02/20/2007 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB97 | |
| Presentation: No Child Left Behind | |
| HB29 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 97 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2007
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 97
"An Act making appropriations for state aid to public schools,
centralized correspondence study, and transportation of pupils;
and providing for an effective date."
ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT FOR CSHB 97(HES)
PRESENTATION: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND UPDATE
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 29
"An Act relating to infants who are safely surrendered by a
parent shortly after birth."
- MOVED CSHB 29(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 97
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: K-12 EDU; PERS/TRS LIABILITY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/22/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/07 (H) HES, FIN
02/13/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/07 (H) Moved CSHB 97(HES) Out of Committee
02/15/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/20/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 29
SHORT TITLE: SAFE HAVEN FOR INFANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX, GRUENBERG, LYNN, HARRIS,
NEUMAN, WILSON, DAHLSTROM, GARDNER, OLSON, DOLL, KERTTULA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) HES, JUD
02/08/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/20/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
LES MORSE, Director
Assessment and Accountability Division
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 29.
CHRISTINE R. MARASIGAN, Staff
to Representative Gabrielle Ledoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 29.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on state abandonment and
adoption issues.
CHIP WAGONER, Lobbyist, Executive Director
Alaska Conference of Catholic Bishops
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 29.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02:34 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Gardner, Roses, and Seaton were present
at the call to order. Representatives Neuman, Cissna, and
Fairclough arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 97-APPROP: K-12 EDU; PERS/TRS LIABILITY
3:03:15 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
adoption of a letter of intent for CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 97(HES)
"An Act making appropriations for state aid to public schools,
centralized correspondence study, and transportation of pupils;
and providing for an effective date."
3:03:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to enclose a letter of intent for
CSHB 97(HES). There being no objection, it was so ordered.
3:04:11 PM
^PRESENTATION: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
3:04:20 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
a presentation on the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act.
LES MORSE, Director, Assessment and Accountability Division,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), provided
the committee a PowerPoint presentation titled "School &
District Accountability Under No Child Left Behind." He
reminded the committee that the federal law requires state
schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards meeting
academic goals. The adequate yearly progress standards require
schools to have 95 percent student participation in standardized
testing. These tests measure another factor in evaluating AYP
by determining how many students meet the targeted annual
measurable objective or target ("AMO") in math and language
arts. The final evaluation is the school's graduation or
attendance rate. Under NCLB, the percentage of students who
must meet certain targets increases each year until it reaches
100 percent for school years 2013-14. Mr. Morse explained that
the law does not require 100 percent test participation, but the
95 percent of students who take the test must meet certain
academic targets.
3:10:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the chart on page 2 sub-
titled "Annual Measurable Objective or Target," and asked about
initial plateaus in the required AMOs which did not change much
from 2001-2005. However, after 2005 the percentage of students
who must meet the AMOs increases by about 6 percent annually.
She observed that often changes in the beginning of a program
are easier to obtain than changes later, and whether this theory
applies to make meeting the AMO requirements more difficult in
later years.
MR. MORSE replied that the targeted achievement levels may have
been set up to allow those implementing NCLB a few years to
determine the appropriate teaching methods and accommodations
for children with special needs. He said he believes that the
theory was once those initial determinations were made, it would
be possible to use the lessons learned to increase success in
later years. However, he agreed it can be easier to see changes
early in a new program, but it can be more difficult to effect
change later in a program. Mr. Morse stated that when NCLB was
enacted states struggled to find ways to implement it, and the
chart reflects one of those methods.
MR. MORSE explained that each school and district must meet AYP.
Furthermore, AYP standards must be met by six racial/ethic
groups as well as by students who are economically
disadvantaged, those who have limited proficiency in English,
and by those with special needs. All together, schools must
meet different measured standards in 31 various categories, he
said.
MR. MORSE went on to explain that graduation rates are measured
school wide only. For high school, the inquiry is how many of
the students who enter in ninth grade graduate four years later.
