Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/04/2000 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2000
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Joe Green
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to the education of exceptional children; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 301
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1963 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1963 (H) HES, FIN
1/21/00 1964 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
1/21/00 1964 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1/21/00 1964 (H) REFERRED TO HES
3/23/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/23/00 (H) Heard & Held
3/23/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
3/28/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/28/00 (H) <Bill Postponed>
3/30/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/30/00 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/4>
4/04/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Department of Education & Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
DR. PJ FORD-SLACK, Director
Special Education
Teaching and Learning Support
Department of Education & Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 301.
SANJA BOLLING
PARENTS, Inc.
4743 East Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 and read FAYE NIETO's
written testimony into the record.
FAYE NIETO
PARENTS, Inc.
4743 East Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 through her testimony read
into the record by SANJA BOLLING.
ROBERT B. BRIGGS, Staff Attorney
Disability Law Center of Alaska
230 South Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
PHILLIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division(Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
DAVID MALTMAN, Executive Director
Governor's Council on Disabilities & Special Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 301.
JOHN CYR, President, NEA [National Education Association]-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
PEGGY BUSS, Facilitator, Gifted and Talented Program
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
300 Hawk Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
ROSEMARY HANSON
976 Amanita
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
EVA RISSE
981 Risse Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
ALLIE MCGUIRE
2298 Larissa Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
CINDY BENNER
998 Willow Grouse
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
DOROTHY CORBETT
958 Chena Pump Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
SUSAN SISSON
200 Sunny Hills Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
LIZANNE HANSON
976 Amanita Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
PAMELA BICKFORD
16840 Tide View Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Will testify later or in writing.
MARY KLUGHERZ
PO Box 3379
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-3379
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
PAM ROTH
284 Forest Park Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
MARGO WARING
1215 Fifth Street
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
ROBERT SEWELL
PO Box 22415
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
JOAN DANGELI
PO Box 34711
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 301.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-40, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Whitaker,
Brice and Coghill. Representatives Green, Morgan and Kemplen
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 301 - EDUCATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Number 0028
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as House Bill
No. 301, "An Act relating to the education of exceptional children;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0095
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 301, version GH2003\G, Ford,
3/27/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version G was
before the committee.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Bruce Johnson to come forward and explain the
changes in the CS.
Number 0273
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Department of
Education & Early Development (EED), came forward to testify. He
commented that the department is pleased to support a number of the
provisions included in CSHB 301.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Dr. Johnson if he is saying there are some
provisions the EED doesn't support.
DR. JOHNSON replied there are a couple of provisions that the EED
did not bring forth as a result of testimony. The EED doesn't
object to them in a strong way. Specifically, the EED supports and
believes that there are good reasons to support the CS in the
following areas: The additions to page 1, line 12, Sec.
14.30.182(4) ensure that the department continually monitors
federal requirements for services to children with disabilities and
reports the finding to the legislature. That makes sense to the
EED whenever there is reauthorization. In the off-years when there
is no reauthorization, there likely is not going to be much more
than the continuation of the previous year's update.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to Sec. 4, page 3, lines 9-13, and
asked if only the issues related to the responsibilities of the EED
and not the local school districts are outlined.
DR. JOHNSON answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE surmised, then, that there is no real way of
finding out, through this report, what impacts federal changes
might have on the local school districts.
DR. JOHNSON answered that is correct.
CHAIRMAN DYSON summarized Dr. Johnson's answer to Representative
Brice as that this annual report won't be specific to schools or
school districts.
DR. JOHNSON clarified that it only impacts federal laws. He read
[the report] to discuss the federal requirements for special
education and thus there will be an impact if a new law comes into
being that impacts services or requirements at the local level, so
to that extent it would go to that level.
Number 0504
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if it would be possible to include the
gifted and talented in the proposed report such as a description of
unmet needs of gifted and talented (GT) and recommendations for
addressing the unmet needs.
DR. JOHNSON answered he believes that (b) on page 3, lines 15-19
covers that so GT would currently fall under that category.
Number 0576
DR. JOHNSON referred to page 2, line 20, Sec. 14.30.186. This is
additional detail regarding the responsible party for special
education services regardless of where a disabled child attends
school. There is increased delineation there and who is
responsible. The EED believes that brings clarity and makes good
sense.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Dr. Johnson what a city school district
is.
DR. JOHNSON replied it would be a single site, for example, Galena
and Valdez are city schools.
DR. JOHNSON referred to page 3, lines 15-19, AS 14.30.193(b) which
allows for a period up to 12 months for a parent to provide written
notice of a request for a due process hearing. The EED agrees with
that change, and that should meet the needs of most individuals
since this does impact a very narrow range of families. Basically,
as the EED understands it, it would be a case where a family has
done a unilateral placement because of a disagreement or a need
that the family perceive with their child, and therefore from the
very beginning of that, the family would be carrying the financial
responsibility. The family would be very alert to what has
happened and would have 12 months to bring about any due process.
DR. JOHNSON referred to page 3, line 29, AS 14.30.193. It was
suggested that the EED provide the parents with the qualifications
of the hearing officers rather than just a list of hearing
officers. That seems to be a reasonable request and therefore
strengthens the bill.
DR. JOHNSON referred to page 4, line 18, AS 14.30.325. That allows
the EED by regulation to provide for the appointment of surrogate
parents to represent children with disabilities. That was an
oversight on the EED's part earlier, and it strengthens the bill.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what a surrogate parent is.
Number 0787
PJ FORD-SLACK, Director, Special Education, Teaching and Learning
Support, Department of Education & Early Development, came forward
to explain that the surrogate parent is a provision within IDEA
[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] for a school district
to appoint someone who will represent the educational needs of a
child when a parent or a relative is not available. A member of a
state agency or a school district cannot be a surrogate parent. A
foster parent must be able to show a long time commitment, at least
a year or more with that child, before he/she would be considered
to be a surrogate parent. Surrogate parents must undergo training;
their sole purpose at an IEP [Individual Education Plan] meeting or
in requesting an evaluation or program change is to represent that
child. It is the district's responsibility to have a list of
surrogate parents available to represent children when they might
become a ward of the state or not have a parent available, such as
in a juvenile detention center.
