Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/06/2000 03:07 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 6, 2000
3:07 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
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Caren Robinson
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Board of Education
Paula Pawlowski
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 301
"An Act relating to the education of exceptional children; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 301(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
State Board of Education
Ernest Hall
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 355
"An Act establishing a state community service program;
establishing by statute the Alaska State Community Service
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act prescribing the rights of grandparents related to
hearings on petitions to adjudicate a minor as a child in need of
aid and to the testimony of grandparents at those hearings; and
amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17(e), and 19, Alaska Child in Need
of Aid Rules."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 413
"An Act relating to intensive family preservation services; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
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
3/23/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/23/00 (H) Heard & Held
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
4/04/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/04/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/06/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CAREN ROBINSON, Appointee
to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
PO Box 33702
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the AMHTA Board of
Trustees.
PAULA PAWLOWSKI, Appointee
to the State Board of Education
3300 Balchen Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State Board of
Education.
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Department of Education & Early Development
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 301.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West Eleventh Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
ERNEST HALL, Appointee
to the State Board of Education
4770 West 84th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State Board of
Education.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Appointees to
the State Board of Education.
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.
ROBERT B. BRIGGS, Staff Attorney
Disability Law Center of Alaska
230 South Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301.
MARGO WARING
1215 Fifth Street
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 301 in support of Gifted and
Talented Programs.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Whitaker, Morgan, Brice and Coghill. Representatives Green and
Kemplen arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the committee would consider one nominee
for the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
and two for the State Board of Education. they would not vote
for the nominees but would pass them out of committee for full
consideration of the House and Senate. (Resumes were provided
for all appointees.)
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees
Number 0144
CAREN ROBINSON, Appointee to the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority Board of Trustees, came forward to testify. She said
she has served on the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority board
for the last three years and has found it to be one of the most
challenging and interesting jobs she has had. There are four
distinct beneficiary groups that the board serves. Alaska is a
large state to guarantee that the beneficiaries from Ketchikan to
Barrow are served. She currently serves as chair and would look
forward to moving the board forward with the agenda that was put
in place before she was appointed three years ago.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Robinson what she has been able
to accomplish as chair of the mental health board.
MS. ROBINSON answered that she has served as the chair since
June. One of the first things she requested was a retreat for
the board members to get a better handle on the priorities. She
mapped out the priorities for the committee: 1) having API's
(Alaska Psychiatric Institute) new building in place. The board
has been trying to downsize the API facility for many years. The
board is in the process of working with the commissioner and
other people involved to try to purchase the Charter facility and
move the community in Anchorage and having a complete community-
based service in place so when people come in from the outlying
areas, they will be better served in the existing facility. At
the same time the board is hoping to downsize API so community
services will be in place where the beneficiaries belong.
MS. ROBINSON said they are trying to move to a two-year budget
cycle so they can do better, longer projects and also rural
services.
CHAIRMAN DYSON thanked Ms. Robinson for her willingness to serve.
State Board of Education
Number 0551
PAULA PAWLOWSKI, Appointee to the State Board of Education,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She is seeking
reappointment to the Board of Education and has served for about
18 months. [Portions of her testimony are indiscernible due to
another voice speaking at the same time on teleconference.] When
she was first asked to serve on the board to finish out someone's
term, she thought it was part of being PTA [Parent-Teacher
Association] president. There is a long history in Alaska of
having PTA presidents serve in this position. Since she has
served the last 18 months, she realized this is something she
would like to continue doing for the children of Alaska.
MS. PAWLOWSKI also discovered she had a lot of life history that
pertains to where Alaska is in terms of education reform
regulations, and her experiences from the East Coast and around
Alaska are real pertinent. While on the East Coast she was
involved in Brown University coalition of schools and has
experience with military children. She believes she may be the
only one on board who has experience in early childhood and that
concerns her because her connection with early childhood is ten
years of providing home day care. She is rather passionate about
day care and early childhood. It concerns her that the board
will be facing that area without much experience on board.
Number 0725
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Pawlowski about being the
National Military Family Representative for Alaska (NMFA).
MS. PAWLOWSKI answered she has been a member of NMFA for 15
years. Three years ago she took on the job of area
representative only in the area of education. As Alaska PTA
President and a member of NMFA, she organized a workshop in
Kodiak, Fort Wainwright and Anchorage trying to find good
practices from military families that would help connect schools
and military families. There are some outstanding examples in
Anchorage of how military bases have connected with the local
education as well as the Coast Guard base in Kodiak. She will
report the results of that to the Military Child Conference this
summer in San Diego. She continued to outreach to military
families, and she serves on the Armed Services YMCA board. She
is concerned about the military children and the qualifying exit
exam. That issue hasn't had much attention yet but it is high on
her list.
Number 0834
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Pawlowski what can be done to
strengthen early childhood development issues with K-12
education.