Students who go to another school are not included in the
graduation rate calculation. Students who drop out are
incorporated into the graduation rate calculation, but do not
account for all aspects of the graduation rate. For example,
Alaska has a 60 percent four-year graduation rate, but that does
not mean 40 percent of students drop out. Some students
continue on beyond 4 years due to their individual education
program or other reasons, he explained. If a student graduates
in his or her fifth year, the school will receive credit for
that student's graduation.
3:18:28 PM
MR. MORSE responded to a question by stating that the graduation
rate is appearing to average out at about 60 percent. The drop
out rate for students from 7th to 12 grade is calculated to be
around 4 to 6 percent. The students who drop out are part of
the 40 percent that does not graduate, but only a small
percentage he noted. The graduation rate that schools must meet
is 55.58 percent of students, which he characterized as a
reasonable rate. Schools that do not have a graduation rate,
such as middle schools, must meet a target attendance rate of 85
percent. He said that the average attendance rate in Alaska is
94 percent.
3:21:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said that educators refer to the categories
as the 31 ways to fail because the only way not to fail is to
meet the criteria in all 31 categories.
3:23:22 PM
MR. MORSE referred the committee to the chart on page 3
subtitled "Example of AYP Worksheet," which illustrates how a
school would analyze test results to monitor their progress. On
the sample chart, all categories for AMOs are met except in the
sub-group of students with disabilities in the category of
language arts. Mr. Morse stated that this sample scenario
highlights what he characterized as a flaw in the NCLB law.
This sample school missed the AMO in only one area, but it is
treated the same as a school that missed AMO in every area.
Schools face consequences if they miss targeted goals, but he
opined that the consequences should be tailored to fit the
problem. He said EED would like to see the NCLB reauthorization
bill amend the law to provide that consequences for failure to
meet AMOs be targeted more closely to the problem area.
3:24:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reiterated that there are 31 ways to fail
under the law, but only one way for a school to pass.
3:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that the paradox seems to be that
smaller schools cannot afford to hire better teachers, while
larger schools are trying to meet the 31 indicators for their
diverse school population. He asked whether there is a school
size that seems more able to meet AYP standards.
MR. MORSE replied that there does not seem to be an ideal size
school under NCLB, but he opined that it is harder for larger
schools to meet the 31 indicators. He explained that sub-
group's test results will be considered only if they meet a
minimum group size of 25. In a small school there may only be
two special needs students, and that would not meet the 25 group
minimum size, so the school would not have to meet targeted
objectives for the special needs category. Larger schools
typically have at least 25 students in each of the categories,
and therefore must meet the targets in every category, he
explained.
3:27:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if anything is being done to
address some of the concerns discussed today.
MR. MORSE said it appears that the issue of differentiated
consequences is being scrutinized by a number of groups which
are advising the United State Congress on issues related to
NCLB.
3:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether there has been any further
discussion on standardizing the sizes for the sub-groups.
MR. MORSE stated the aforementioned issue is part of the
dialogue among interested groups and has been raised at a
national meeting. He said there has been some talk of
standardizing the sub-group sizes among the states. He
explained that the sub-group size is arrived at after discussion
and public feedback by the various stakeholders. The group size
must go through a state regulatory process, and must ultimately
be agreed upon by the federal United States Department of
Education, he noted.
3:32:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed that the sub-group size could be
a very valuable tool for a state to utilize in determining how
best to meet their AYP requirements.
MR. MORSE said he believes the aforementioned point is why the
federal government is involved in the approval of a state's sub-
group size. The federal government analyzes how many schools
are excluded based on the sub-group size. He reiterated that
all schools are evaluated regardless of size.
3:34:30 PM
CHAIR WILSON inquired how smaller schools account for their
special needs students since the students will not be
categorized separately if there are fewer than 25. Therefore
the school may not have incentive to work with these students,
she opined.
MR. MORSE explained that when a smaller school is evaluated as a
whole, the special needs students will be identified and be part
of the evaluation. He noted that even two students in a small
school could have an affect on the test results, so the school
will not want to ignore them. He explained that privacy in
small schools is a concern, so if the school only had two
special needs students, the report may summarize the results and
report that 60 percent of students were proficient and 40
percent were not instead of the actual numbers as that could
result in the identification of the actual numbers of students
that failed to meet the AYP standards. He went on to explain
that the public report card would state whether five children
took the test. For the AYP results, there is a little higher
scrutiny on the numbers because the school is being held liable
to meet AYP standards and the EED wants to be absolutely sure
before holding a school to any consequences for failure to meet
some criteria.
