want
to leave the districts with no guidance.
11:03:39 AM
Representative Josephson stated that the bill called for
funding, and he did not see the funding.
Ms. Kokoszka had a comment about ADA and accommodations.
She asked if it was not mandatory to provide accommodations
for the students.
Representative Allard reiterated her earlier statement that
the formula multiplier of 1.25 percent. Once the school
districts identified a child's needs, they received
additional funds to provide for those needs.
Representative Coulombe had a question for Ms. Baldwin.
Ms. Bobich noted Ms. Baldwin was no longer present. She was
personally available for questions.
Representative Coulombe looked at Section 2 of the bill
pertaining to a centralized program. She asked if the bill
changed anything about the Anchorage State School for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Ms. Bobich answered that she did not believe so. She
explained that the bill would change the information that
parents received. The idea was for parents to get the
information in a neutral unbiased way, so that they were
aware of their choices. Some providers, depending on
whether they had a medical background or not, told parents
what they should or should not do. She believed parents
deserved more than one option and to know about AKSDHH. She
explained that parents who had a deaf or hard of hearing
child would get all of the options from their local
district including available devices and how to develop
language in their child. The centralized program would not
change. The bill was about getting neutral or unbiased
information about all of the available resources existing
in the state.
11:07:00 AM
Representative Coulombe looked at Section 2 of the bill
specifying that AKSDHH was required to submit a plan of
operations and to provide residential services.
Additionally, the language required DEED to provide funding
for students to attend the program. She wondered if the
language in Section 2 was already taking place or if the
requirements were new.
Mr. Saville replied that Section 2 did not change how
AKSDHH was operating or add anything new for the school.
Currently, regulation specified that DEED may provide the
school, whereas the bill specified put the language in
statute and specified that DEED shall provide the school.
He clarified that the bill codified the requirement in
statute as a protection.
Representative Allard stated that according to Section 4
AAC 52.700(c)(2) [the district] was to help cover the cost
of interpreters and intensive funding. She explained that
deaf and hard of hearing students already received
intensive funding at 13 times the BSA if requested by a
district.
11:08:43 AM
Representative Hannan asked what DEED currently did when it
heard from a school district that could not find an ASL
interpreter. She knew there was a limited pool in her
community and serving the kids and the community stressed
the resource. She remarked that Juneau was a regional hub
and larger community. She asked about a situation where a
rural school district did not have the staff. She asked if
the rural district contacted DEED and how the department
ensured the services were provided.
Ms. Riddle responded that the department did its best to
connect, problem solve, and determine the best way and it
understood it was difficult to find interpreters in some
places. She relayed that sometimes the department paid for
interpreters to go to meetings to help or to help locate
interpreters. The department had lists of people who were
available to interpret that it provided to districts. The
department also frequently connected with the Governor's
Council on Students with Disabilities to locate
interpreters.
11:10:25 AM
Representative Tomaszewski asked for a brief synopsis of
the different methods of communication listed in the bill.
Some of the terms were new to him.
Representative Allard asked for a repeat of the question.
Representative Tomaszewski restated his question. He
highlighted the terms cued speech and total communication
as examples.
Representative Allard deferred the question.
Ms. Bobich responded that the different methods of
communication in the bill were referred to as modalities.
She explained that communication modalities were separate
from language. She elaborated that bilingual education
focused on American sign language and English. The English
learning could be spoken, written, or read and ASL is a
visual language. The other methods of communication listed
were not languages. She described total communication as
"everything smashed into one," which included talking and
signing at the same time. She explained the method was not
100 percent effective in all cases because it was not
possible to have two languages going at the same time. For
example, it was not possible to speak English and French at
the same time. She relayed that using English and ASL at
the same time impacted the grammatical structure of both
languages; however, it was useful in some settings where
information needed to be provided at the same time in short
bursts. Total communication was also referred to as sim-com
(simultaneous communication).
Ms. Bobich continued to explain the different communication
modalities. She shared that she was not a professional in
cued speech and did not know of anyone using it in Alaska.