DR. FORD-SLACK agreed it is sort of like a guardian ad litem, but
the surrogate parent, under IDEA, is the representative that the
school district appoints so there also might be a guardian ad
litem. A surrogate parent would still need to be appointed because
he/she would still be the one under the federal law to represent
the educational needs of that child, and there is very specific
training of surrogate parents about IDEA in order to take on that
role.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the surrogate parents have the same
or similar responsibilities of parents.
DR. FORD-SLACK replied that they do when a parent is not there or
unavailable. The difficulty is that there are court-appointed
people or state social workers or sometimes foster parents who
haven't had the child for a long period of time. The federal
government decided that in the case of special education students,
it was important for a person to go into an IEP meeting, or to ask
for an evaluation, or now with the discipline provisions, to have
at least some sort of cursory understanding of IDEA so he/she could
represent the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that was the nuance that makes a
surrogate parent different from a guardian ad litem.
DR. FORD-SLACK replied she believed that is. She further answered
Chairman Dyson that surrogate parents are volunteers.
DR. JOHNSON referred to page 4, line 22, AS 14.30.340(a) where it
clarifies that private schools also include religious schools. The
EED has no objection to clarifying that.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Dr. Johnson what were the parts he wasn't as
enthusiastic about.
Number 1010
DR. JOHNSON explained that the issue that gives the EED the
greatest concern is on page 4, line 27, which says "A parent who
teaches a child at home may refuse special education and related
services." There is some responsibility in a part of this state
that if a parent who is home schooling a child with particular
disabilities, the state has an obligation to provide that service.
It could be stretched to the point that the state would have an
obligation to go through some sort of due process and procedural
safeguards on behalf of that child. The federal law is pretty
clear that while parents certainly have lots of responsibilities,
they cannot deny special education services to a child
unilaterally. This would become a concern with the more severely
disabled children and less of a concern with a child with a mild
learning disability.
CHAIRMAN DYSON assumed that if the parent was refusing services
that were significant to the child, there might be a child in need
of aid [CINA] case. That would be one way to remedy this.
DR. FORD-SLACK referred to Representative Kemplen's question about
GT and noted the GT piece may require more work because currently
there is no one in the EED who does that particular piece.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 4, line 27, "A parent who
teaches a child at home may refuse special education and related
services." He knows there is a concern with DFYS [Division of
Family and Youth Services] when a child is being home schooled;
there is no way to find out whether that child is getting any type
of appropriate education because all the tracking requirements were
removed. He doesn't believe that DFYS could take any action simply
because the DFYS would not know where these people are. Nobody has
an address for them. That is a concern. Dr. Johnson mentioned
that parents could not unilaterally decide that their child would
not receive special education services. He asked why HB 301 is
saying parents can unilaterally decide to refuse services if IDEA
says specifically they can't.
DR. JOHNSON answered that he doesn't believe that a parent has the
right to refuse special education services especially in extreme
cases. Once it becomes evident that that is occurring in a home,
the school district is aware of it, then the local school district
would have an obligation to investigate that because then it falls
under the childfind.
Number 1303
DR. FORD-SLACK added that the issue of IDEA and the stance on the
current court cases, suggest a strong push to recognize that IDEA
is a civil rights law attached to the child, not to the parent nor
anyone else. This was an amendment that was put forward and the
EED raised the particulars of current cases, none within the Ninth
District Court which is Alaska's court. On the East Coast, there
was a case of "educational abuse" where a parent made a decision
not to accept special education and related services. The way the
current law stands now, once a parent has agreed to the initial
placement, then the parent doesn't have a right to take away
special education and related services from a child because that
right on the initial placement transfers to the child, and the
district is required then to go forth and become the child's
advocate if that was needed. Those are very rare circumstances.
DR. FORD-SLACK noted this has become problematic in Alaska because
there isn't a way currently to have parents let the department know
they are home schooling. There are certain special factors in
IDEA, not only for medically fragile children but for deaf and
blind children, that they are to have certain services presented to
them. It is her understanding that out of the federal Office of
Special Education Programs [OSEP], that if a district were in a
situation where it knew of a child who had had special education,
was now being home schooled, was for example deaf and not receiving
any communication assistance or had an opportunity to communicate
with life peers, that the OSEP would view that as the
responsibility of the district to advocate. The way the bill
currently reads gives the EED some pause. There are other avenues
where that might occur and might better serve the state of Alaska,
but the federal law is fairly clear about the advocacy role when a
district needs to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if the EED has anyone on staff that
oversees or supervises the GT services.
DR. JOHNSON answered no, the EED does not have anyone that is the
point person on GT. The EED was told by the federal government
through corrective action that the department could no longer use
the federally paid special education staff so that was stopped.
The EED hasn't reorganized in anyway because there isn't any
general fund appropriation to provide that kind of service. The
type of technical assistance would come through the quality school
team leaders--there is one assigned to every school district--and
the team leaders may or may not have a background in GT, but that
would be the level of technical assistance and support that would
be received today.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Dr. Johnson if the quality schools
funding could be a source of funding for that type of evaluation.
DR. JOHNSON replied no, the EED has people called "quality school
team leaders," and that is an attempt on the part of the department
to break down some of the bureaucracy so a district has one contact
person in the department. If the district has an issue, it goes to
that contact person first, and that person is responsible for
getting the answer if he/she doesn't have the answer. It has
nothing to do with GT necessarily.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Dr. Johnson how he would respond if GT
were to be inserted on page 2, line 15.
DR. JOHNSON answered if that were put in there, the EED would find
someone else in the department who was not paid with special
education dollars to perform that function. That would be doable
if that were the wish of the legislature. The EED is not providing
any direct support for GT out of the department because there is no
financial support to do that. It would really be describing what
is occurring in the state in relationship to GT.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 4, line 27-28, "A parent
who teaches a child at home may refuse special education and
related services." He said personally he would like to see that
stay in there. He knows of a family who has a deaf son and taught
him in a certain way that may not have been agreed upon by the
local school district and maybe not even by the way IDEA said and
yet still had a very well-rounded education. He asked if Dr.
Johnson is telling him that the local school district could come
and remove that child from that education if there is a contest on
the degree on quality of education.