3:38:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked about what the affect is on reporting
test results if the sub-group size is below 25 students.
MR. MORSE replied that for the AYP reports, it is reported that
the subgroup number was too small to be reported. However, on
the "report card" posted on EED's website, the sub-groups are
reported as long as at least five students in the sub-group took
the test.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed the opinion that the different
group sizes among states make comparisons of Alaska to other
states inaccurate. For example, he said that the sub-group size
in California is 50 students, and as a result, that state may
have the ability to structure its testing groups to achieve more
favorable test results. Indeed, there is evidence that large
numbers of students are not accounted for in some systems, he
said, reading from a commission report.
3:41:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked whether it is possible for a small school to
meet AYP standards by not reporting test results for some
students because the sub-groups are less than 25 students.
MR. MORSE explained that some schools are so small that it is
difficult to make a judgment about progress. For example, if a
district only has three small schools, the results of the
schools are examined individually and as a group to get a better
picture of progress. He noted that individual schools may meet
AYP, but when results are combined within a district, they may
not meet AYP. He went on to say that the law was designed to
allow a state to compare its progress to its own standards, not
to that of other states.
3:43:16 PM
MR. MORSE explained that the consequences imposed for failure to
meet AYP standards are contained in state regulations, but each
district is responsible for ensuring its schools implement any
consequences. For individual schools, there are five levels of
consequences, beginning with level 1 the first year a school
does not meet AYP. Once a school fails to meet AYP for at least
two years, it must meet AYP standards for two consecutive years
to be removed from the imposition of consequences. At the
district level, there are four levels of consequences and the
state is responsible for ensuring that a district implements the
appropriate consequence. In response to a question of when
responsibility for a school would shift to the state, Mr. Morse
responded that would only happen if a district initiated an
action to turn a school over to the state. He said that has not
happened in Alaska.
3:45:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES sought further clarification on the
consequences that occur when a school or district fails to meet
AYP standards.
MR. MORSE stated that for a school to be turned over to the
state, it would have to have been at level five, meaning it had
not met AYP for five years in a row. The district does not have
to turn a school over to the state at that point. It may choose
other options such as re-structuring or outside management, he
explained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked how many Alaska schools have not met
AYP for the past four years, noting that there may be a
possibility that the state will be asked to assume
responsibility for any school that has not met AYP at the end of
five years of testing.
MR. MORSE indicated he would cover that point later in his
presentation. The regulations allow the state to take over a
non-performing school, but there are other options besides a
state takeover.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed concerns that in other federal
programs options are being limited, noting that there is a
possibility that in the reauthorization of NCLB the federal
government may limit the state's options for schools which fail
to meet AYP.
MR. MORSE said that the state is moving forward on the current
law and is considering the effect of a requirement that the
state take greater authority within a district. He noted that
many options are being considered by various groups, and said
the EED is voicing its opinion about reasonable options.
3:49:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed his opinion that state takeover
of schools is not a desired result and he would support EED
efforts to bring forth other options.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what steps have been taken to help
improve the schools that are at levels 4 and 5.
MR. MORSE responded that these schools are the responsibility of
their district, not the state. However, the non-performing
schools must file a school improvement plan with the state. The
state has conferences with the school regarding the
implementation and evaluation of its plan. Furthermore, the
school must react and re-design its plan as a result of its
evaluation. However, the state has more involvement with
district plans as required by law. He said that this year the
state is very involved with designing three district improvement
plans to assure coherence between the plans and the schools.
The state has also provided some additional training for these
districts.
3:51:39 PM
MR. MORSE referred to the chart titled "AYP School Results," on
page 5 that shows which percentage of Alaska's approximately 500
schools meet AYP standards. He noted that the percentage of
schools meeting AYP improved from 2003 to 2006. He said that
approximately 12 percent of that increase was due in to changes
in sub-group size. He estimated that from 2003-2004 there was
an approximately 4 percent gain due to factors besides "changing
the rules." In 2004 to 2006 the percent of increase has been
between 1 and 3 percent; those gains were not due to rule
changes, he said.