MS. PAWLOWSKI answered that kindergarten is not required in
Alaska yet the state board is going to be responsible for
regulations in early childhood. She is a huge proponent of
licensing and regulating public and home day care for a variety
of reasons. She is going to be looking at the regulations.
Other states have connected home day care providers by allowing
and providing educational training. No one knows what someone is
doing who is not licensed and isolated. She is interested in the
possibility of offering day care providers insurance
possibilities and training possibilities. The early childhood
piece is even more critical than she knew it was.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked for Ms. Pawlowski's thoughts on how
the state should respond to the needs of the gifted and talented
children in Alaska.
Number 0991
MS. PAWLOWSKI said she has personal experience with this issue
because both her boys were in the gifted and talented program.
In some cases the program worked well; and in other cases, not so
well. Alaska is one of the few states putting gifted and
talented into regulations and asking that districts have plans.
She understands that gifted and talented is being removed from
exceptional children and many people are worried, but it is way
up there on her list too.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Pawlowski what the top three
issues are that she would face during her tenure on the board.
MS. PAWLOWSKI said number one without question will be funding.
How the funding is used will affect the benchmarks and the
qualifying exam. She believes more funding is needed, but she is
cautious about where that funding will be put for the "best bang
for the buck." Other concerns are the lack of teachers, and
Alaska needs more certified Native teachers.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Pawlowski to explain what she was
thinking on her vote against counting school administrators as
part of the classroom to meet the 70 percent funding.
Number 1224
MS. PAWLOWSKI answered she did vote against that but explained
she is 100 percent in the belief that the building principal is a
leader, a teacher and in many schools does physically teach
classes. In that funding category that would move to
instructional dollars was not only the head principal but the
assistant principals and support help. The support help was
defined as secretaries and other support staff. She has never
seen a secretary that taught a class. She had a problem to open
up that category to allow that whole category to be counted as
instructional leadership. The board has been asking the
department to put the chart of accounts into permanent language
that will fit with the new law and the way it is funded. It is
difficult to make a chart of accounts when the numbers are still
moving. She felt if the board said yes to allowing that to
become an instructional dollar this year, she hopes next year
there will be a better accounting of the where the dollars go.
She is sure it will not include support staff as instructional
dollars.
CHAIRMAN DYSON thanked Ms. Pawlowski for her service on the
board.
HB 301 - EDUCATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced that the next order of business would be
House Bill No. 301, "An Act relating to the education of
exceptional children; and providing for an effective date."
Chairman Dyson noted that he only intended to take answers to
questions from the committee. He announced his intention to
entertain amendments. Chairman Dyson announced that before the
committee is committee substitute (CS), version G [GH2003\G.1,
Ford, 4/6/00].
Number 1529
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
reads:
Page 3, following line 8:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A parent who elects to educate a child as
allowed under AS 14.30.010(b) may refuse the special
education and related services provided under AS 14.30.180
- 14.30.350. A school district that disagrees with a parent
regarding the provision of special education and related
services may attempt to resolve the disagreement by
mediation or may request a hearing as provided under AS
14.30.193."
Page 4, lines 27 - 28:
Delete ". A parent who teaches a child at
home may refuse special education and related
services"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
reads:
Page 4, line 17, Section 9
After the last sentence add the following:
A charter school may be organized to meet the
requirements of this section.
Page 2, line 15, Section 2
add the following after the words "special education":
including gifted and talented,
Number 1559
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN explained that the purpose of this
amendment is to give direction to the issue of gifted and
talented programs. There are two components to this amendment.
The first part gives some explicit opportunity for parents and a
school district. If the parents are dissatisfied with how the
school district is providing services towards gifted children,
they could organize and create a charter school for the gifted
and talented. The second part of the amendment includes gifted
and talented in the department's annual report. When the
Department of Education & Early Development (EED) provides its
analysis of how the special education needs of students in Alaska
are met, the department will also have an analysis of how the
needs of the gifted and talented are met. The legislators will
have some concrete data to use for making decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he might be in favor of one part and
not the other and asked if the amendment should be divided up.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said that could be dealt with in a minute. He
asked what this amendment would do to the Department of Education
& Early Development and if it will pick up a fiscal note.
Number 1707
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Department of
Education & Early Development (EED), came forward to answer
questions. He stated that the EED does not believe it would
require a fiscal note. The charter schools can be established
for a variety of purposes including this particular purpose. The
EED would do a report. The report may have more to do with what
districts are doing than anything the department is doing
depending on how the bill eventually is formulated.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the second part is added [to the annual
report], will that produce a significant workload for the EED.