DR. JOHNSON answered he doesn't believe it is quite that black and
white. The district's responsibility would be to investigate the
type of education that the child was receiving and work with the
family to determine whether that would be the appropriate education
and whether it is meeting this child's needs. The district simply
would not have the authority to go in and say "What you're doing is
wrong."
Number 1637
CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that if the parents agree to the adoption
of a plan that then that invites into the process an advocate who
will look out for the children.
DR. FORD-SLACK said when someone suggests to a school district that
his/her child might require special education services, a team
meets and decides what evaluations will take place. The parent
must sign off on the evaluation. If the parent does not sign off
on the evaluation at that first step, it goes nowhere unless a
district was so inclined to believe that the child was really not
receiving what he/she needed. That would be an unusual
circumstance. After the evaluation, when all the data is brought
back, and the team says "Yes, we believe your child requires
special education services," the parent has another opportunity to
say yes or no. If the parent signs off on the initial placement,
the rights transfer to the child at that point. Normally the
parents exercise procedural safeguards which are mediation,
complaint investigation and due process hearings. If it were a
case of educational abuse, the district is supposed to, under this
law, advocate for the child if the district believes that this
child was not receiving a proper educational program. The district
must start a due process hearing, which means an independent due
process hearing officer, who has been trained by the state, is
brought forth, and both parties bring forward the evidence. The
hearing officer makes the decision as to whether that child is
receiving correct educational services at home or whether he/she is
not getting the needed education.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said once the parent signs the paperwork the second
time, the child has an advocate, and the parent irrevocably shares
the responsibility for at least the child's education-related
services with an advocate.
DR. FORD-SLACK answered yes, in very broad terms because largely,
special education is not about trying to push a parent in that
position. Everyone is interested in protecting the child and
looking for the best way to educate that child. The next step
would probably be when the transfer of rights occurs at age 18. At
that point, that child then receives all of the rights to take over
his/her own education, and he/she could say "I don't want it
anymore" and he/she could walk away from it.
Number 1835
SANJA BOLLING testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She is
a parent of "another health impairment child," and she agrees with
Faye Nieto's position statement. She read into the record the
testimony of FAYE NIETO:
PARENTS, Inc. is funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs to
improve early intervention, educational, and transitional
services and results for children with disabilities
through coordinated technical assistance, support and
dissemination of information activities and services.
PARENTS, Inc. to meet the mandate that is required:
assist parents to understand the provisions of federal
IDEA, procedural safeguards, alternative methods of
dispute resolution, such as mediation, decision-making
processes that pertain to development of Individual
Education Programs under part B and Individual Family
Service Plans under part C and the services therein so
ensured through education reform activities like the
conformance of state and federal law through passage of
HB 301.
PARENTS, Inc. is compelled to let parents and decision
makers know the good things have resulted form IDEA best
practice: millions of children are now educated in their
community schools, 9 percent increase in graduation
rates, twice the opportunity to become employed versus
those not transitioned, parents are equal partners in
their child's education.
PARENTS, Inc. in an effort to ensure that minimal or
better standards were set for Alaska's children with
disabilities engaged in a process that compared state law
to federal law, state regulation to federal regulation,
proposed repeals and changes to state law as compared to
federal law and regulation along with analysis of other
public advocates, legal counsel and parent comments
gathered during our statewide training, forum, regional
advocate, e-mail and other pertinent contacts that
totaled 67,000 FY 00 year to date. Review of this data
yielded the following recommendations:
Protections for Surrogate Parent appointment was
added back into law;
Annual review of Special Education Services by the
legislature will afford continued parent input into
school improvement/reform activities;
Extended due process hearing timeline from six
months to one year which has been found acceptable by
state and federal courts;
Language for gifted programs was expanded to include
the types of services and protections and remain
confident that once HB 301 is passed the [EED] through
regulation will now be able to strengthen this program
and fulfill the necessity for separateness from IDEA
services;
Children with disabilities have the right to receive
services when enrolled in religious schools thus
expanding the options for educational choice;
Parents who home school have the right to refuse
special education services, thereby protecting a parents
right to privacy and right to raise their children as
they see fit.
PARENTS, Inc. through discussions with [EED]
Administration and legal counsel has been assured that
the regulation process will include a complete review of
stakeholder comment that will be used to satisfactorily
amend so a conceptual framework with IDEA service
provision can result that will meet the needs of Alaska's
special education students. We are confident that the
[EED] and State School Board will keep their word as we
work together to bring the best of practices to our
Alaskan educational system.
We understand and support the passage of HB 301 and the
recommendations for stakeholder input to the regulatory
process as stated by PARENTS, Inc. and by so doing, urge
quick action that will ensure Alaska's compliance with
federal law.
This statement was signed by 17 parents of disabled
children.
Number 2073
ROBERT BRIGGS, Staff Attorney, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
came forward to testify. He said the Disability Law Center of
Alaska is pleased to see changes in Version G to accommodate some
concerns raised in regard to the original bill. There are still
some parts of the bill that have slight problems with regard to the
statute of limitations. The Disability Law Center has expressed
its legal opinion that the statute of limitations should be for two
years, but the one year statute really presents the opportunity for
probably most cases to be presented in a timely fashion. To be
tested it will require someone to have missed that one year
deadline and then raise the legal issue of the validity of the
statute. He didn't think the Disability Law Center would be the
one to challenge that.
MR. BRIGGS went on the say that the Disability Law Center was a bit
disappointed that there wasn't support for the idea of having a
body of substantive law that stood apart and separate from the
federal law, but the effect of this bill is understood to
incorporate by reference the existing federal laws, the framework
for Alaska. That leaves some nuances of state law that will have
to be resolved because the federal IDEA leaves to state discretion
certain issues. One of those issues left to state discretion has
already come up in this hearing and that has to do with the power
of a parent to refuse to agree to certain special education or
related services.
MR. BRIGGS respectfully disagreed with the representations made
about the state of the law with regard to the rights of a parent to
decline to consent to specific special education or related
services under federal law. He cited Federal Register, Volume 64,
Number 48, Friday, March 12, 1999, Rules and Regulations, 12449,
regulations adopted to implement the changes in IDEA 1997. The
regulations define parental consent which basically specifies when
parental consent is required. "Page 12450 (b) Refusal. If the
parents of a child with a disability refuse consent for initial
evaluation or a reevaluation, the agency may continue to pursue
those evaluations by using the due process procedures under
300.507-300.509, or the mediation procedures under 300.506 if
appropriate, except to the extent inconsistent with State law
relating to parental consent."