3:53:16 PM
MR. MORSE drew the committee's attention to charts on pages 5-7
that set forth AYP school results and explained that the results
are reported school wide and by sub-group. This categorization
allows better interpretation of improvement within sub-groups,
he indicated. For example, a school's total result may not
change that much, but a sub-category could show significant
improvement. He further explained that the results show that
schools are missing their targets in fewer categories, and
referred to the charts on page 6. He noted that in 2004 many
schools missed achieving AYP in over nine categories, however,
by 2006 far fewer schools were missing AYP in multiple
categories He explained that AYP as currently structured,
without differentiated consequences, does not recognize this
type of improvement.
3:56:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her understanding that NCLB sets up
certain requirements and tests, and inquired whether the tests
designed to establish AYP actually measure anything that is
useful for outcomes to societal qualities.
MR. MORSE replied that the tests have been designed in the last
four years with the efforts of approximately 700 in-state
teachers. He reminded the committee that the tests are based on
standards within the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics.
A test company was hired to design the questions to test the
agreed upon standards. Those questions are reviewed by state
teachers. He opined that it does represent a good standard for
evaluating the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined the tests may measure test taking
ability, so it may not measure as much as is necessary. If a
person is not good at test taking it doesn't measure their
ability.
4:00:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated his understanding that the Alaska
tests are outcome based.
MR. MORSE explained that there are two types of tests: norm
reference tests, in which test takers are compared to each
other, and criterion tests, in which standards are tested. He
emphasized that the Alaska tests incorporate both multiple
choice and other more open-ended type of questions to address
different test taking approaches.
MR. MORSE explained that district wide, 11 of the state's
districts are at level 4, 10 are at level 3, 8 are at level 2
and 3 are at level 1 for failure to meet AYP standards. The EED
is working closely with some of those districts.
4:03:35 PM
MR. MORSE explained that the EED would like to be able to
include growth in how it measures school AYP progress. If a
school improves significantly but still does not meet the target
AYP, they reach what NCLB deems "safe harbor." He said that a
problem with the implementation of safe harbor provisions is
that it compares a group of students in 3rd through 5th grade
from the current year to the group of 3rd through 5th graders
from the previous year. He opined that does not work well
because it compares different students, instead of individual
student's progress. He said that Alaska has applied to be part
of a federal pilot program to use individual student growth as a
measure of AYP.
4:07:47 PM
CHAIR WILSON set forth her understanding that because NCLB is a
federal law, the EED is limited in the changes it can make. She
stated her support for efforts to track children's progress
individually.
4:08:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked about whether there are supplemental
service providers available to help schools that need to improve
their AYP. He expressed concern over use of "telephone tutors"
in rural areas because those services may be expensive, yet of
questionable use.
MR. MORSE replied that there has been an increase in the
availability of supplemental service providers, but noted it is
a challenge to find providers in the remote areas of the state.
He went on to say that the EED is evaluating the effectiveness
of supplemental service providers.
MR. MORSE responded to a question about whether the NCLB
requires any parental involvement by explaining although he
could not address that completely, he did note that there are
requirements for parental involvement at the local level when an
improvement plan is designed. He went on to say that EED meets
with parent groups, such as the Parent Teacher Association.
4:12:40 PM
MR. MORSE explained in response to a question, that there is a
clear system in place to evaluate the schools, but currently no
programs to evaluate individual teachers. He said that teacher
evaluation is currently being discussed, and noted that this
issue must be carefully considered because many factors besides
teacher competency affect academic performance. For example, in
a small class, under performance by one or two students due to
illness can dramatically affect test results.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was aware of a large research
study that concluded that the number one indicator of student
performance is the quality of the classroom teacher. If it is
that important, the issue of teacher competence should not be
ignored, he indicated.
4:16:55 PM
HB 29-SAFE HAVEN FOR INFANTS
4:17:38 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO., 29, "An Act relating to infants who are safely
surrendered by a parent shortly after birth."