She relayed that there were communities in the Lower 48
that used the method. She explained that it was more of an
emphasis on the phonics people used; it was a way for
someone to lip read and visually see what was going on in
the mouth. She reiterated it was a method to emphasize
English and was not a language. She asked Representative
Tomaszewski if there were other words in the legislation he
wanted explained.
11:14:12 AM
Representative Tomaszewski asked about the bilingual
approach.
Ms. Bobich stated that the bilingual approach used English
and ASL as two separate full languages. The two languages
were used at different times as opposed to simultaneous
communication, which impacted the grammar of both languages
and lost much of the important language development.
Bilingual approach involved switching back and forth
[between English and ASL]. For example, there were certain
times a speaker may switch back and forth if a child has
residual hearing. The communication method could involve
writing things on the board, using captions, etcetera. The
English language portion could then be followed by using
ASL to sign a book to reinforce English that was just
learned. She noted that ASL could be used before or after
an English language lesson. She relayed that people often
said that ASL was like the grammatical structure of Spanish
where a sentence was constructed with a subject, object,
verb versus object, verb, subject. She explained that it
was possible to switch back and forth between English and
Spanish. She emphasized that a child could successfully
learn a signed language and a spoken language, just not at
the same time.
Co-Chair Foster recognized interpreter Brenna Povelite for
the record.
Co-Chair Johnson looked at the first page of a presentation
in members' packets ["HB 111 Deaf and Hard of Hearing:
Children's Bill of Rights"] (copy on file) that showed 149
deaf or hard of hearing children in Alaska schools. She
thought the number seemed low. She highlighted that the
list included large school districts and a few small ones,
but she observed that a large portion of Alaska was not
represented. She had a hard time believing there were no
deaf or hard of hearing children in unorganized areas. She
asked if the 149 was with current screenings. She wondered
if the bill would increase awareness. She asked if she was
off base.
Representative Allard answered that she was not off base.
She explained that because there was nothing in statute and
the word was not getting out, parents were not bringing
their children forward and may not recognize their child
was hard of hearing or deaf. She stated it had happened to
her and Ms. Kokoszka had testified that it had happened to
her as a child. She believed there were more children out
there and the hope was the bill would get more individuals
together. She wanted to run a campaign to ensure parents
were not reluctant to bring their child forward. She read
language on page 2, lines 7 through 9:
(3) deliver services to a child who is deaf or hard of
hearing, or who the school district suspects may be
deaf or hard of hearing, through professionals with
training, experience, and a background in the chosen
method of communication.
Representative Allard highlighted that the language allowed
a parent or friend to translate for their child in school.
She noted it did not necessarily have to be ASL language,
it could be signing. She explained that the bill did not
require an interpreter if one was not available. The bill
gave the parent and the child the right to choose.
Co-Chair Johnson knew one family in Palmer where the
child's mom became their advocate and ASL interpreter
because of limited resources. She stated it was a good
example she had seen of what could work.
11:19:50 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal note.
Ms. Riddle reviewed the fiscal note from the Department of
Education and Early Development, OMB component number 2796.
The fiscal note had a total cost of $6,000 to create
regulations that were outside the normal work of the
department.
Representative Hannan stated that the committee had heard
from a couple of the invited testifiers that the bill would
lay the groundwork and there was a plan for more. She noted
that a $6,000 regulation update did not change any program
delivery. She asked what plan DEED would see to fully
implement and meet the needs of the hearing impaired
children throughout Alaska. She wondered if the plan would
involve additional services for the 54 school districts, an
expanded residential school, or an ASL training academy for
parents. She understood it was speculative, but she
wondered how the state would improve service delivery to
families in need.
Ms. Riddle answered that it was speculative, and the
department would work with the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and AKSDHH to determine what would be the
best. However, the intensive funding was built into the
BSA, meaning that the school district would receive the
funding if a student identified as deaf or hard of hearing.
She stated it was difficult to see what things would
actually look like with the passage of the legislation, but
DEED would work hard to collaborate with the sponsors of
the bill as well as the community of the deaf and hard of
hearing to create something that worked best for everyone.