MR. BRIGGS noted that this basically gives the legislature the
power to define the powers of the parent in Alaska with regard to
special education. If the legislature decides that parents should
have the absolute power to refuse special education or related
services, it can be done as a matter of state law, and it becomes
binding on the department and on school districts. There is room
here for state control of this process. He advocated in his
previous comments that the Disability Law Center believes that
parents should have the right to refuse special education and
related services irregardless of whether their child is being
taught at home. With regard to Version G, page 4, line 27, he
respectfully suggested the word "who teaches a child at home" be
deleted, so any parent may refuse services.
MR. BRIGGS based this on complaints heard from some parents. It is
not unknown for a school district to employ school psychologists
part-time. Those school psychologists have private practices so
students are referred for special education services to somebody
who has a private practice he/she wants to build up and maintain;
it is a conflict of interest. He believes a parent ought to have
the power to say "No I don't think my kid needs this service. No
I don't think this service is required for my kid."
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there is any part that happens with
disabled children in their educational experience that includes
them being given psychoactive drugs.
MR. BRIGGS answered medication of children while they are in school
is an issue, especially for parents of hyperactive children; the
drug of choice is Ritalin. There is a great deal of dispute about
whether Ritalin is appropriately prescribed. He can't cite the
percentages of children in school who are prescribed psychoactive
drugs, but there have been news reports about the increased amount
of drugs given to young children without appropriate testing.
TAPE 00-40, SIDE B
Number 2350
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if parents and the public can be assured that
every child that is prescribed psychoactive drugs is done by a
psychiatrist or medical doctor who is specifically trained and has
does enough analysis and monitoring of the child to know.
MR. BRIGGS said the one thing that stands to protect parents and
children are the laws regarding medical negligence and licensing of
doctors who prescribe drugs. Those are the primary protections.
The rights under the IDEA for a parent, unless those rights are
expanded, are to disagree with the IEP. If the school district
refuses to accede from its position, for example, a particular
child needs a related service of psychotherapy including a medical
regimen, the parent's avenue is to request a fair hearing. He
believes there is enough animosity between parents and school
districts without needing to add fuel to the flames by requiring a
parent to have to go to an administrative fair hearing to get a
ruling that the child doesn't have to be put on drugs. His point
is if the right is defined up-front, the parent has the absolute
right to refuse to consent to a particular special education or
related service. Yet the school district does have the power under
IDEA, if it believes that a particular decision by a parent so
endangers the child, that the child becomes a child in need of aid,
the district has a legal obligation to make a report to DFYS.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Briggs to tell him again how drugs come
into education.
MR. BRIGGS answered usually a child is referred for related
services, and those related services may include psychotherapy or
psychiatric treatment. As part of that treatment, drugs are
prescribed by the treating physician.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the drug prescription would show up in the
IEP.
MR. BRIGGS said usually the way it shows up is that the school
district will assist the child in following the drug regimen that
is prescribed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he sees two sides to this and asked if
the EED and Mr. Briggs could have conversation here. He commented
that the committee has heard diametrically opposed opinions.
Number 2197
PHILLIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Civil Division(Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to testify
on behalf of the EED. He stated that the plain language of the
regulation that was just read doesn't say what has been suggested.
The regulation says If parents of a child with a disability refuse
consent for initial evaluation or reevaluation, the agency may
continue to pursue those evaluations. He noted only the initial
evaluation and reevaluation are being talked about. There is
nothing in the regulations that says once there is an IEP process,
that the IEP team does not regulate the education of that child.
This regulation doesn't provide that type of loophole. At the
evaluation level of the special education program, the parent has
the opportunity to say "No, I don't want evaluations." But once
the program has been entered into, and there is an IEP team and an
educational plan, then it is the IEP team under the federal law
that makes those type of determinations. The parents have to be
included in the IEP team; they are not excluded from that. The
idea that parents could unilaterally pick and choose elements of
this plan would be directly against what the federal IDEA requires.
These regulations only specifically deal with initial evaluation or
reevaluation.
Number 2133
MR. BRIGGS said Mr. Reeves is ignoring the reality that if a parent
disagrees with an evaluation, the parent always has a right to
request a reevaluation. If a school district determines that a
related service is required, and that related service includes
psychotherapy for example, and the parent disagrees that the
psychotherapy is necessary, the parent requests either a
reevaluation by the department or an independent evaluation. The
question of whether the parent can be compelled to accept a plan
that he/she doesn't agree with, he believes that the parent always
has the power and the right to request a fair hearing.
MR. BRIGGS referred to the Federal Register, Volume 64, Number 48,
Friday, March 12, 1999, Rules and Regulations, page 12450, (3)(d)
Additional State consent requirements. That heading implies that
the state may provide additional requirements with regard to
consent. "In addition to the parental consent requirements
described in paragraph (a) of this section, a State may require
parental consent for other services and activities under this part
if it ensures that each public agency in the State establishes and
implements effective procedures to ensure that a parent's refusal
to consent does not result in a failure to provide the child with
FAPE" [free and appropriate public education]. The point here is
the state has the power to decide how much power a parent's consent
has in this process. The limit on what the state can do is there
must be procedures to ensure that a parent's refusal to consent
does not result in a failure to provide the child with FAPE.
MR. BRIGGS believes this can be implemented through the EED's
regulations. There is a way the department can ensure that school
districts have the power and the procedure by which it can seek to
ensure that when there is a situation where a parent denies
consent, that the school district can try to ensure that FAPE is
provided. One process is finding that a child is a child in need
of aid.
Number 2010
MR. REEVES said there is this provision indeed that says that as
long as each educational agency does provide a FAPE that parental
consent can be provided for specific services or activities under
this part. He suspects this can be read to say it's talking about
drugs, that it could be said specifically that parental consent is
needed for that, but if the suggestion is that language is just
going to be put into the special education law to allow parents to
unilaterally pick and choose which part of the IEP will apply to
their child, he believes individualized education programs are the
heart of the entire federal law, and that is dismantling it and
allowing parents to make unilateral decisions, despite the fact
that the team doesn't see things in that light. He is sure that
the EED and each school district would strongly disagree with the
idea there is going to be a unilateral parental choice as opposed
to having the IEP team, which includes educators, psychologists,
and experts, make these program determinations.