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LEDOUX, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as a prime sponsor, explained that she believes this
"safe haven" bill has the potential to save an infant's life.
It allows a parent to safely surrender an infant to a peace
officer, physician, hospital employee, firefighter, or community
health aide within 21 days of the child's birth without fear of
criminal prosecution. Currently 47 states have some type of
safe haven law. She said that the intent of the bill is to
deter young unmarried women who conceal their pregnancies and
give birth in private from disposing of their newborn's bodies.
4:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 29, Version 25-LSO192\M, Mischel,
2/20/07. There being no objection, Version M was before the
committee.
4:20:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked why the time period of 21 days
was chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that any number could have been
chosen however, she said she believes the 21-day period was
chosen by consensus by last year's House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
4:20:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER agreed this was an important life saving
bill. However, she expressed concern as to how quickly a child
can be released for adoption and whether the issue of paternity
is considered.
CHRISTINE R. MARASIGAN, Staff to Representative Gabrielle
Ledoux, Alaska State Legislature, explained that some states use
a registry system to find fathers of abandoned infants. She
noted that the Alaska legislation allows either a father or
mother to surrender an infant. She went on to say that there
are already abandonment statutes in place; this legislation
eliminates criminal prosecution if the infant is safely
surrendered to certain professionals as listed in the bill.
Issues of adoption would be covered by other statutory
provisions.
4:23:22 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked what would happen under current laws if a two
week old infant was brought to a church, for example, and left.
4:23:52 PM
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
replied that whomever the child was surrendered to would contact
the nearest OCS and that agency would make sure the child was
safely placed in a foster home. The OCS would then try to
locate the absent parent. This is the same process used for
situations when a child is abandoned.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that it is important to locate the
father or the mother, and that is why this bill refers to the
parent.
4:25:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how long it may take to locate a
parent in cases where a child is abandoned.
MS. SANDOVAL replied that it really depends on the situation and
whether the parent is forthcoming with information when they
surrender the child. It can take quite a bit longer if OCS has
no knowledge of the parent. Sometimes the community can help to
identify relatives who may assume custody of the child. If no
one comes forward, OCS must go through the regular legal
procedures required to be followed before a child is adopted.
4:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her sympathy to Representative
Gardner's concerns and reminded the committee that the system is
not set up to expedite adoption proceedings for a child whose
custody has been surrendered. She asked whether there was
information on how often parents change their minds after
surrendering custody of a child.
MS. SANDOVAL stated that she was not aware of what percentage of
parents in the aforementioned situation changed their minds, but
could review that issue. She reminded the committee that AS
47.10.013, the abandonment statute, covers situations where a
parent or guardian, without justifiable cause, has left a child
without provisions for the child's support and without
meaningful communication with the child for a period of 3
months. In general, this seems to indicate a three-month
minimum time period before any adoption proceedings can start,
she indicated. She distinguished the abandonment situation from
the situation where OCS is trying to work with parents and
children in what can be a lengthy rehabilitative process. She
offered that in a situation where a parent truly abandons an
infant, the infant would likely move through the adoption
process more quickly than an older child.
4:31:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked about the time period for infant
adoption proceedings.
MS. SANDOVAL said that her agency is not aware of any time in
the recent past when an infant has been surrendered. She said
that it is a different situation where OCS is involved with a
parent in a Child in Need of Aid proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA queried whether younger children are
adopted faster, regardless of how they come to be in the state
system.
MS. SANDOVAL explained that the situation of abandonment may
result in a speedier adoption because OCS would not be involved
in a case plan with a parent. She said that she surmises that
adoption proceedings for a surrendered infant would be speedier
because there is no parent to work with in a rehabilitative
process.
4:34:06 PM
CHIP WAGONER, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Alaska Conference of
Catholic Bishops, reminded the committee that the position of
the Catholic Church is to support life from the moment of
conception until natural death, and this bill may save a life.
The church also supports the integration of the bill's
provisions with the current OCS system and is satisfied with the
21-day limit in the bill.
4:36:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 29, Version 25-
LS0192\M, Mishcel, 2/20/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 29(HES) was reported from House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:37:20 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|