11:22:17 AM
Representative Hannan remarked that the BSA went to the
school districts. She highlighted that Section 2 of the
bill and the fiscal note directed DEED to establish a
centralized program. She wondered if the department viewed
the direction in the legislation as nothing new and as
something DEED was already doing. Alternatively, she asked
if the department would need to do something different
besides the regulations to meet the directive that in the
end would be a service delivery at the school district. She
stated that the language in the bill seemed to direct the
department to do something and she could not wrap her head
around what that was.
Ms. Riddle replied that the bill talked about going through
a school district, which was currently the Anchorage School
District. The plan was to continue going through the
Anchorage School District because it was more centrally
located and a bigger hub. She elaborated that the
department would need to determine how to work on the
implementation to reach out to the schools.
Representative Hannan asked if Ms. Riddle was saying that
expanding and further supporting AKSDHH that was currently
operating in the Anchorage School District would be how
DEED would see meeting the mandates of the bill.
Ms. Riddle replied, "That's speculative." She stated that
the department would need to do research to determine the
best way to meet all of the needs. The department had been
talking about what would take place as a result of the
legislation, but a plan had not been formulated and it
would require significant stakeholder support in terms of
the best way to support some of the smaller districts that
may not have access to the Anchorage School District. The
department was looking at what it was currently doing and
once the bill passed, DEED would look at stakeholder input
and talk with its partner organizations to determine the
best way to move forward.
11:24:35 AM
Representative Coulombe remarked that it had been said a
couple of times that the directive under the bill was
already in regulation and the bill would put it in statute.
She asked why the department needed the $6,000.
Ms. Riddle answered that based on the language of the bill,
there were some changes that would be in regulation, which
would need to be updated. She explained that the cost would
be incurred with the Department of Law (DOL). She relayed
that the cost was not covered under DEED's existing budget.
Representative Allard relayed that had asked the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) why there was a $6,000 fiscal
note if items under the bill were already managed and
implemented. She had been told that it came with DEED and
that because it was a different type of department, there
was a cost of $6,000. She had been unable to get the answer
she wanted. She thought the department was implementing a
couple of new sentences; however, it was already a program
being managed through DEED. She was also confused about the
reason. She offered to try to get an answer in writing.
Representative Coulombe thought it sounded like DEED had a
reimbursable services agreement (RSA) with DOL. She thought
it sounded like a standard regulation charge.
Ms. Riddle agreed.
11:26:29 AM
Representative Ortiz asked if the additional funding for
hard of hearing or deaf students was not currently
received.
Ms. Riddle replied that a school district had to go through
a process requesting the funds. She explained that if
approved, the district would receive the funding.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that it was the
process in place.
Ms. Riddle agreed.
Representative Ortiz asked if the only added resources that
would go towards serving the need better would be
identifying more students.
Ms. Riddle answered that implementing the bill would take
more research than that simple phrase and it would require
stakeholder input to determine what the department would
need to do to help support.
Representative Allard added that the bill would direct
school districts in statute to follow the preferred needs
and preferred method of learning of a hard of hearing or
deaf student. She stated it would be enforced to ensure
school districts abided by the requirement.
11:28:12 AM
Representative Galvin stated her understanding that ADA and
regulations were in place. She believed the bill was trying
to elevate public, parent, and educator awareness about
numerous options for language access. Additionally, she
stated her understanding that the goal was to ensure the
most language access possible so that a child had access to
whatever method worked best for them. She asked if her
understanding was accurate.
Ms. Riddle responded affirmatively.
Representative Galvin had heard that 1.25 was likely
sufficient funding. She remarked that maybe there was some
question about whether or not dollars were being used as
intended. She thought it seemed the standard had expanded
to reflect a better understanding of options that would be
best for a child. She asked about what the state would do
to have oversight in the process to ensure the best options
were taking place for the children. She assumed there would
be more need for oversight under the bill because [the
requirement] was very defined. She asked if it would add
any extra work for DEED.
Ms. Riddle answered that the special education team had
extensive monitoring in place and requirements under the
bill would be added to the monitoring done with districts
across the state.
Co-Chair Foster asked for any closing comments from the
sponsor.
Representative Allard thanked the committee for hearing the
bill. She wanted to ensure deaf and hard of hearing
children were no longer discriminated against and that they
were treated equally with their hearing peers.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Friday, April
19 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 111 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
11:31:16 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|