Number 1952
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the parents he has talked to would say
that they and their child should have veto power over any decision
made by the team. He guesses that the premise has to be that the
bottom line lies with the parent when talking about the IEP.
MR. REEVES said he is simply stating how the federal law is set up,
and it is a federal program that is providing the funding that the
state is required to comply with in order to meet the requirements
of the federal law. The suggestion that the IEP team is not a good
idea, that is the heart of the federal program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the IEP is an excellent idea, but what
drives the IEP should be the needs of the child with the concerns
of the parent over the needs and desires of the team.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the entire plan was being revoked
or part of the plan; or is the team there to augment the education
as it sees or is the team there to have the parent augment as
he/she sees; and is then consent able to modify the team's
authority or is it to give the parent authority. It seems if the
parent has the right of revoking consent at any time then it seems
like it would be the whole plan.
Number 1820
MR. BRIGGS answered that he believes the answer is in the
regulations, Federal Register, Volume 64, Number 48, Friday, March
12, 1999, Rules and Regulations, page 12450 (e) "Limitation. A
public agency may not use a parent's refusal to consent to one
service or activity under paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section to
deny the parent or child any other service, benefit, or activity or
the public agency, expectation as required by this part." That
would have no meaning unless the parent had the power to say there
is a particular service I don't want my child to have. He
suggested a change in Version G, page 4, lines 27-28, where it says
"a parent who teaches a child at home may refuse special education
and related services." He suggested striking "who teaches a child
at home" and add at the end "the department may adopt by regulation
procedures to ensure that a parent's refusal to consent does not
result in a failure to provide the child with FAPE." That leaves
to the department's discretion a procedure for taking the
initiative to ensure FAPE for a child. He believes the most
appropriate procedure would be as in subparagraph (b) to request a
due process fair hearing or to invoke mediation procedures.
Number 1686
MR. REEVES said he is trying to avoid being the education program
person rather than the attorney here. He reiterated that while on
12450 (d) a State may require parental consent for other services
or activities under this part, the suggestion that parental consent
is required for absolutely every element of an IEP certainly would
have a tremendous administrative affect on the program. If that is
the choice, he guesses there would be a fiscal note connected to
that, and the way out is a due process hearing anytime there is a
disagreement. That is not necessarily a direct legal suggestion,
but he believes it is a substantial change to the program.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if he understood Mr. Reeves to say that having
in state law or regulation a parent's right to opt out may put the
state at odds with the federal IDEA program and maybe get the state
in trouble.
MR. REEVES said there are specific provisions regarding deaf
programs and so forth. It would seem that the federal law in one
case is saying these are minimum requirements, whereas in this
case, it is backing to the general requirement for a FAPE. A FAPE
is an appropriate education under the requirements of the federal
regulations so that would become the issue. What is suggested is
the parent can opt out and then the district would have to file for
due process hearing and argue that there is no longer a FAPE being
provided if this element of the plan in not there.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said if this sentence is in here that a parent may
refuse special education and related services, the federal
government isn't going to look at that and say "you don't get your
$14.6 million because you've got this contrary provision in here."
MR. REEVES said his suggestion is it would certainly be more
appropriate to identify particular types of services that fall
under this as opposed to have a catch-all that anything that is not
agreed to is out. The federal government would look at it on a
case by case basis.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Briggs what the parents involvement
is in the IEP and their legal authority under the development of an
IEP now. He wondered if they have the ability to refuse services.
Number 1541
MR. BRIGGS said as he reads this current state regulation, they
don't have, AAC 52.200 "Consent of a parent must be obtained before
conducting an initial evaluation or initial placement of a child in
a program ... except as set out in (a) of this section, parental
consent may not be required as a condition of any benefit to a
parent or child." He believes the department is interpreting that
phrase "may not be" as needing the consent to continue to provide
FAPE. He believes that is somewhat inconsistent with federal law
and believes that regulation needs to be changed.
MR. BRIGGS stated under federal law, a parent always has the power
if he/she feels strongly about a child's IEP. Keep in mind the
school district usually drafts the IEP and puts it in front of the
parent and says "Sign off on this," and if the parent refuses, the
team says "Fine, we don't need your signature, we're going to go
ahead and implement the IEP and if you don't like it, take us to a
fair hearing." That is the remedy for a parent if he/she disagrees
with the IEP; he/she has to go to a fair hearing.
MR. BRIGGS suggested that it makes better sense to give the parent
the opportunity to go for mediation as well as the opportunity to
go for a fair hearing. It is a procedural difference that doesn't
make any difference. That right is going to exist no matter how
this issue is adopted. He believes the legislature has the power
to make it a matter of state law that consent shall be required,
and that consent can be revoked with regard to a particular service
or part of the IEP. He doesn't believe it will have much fiscal
impact because most parents who have children with disabilities in
the schools want to work with the school district. The situation
where this is going to be important is the rare situation where a
parent disagrees with the school district over a specific item in
the IEP. It at least allows the opportunity for a parent to say
"No, I'm not going to send him to that psychiatrist, but I agree
with the rest of the plan," and the school district can implement
the rest of the plan without forcing the parent to take the whole
plan to a fair hearing.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Briggs to pencil out some language to get
to that point if the committee chose to go that way.
Number 1366
MR. REEVES said the way the system is set up under the federal
regulations, which are essentially what the state has been
following and will continue to follow, is that an IEP team made up
of the parents, district representative, and representatives that
the parents want, gets together to consider the evaluation of the
child to determine what the child's needs are and develops a
program for the child. If the parents don't agree that the program
provides an appropriate education, then they have the recourse to
mediation and a due process hearing. The district responsibility
is to provide a FAPE which means it meets the requirements of the
federal regulations, and as long as the district provides that
under the federal law, the district isn't required to provide the
absolute best for every child. Obviously, that would be more
expensive than appropriate. It seems to a certain extent that this
turns the process on its head to suggest that now the parent, now
if it is only in the negative, the parent can only decline certain
services as opposed to suggest that these additional services must
be provided, then perhaps there is not a great fiscal note then the
question just becomes is that still a FAPE. Is the parent's
unilateral decision making what is expected under the federal law?
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what happens if there is an accusation that
the parents are not doing a FAPE.
MR. REEVES said it is actually the district's responsibility to
provide the FAPE. In this case, it has been suggested that if the
parents removed elements from the plan, and the district felt now
that plan no longer offers a FAPE because something is gone that
was necessary, then the district would have the authority to go
into a due process hearing and ask a hearing officer to make that
determination. The FAPE would still be the requirement of the
federal law; it's just that the district would go forward to say
"We have to have this element even though the parent doesn't want
it."
Number 1282
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what happens if the hearing officers agrees
the child is not getting a FAPE.
MR. REEVES answered that typically it is the parents who argue and
then the district is ordered to implement the changes necessary to
provide a FAPE. In this case, if the hearing officer determined
there was not a FAPE because the parents have removed elements, it
is difficult for him to see how there's going to be any authority
for the hearing officer to order the parent to put that back in.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what lever the government has on the
parents--take them to court, get a court order, contempt of court?
MR. REEVES replied in talking about related services, that is a
little different because typically, related services are not
provided by the school district. They are outside of school hours.
He would believe if any hearing officer ruled that any element of
the plan which was part of the school's program was necessary for
a FAPE, then the district would simply implement the plan with the
elements that the parents had disagreed with. The parents' option
under the federal law is to remove their child and place him/her in
a private program at their own expense if the district is providing
a FAPE.
Number 1112
DAVID MALTMAN, Executive Director, Governor's Council on
Disabilities & Special Education, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He expressed support for CSHB 301,
Version G, on behalf of the Governor's Council on Disabilities and
Special Education. The council continues to prefer a 24-month
period in which a parent may request a due process hearing, page 3,
line 16. The council agrees with the EED's concerns regarding the
language about a parent who teaches a child at home refusing
special education and related services. He noted the committee has
received plenty of advice on that, but the council still remains
concerned about the refusal of the parents. It is not clear what
happens to the child and if the district will proceed with a CINA
petition if warranted. He encouraged the committee to move the
bill along.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Maltman if he sees gifted and talented as
part of the disabled community.
MR. MALTMAN replied no, not in regards to disability. The concern
is the GT children have educational needs too. The language in the
CS makes it clear what the districts should do. He hopes that the
regulations promulgated by EED will help shape GT education so it
is improved. Many parents of GT children are concerned that
they'll be losing something. He hopes with the committee's
attention to this provision and an annual report, it will be seen
whether the department has improved it or if resources are needed
by the department to provide for a better statewide program.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the Governor's Council on Disabilities &
Special Education advocates for the gifted and talented children.
MR. MALTMAN answered under the current statute the council has the
same dilemma as the department; there is a responsibility there as
gifted is an exceptional child. The council doesn't have the same
resources to form coalitions with parents or to address these
issues in terms of adequacy or policy making. The council's
position is no better than the department's to address these issues
because it has no state funds.
Number 0856
JOHN CYR, President, NEA [National Education Association]-Alaska,
came forward to testify. He noted that he had written remarks he
would leave for the committee. He expressed concern about remarks
about the parent's right to refuse services. He said it's like the
Ivory soap commercial: 99.44 percent of the time IEP teams include
parents, they are an integral part. He doesn't believe that
schools whip up a plan and lay them on parents and say sign this or
else. That has not been his experience. It is the whole team
working for the child in trying to make an education program that
works. The concern is in the other than the 99.44 percent; it is
that small slice where the school and the parent and the child
cannot agree on what the appropriate educational program should be
for that child. He believes that the obligation is to the child.
It is not to make the parents happy; it's not to make the teacher
happy; it's to make the best educational program for the child. He
gets nervous when he hears about parents having the right to refuse
educational programs. This sets up some long-term problems that
everyone pays for. Ultimately, it is for the child that the school
has to be responsible.
Number 0700
PEGGY BUSS, Facilitator, Gifted and Talented Program, Fairbanks
North Star Borough School District, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks and introduced the children who will testify.
Number 0691
ROSEMARY HANSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
gave the following testimony: "I think GT should stay because it
is good that I can do a little harder work than what the classroom
provides. I am looking forward to next year because the main
subject is reading. In sixth grade you do a wax museum. I really
like GT because it makes learning fun."
Number 0659
EVA RISSE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She gave
the following testimony: "GT is important to me because if it
weren't for GT I would be bored in regular classroom. GT is a
place where I go (indisc.--rustling papers) ... considered against
the law to be underage for kindergarten or first grade. She was
only allowed (indisc.) first grade and that was not enough. She
was soon tested and made it into GT. She had so much fun there.
As soon as she came home and said "Mom, did you know that? Mom,
did you know this?" And Mom hardly ever knew. GT helped her a lot
in kindergarten and eventually she (indisc.) first grade. I have
been reading that you want to stop funding for GT. (Indisc.) who
cares about it. Why do we have to say this? If there is law to
provide funding for the lower challenged people, why not for the
people of GT? My GT teacher, Miss (indisc.) and other GT teachers
bring out the best in those students. (Indisc.)"
Number 0596
ALLIE MCGUIRE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
gave the following testimony: "I go to (indisc.) in third grade.
I like the math we do in GT because we are doing algebra right now
in the third grade GT. I think GT makes learning fun."
Number 0577
MS. BUSS said as facilitator for the school district, she feels
very strongly that legislation is needed to support gifted
education at the state level. Personnel is needed to support and
advocate for the district at the state level.
Number 0558
CINDY BENNER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She is
a parent of two children in the GT program at the elementary level.
She is concerned what the effect of HB 301 will be on the future of
the gifted and talented program in Alaska. She feels Fairbanks has
been extremely fortunate to have an excellent program and excellent
teachers that worked hard to provide enrichment for the GT
students, and there also is an excellent district-wide coordinator,
Peggy Buss, who is continually advocating for the needs of the
gifted children. However, this is not the case in all school
districts around the state. She worries about what will happen to
GT in her district when Peggy is no longer the coordinator.
Currently, there is no statewide coordination of the GT program,
and if HB 301 is passed, there will be no protection of GT because
there will be no regulations to address the IEP and due process
rights of parents and no procedural safeguards.
Number 0490
DOROTHY CORBETT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She
is a parent of a child in GT. She said the draft of HB 301, Sec.
14.30.315 is inadequate for providing education of exceptional
children who are gifted. Specifically on page 4, line 14, the use
of the word "may" is not adequate and should be changed to "will."
Since there is no one in EED in GT services, she urged the
committee to direct the EED to provide GT staffing. While it is
true that the IDEA funds cannot be used for gifted student
services, there is funding planned under federal Senate Bill as to
elementary and secondary education act. To receive these funds
Alaska needs to have a GT program in place and someone at the state
level to apply for and administer these funds. She commented that
Bob Briggs said earlier that the EED did not take time to develop
a body of law for the state of Alaska, but instead referred to
federal law repeatedly in order to satisfy the requirements of the
IDEA. Other states have not dropped the ball on this but have
split the special education bill into two roughly symmetrical
parts: one for the disabled and special student and one for the
gifted and special student, and noted that some students may fall
into both categories. She urged a similar rewrite to Sec.
14.30.315.
Number 0382
SUSAN SISSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She is
the parent of a ten-year-old GT student. It is inconceivable to
her, as a parent of a very gifted child, who comes with all the
quirks of being gifted, as well as the intellect, to imagine their
lives in the public school system at this point in time without the
support of the gifted program. Her son relies on having that time
each week to work at his own capabilities and not be held back by
the rest of the classroom. This is a child who entered
kindergarten reading on the 12.9 grade level who was in class with
children learning the letter of the week. He used to come home and
practically cry, "Mom, why do I have to do this, I know this."
There are similar struggles in fourth grade. The GT program
enables her son to stay in the public school system. She does not
know how she would manage to keep her son in a regular classroom
without him becoming a severe behavior problem if he does not have
some outlet for his capabilities. She urged the committee to keep
the GT programs in the special education programs in the state of
Alaska.
Number 0285
LIZANNE HANSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She is
a parent of a GT student. She suggested looking at the bigger
picture. Most people would agree that children who experience
developmental disabilities should have some kind of individualized
education plan put in place. The gifted children who will be the
future leaders need to be served also. Those are the children who
will become bored in the regular classroom, and they're the ones
who will drop out. Regulations are needed at the state level for
these children.
Number 0155
PAMELA BICKFORD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
asked to reserve her testimony for Thursday. If the hearing isn't
reopened on Thursday, she will submit her written testimony.
Number 0134
MARY KLUGHERZ testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. She
agreed with everything that has been said by the parents and
students in Fairbanks. She believes the issue is state leadership.
She shared her experience with her nine-year-old gifted son. He
was ahead of his peers when he entered school, and the school
district refused to test him for GT because "there was not a
program until he would be in third grade" which was in violation of
the statutes. The next two years were spent using the statutes and
regulations as a guide and working through the system to get her
son qualified for services. After the district refused twice to
test her son, again in violation of statutes, he was tested at his
parents' expense. Using the procedural safeguards currently in
place, it took two long years to get him what he needed in
educational services. These services consist of an appropriate
education plan that meets his special needs. Without the
procedural safeguards that have been in place for the past 30
years, he would have nothing. That was not the end of it. At the
beginning of third grade this year, there was a good appropriate
education plan in place, however, the teacher refused to implement
it. Her son was miserable and was not given challenging work.
TAPE 00-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. KLUGHERZ told the committee that a psychologist said that if
her son's intellectual needs were not being met, he would be at
serious risk for depression, among other things. Using the
statutory procedural safeguards as a backup, the situation was
resolved by making adjustments in his curriculum. He is now happy
and thriving in his learning environment. A gifted child needs a
stimulating, challenging curriculum for his/her mental health.
Without the intellectual challenge, gifted children are at serious
risk for depression, suicide, behavior problems and school
dropouts. Without the state safeguards and protections for gifted
children, she and her husband would be nowhere with their son.
They realized that they will continue to meet resistance by various
individuals in the school district when it comes to providing the
necessary curriculum for their child. These procedural safeguards
that are currently in place are essential to protect the rights of
these children.
MS. KLUGHERZ noted there are thousands of gifted children in
Alaska, and many districts will not make the effort to find these
children. Without keeping the statutes in place, gifted children
will no longer have the opportunity to be provided with an
appropriate education in Alaska's schools. By not protecting these
children with statutes and ensuring them procedural safeguards, she
feels that the state will be violating their right to a free and
appropriate education.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Klugherz what are the procedural
safeguards she mentioned.
Number 0176
MS. KLUGHERZ said the statutes currently refer to both children
with learning disabilities and children that are gifted and
talented. Everything that applies to a child with a learning
disability also applies to a gifted child. At this point the state
is trying to make the state statutes come into compliance with the
federal statutes for children with disabilities. Because the
federal IDEA doesn't cover gifted and talented children, all those
statutes that currently apply to those populations and eliminating
them all for the GT children except for two.
Number 0265
PAM ROTH testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. She is a
parent of a GT student in Ketchikan. She urged the committee to
include GT in HB 301. Without state leadership, the GT program is
not likely to happen at the local level. Her personal experience
is that the GT program is essential. It has been a lifeline for
her nine-year-old child. His boredom in the regular classroom led
to problems of self-esteem and depression. Through his IEP, the
situation was addressed and remedied. Taking GT out of this bill
is a gross omission for a whole population of children that deserve
safeguards. Ideally, a separate piece of legislation needs to be
written for GT, but until that time GT needs to be included in HB
301.
Number 0358
MARGO WARING came forward to testify. She is a parent of a gifted
child. She supports the inclusion in HB 301 of the procedural
safeguards that have been in place for 30 years for gifted
children. It made sense to legislators 30 years ago, and it still
makes sense. She hopes the committee will move that into HB 301.
She believes that the EED in its effort to separate gifted from
special education services is dropping very needed coverage from a
group of students who also need specially designed educational
services. The EED does have funds that can be reallocated, if
necessary, to cover the small cost that might be incurred by the
continued use of the procedural safeguards by parents of gifted
students. She indicated that Section 9, page 4, lines 11-17, is
inadequate both in terms of making inclusion of elements of a
gifted program discretionary by not having an effective date and
primarily by not also including those procedural safeguards. She
shared copies of an amendment that would provide those procedural
safeguards, and she encouraged the committee to adopt the
amendment.
Number 0526
ROBERT SEWELL came forward to testify. He is a parent of gifted
child. He told the committee that the gifted and talented students
are markedly underserved in many districts; in some districts they
are grossly underserved. The extent of service varies highly
across districts but often times occurs only in the context of the
procedural safeguards which HB 301 is about to eliminate. He is
greatly concerned about that. He urged the committee to rectify
what is about to occur. These students can and do study at several
grade levels above where they are chronologically. It also
involves a significantly different curriculum and sometimes
educational counseling. He fears the elimination of what little is
left of GT services in many of the school districts.
MR. SEWELL agreed with the spirit and letter of HB 301 for it is an
advance for persons with disabilities. The issue now is what is
now not in there. He suggested adopting something similar to Ms.
Waring's suggested amendment would rectify the situation. That
would mean the allowed for continued requirement of a child study
team, an individual education plan and a due process hearing
proviso that involves a hearing officer and the ability to grieve
by parents with the district. He objects to the removal of those
provisions.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the permissive language that allows the
individual districts to treat the gifted and talented in a way it
feels appropriate is inadequate; it ought to be mandated statewide
and not left up to the local school district.
MR. SEWELL responded absolutely. He is asking to leave the
prescriptive language that historically has been part of Alaska
statutes.
Number 0764
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what would be the problem of removing
Section 9, Programs for Gifted Children, page 4, lines 11-17 and
maintaining the statutes and regulations now without Ms. Waring's
suggested amendment.
MR. SEWELL answered he couldn't say what all the legal
ramifications are. He believes that would mean that all the
safeguards for GT would be eliminated. That is the problem. He
believes that some of the districts would not do the right thing
for many of the GT students.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:54 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.
Number 0865
JOAN DANGELI came forward to testify. She expressed her support
for HB 301 hoping it will offer more oversight of the special
education process. She has been in the special education process
for three and a half years for her son. She suggested that on page
3, line 16, 12 months should be changed to 24 months. She shared
her frustrating experience as a parent with special education for
her son Quia in the Juneau School District. She only understood
her position on the IEP team this past December--her third year of
special education. She has just removed her son from the school
district because the IEP team was not bridging the educational gap.
The curriculum goals were important to her, and she brought that to
the IEP team's attention for two years in a row. Her son was
behind every other kindergartner in the second year so she started
teaching him at home, and he is picking it up. She felt the
problem was how he was being talked to.
MS. DANGELI wondered if Section 4, page 3, line 11, could be
amended to read "due process or mediation" because when she brought
her issues up at the three and a half month mark of going through
due process, she was so tired she removed her son from the school.
The IDEA was created to include parents as a legal member of the
team.
MS. DANGELI said she didn't understand why in trying to get special
education, there is an IEP that gave 24 hours of the 25 hour school
week with an aide, who was by law, not permitted to bridge the
educational curriculum gap because aides are considered
paraprofessionals; the only person in law who could administer
education is the special education teacher. One special education
teacher at the elementary school for the K-2 students was with the
students 24 hours of a 25 hour week, the rest was one hour speech.
She wondered why he was in special education; she can get private
speech therapy.
MS. DANGELI noted that her son was complained about through
psychologists' evaluations. She was pushed for the drug issue for
three years; every doctor said no. A specialist in the EED told
her for her son's specific disability, care must be taken about
approaching her son with drugs; a birth defect specialist had to be
seen to get the idea of the condition of the brain before
hyperactivity or attention deficit disorder was diagnosed. The
doctors refused to give her son drugs, but yet she was at odds with
the school district for three years. Finally, she realized she
wasn't taking her son to the doctor anymore for the school
district. She is not going to give him drugs.
MS. DANGELI is concerned about the district being able to force
parents by law to keep their children in special education. There
are three members of the team considered professionals: the speech
pathologist, the special education teacher and the school
psychologist. They all pushed the drug issue at her, but the
doctors and specialists in the disability said no.
MS. DANGELI referred to the report mentioned on page 2, line 10-14,
and said the parents have no right to request data. She wondered
why this was by the department and not the "municipals." When she
tried to find out if this one teacher could humanly possibly
provide special education for all of these students from K-1, if by
law the aide is not allowed to, she couldn't even get the
statistics. She wondered if the special education teacher has
enough hours in the week to even spend time with each of the
students.
MS. DANGELI noted that now special education is in an inclusive
model instead of an institutional model; but many students cannot
learn in an inclusive model because of stimulation issues. Those
students need a quieter room. She has suggested that for two years
for her son and has never gotten it. She was told there was no
merit in her concern. She would observe her son, and he cannot
even hear the teacher. Nobody tended to him to get the lesson.
MS. DANGELI is concerned with the reporting. She wondered what the
value of a report is if people can't find out who is doing what and
if the job is being done with all the money. She referred to page
4, line 27, and said she agrees with Mr. Briggs. She feels it was
her right to walk away from this district. "If they weren't
teaching him in the school, I don't want them in my home." She
found the whole process tiring. She wondered if parents should be
forced to keep their child in a situation that is not producing.
She is discouraged with the process of education.
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Dangeli if she was not aware of her
role in the IEP for two years.
MS. DANGELI answered it was three years. Mr. Briggs sent her a
copy of Special Education and the Law that says parents are a legal
member of the team; parents are to be one of the writers of that
educational plan. For three years the IEP had been handed to her
to read and sign right there without even having a chance to take
it home. When she read it, it was a service plan to outline the
program and the services the district was legally required by law
to provide. It was four pages of "Quia will..." other than the
word encourage being listed twice. She rewrote the IEP herself
with two specialists at the EED and PARENTS, Inc. and said "From
now until year twelfth grade, I will give the IEP to you to sign,"
respecting good input. What she went up against on the IEP team
was disrespect.
CHAIRMAN DYSON closed the public hearing on HB 301. [HB 301 was
heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|