DR. JOHNSON answered there would be some work associated with
that. The special education staff could not deal with it; other
staff would have to put that report together. A lot of data is
now collected from schools in the form of school report card
information, and that is done by regulation. This information
could probably be collected at the same time; it wouldn't go into
the school report; it would be used for this other purpose.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:40 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there was any more objection. There
being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move Amendment 3 which
reads:
Page 4, line 11:
Delete lines 11 - 17
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said this amendment takes out Section 9.
His intention is in establishing a gifted and talented program,
it should be something the state should allow but not necessarily
direct. The actual statute AS 14.30.315(b) states "Nothing in
this section prohibits the department from requiring approval of
programs of special education and related services for other
categories of exceptional children." He understands that is very
permissive, but he believes it would be better, in dealing with
IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] to leave the
old statute than put the new section in.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 3:43 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.
Number 1869
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said AS 14.30.315 is presently in statute.
He doesn't want to repeal it and reenact it. There would be
nothing in this statute that prohibits the department from
requiring approval of programs for special education related
services for other categories of exceptional children. He
understands that is very permissive. Rather than having gifted
and talented specifically directed in this bill when it seems
like there is going to be some problem with the federal law, it
would be better to leave the state law as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated his concern with this amendment is
that it effectively eliminates all protections for gifted and
talented students in Alaska. He has heard enough concern from
parents of gifted and talented children about the elimination of
procedural safeguards. This amendment may go too far in how it
eliminates support for gifted and talented children in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the title of the description under AS
14.30.315 is Programs for Gifted Children. Frankly, this bill
itself is not going to be funding any gifted and talented
programs. Neither are the federal dollars coming with this IDEA
program. This will have to go to the Finance Committee whether
its under the repealed and reenacted section or whether it is
under this. It seems to him that this gives a broader latitude,
but it is not a directive. That debate has yet to happen, and he
doesn't know if that debate should happen under this bill. The
existing law as it is gives plenty of latitude for that.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Dr. Johnson for the department's perspective
on this.
Number 1989
DR. JOHNSON said the department does not object to this change,
although this opens up the conversation for a future discussion
about public policy related to gifted and talented and how this
state wants to address it. The department proposed the language
in the CS as a result from feedback received from various
individuals who thought there needed to be some protection for
current gifted and talented programs. The department felt that
made some sense.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Dr. Johnson if the IDEA really deals
with the federal government views that this law fulfills a civil
right and under gifted and talented that is not necessarily true.
He believes the two are being mixed here. It is a legitimate
public policy debate. All he is saying is that in this bill, he
doesn't know if gifted and talented should be addressed for fear
that they may trip over themselves. He is afraid that a civil
right issue and another issues may cause trouble for this bill
down the road. Leaving the statute as it is, leaves it open for
that public debate. This bill may close it down.
Number 2052
DR. JOHNSON said to Representative Coghill that clearly the
department tripped over what the federal government asked the
department to do with the federal funds because the funds were
co-mingled for children with disabilities and identified gifted
and talented. It is correct that the cleanest way to deal with
this would be to have two separate bills: one dealing with
gifted and talented and another with disabilities. Regardless of
how it comes out, the department has clear marching orders from
the federal government in terms of how federal money can be
spent, and the dollars will not be co-mingled.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said the bill before the committee does indeed
separate out the gifted and talented from the children with
disabilities. The federal government is telling there can't be
co-mingling of funds. He understood that the bill the EED
submitted made at least some of the options of how education
deals with gifted and talented more of a local prerogative. He
asked Dr. Johnson if that was correct.
DR. JOHNSON answered that is correct.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said so when Representative Kemplen says some of
the protections are being removed for the gifted and talented
program has more been done in the bill to strengthen making that
a local prerogative. He asked if that was a fair inference.
DR. JOHNSON answered that yes, the EED attempted to do that. The
EED felt that to move from having the protections that came with
IDEA previously in the law for GT to nothing was not in the best
interest of GT students in the state. The EED tried to craft
language in AS 14.30.315 that would require the local school
district to identify GT students, serve them and also have an
appeal process at the local level. If parents were unhappy with
any portion of the program, they would have a redress at the
local level. Since there are no federal or state dollars in EED
to do that, the department needed to extract itself. The
language was written to clearly accomplish that.
Number 2158
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Dr. Johnson what Representative Coghill's
amendment does to that goal of the department.
DR. JOHNSON answered he believes it makes it more permissive. It
doesn't require a local school district to offer a program.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Dr. Johnson how that would fit under
the regulations that are being written on the gifted and talented
program.
Number 2182
DR. JOHNSON answered there are going to be two chapters of
regulation. A lot of work has been done on the disabilities side
and very little work done on the gifted and talented side.
Gifted and talented could end up in chapter 53, which is a new
chapter that specifically would outline the responsibilities of
school districts for the gifted and talented population.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the EED is currently moving ahead
with the regulations on gifted and talented.
DR. JOHNSON replied yes, although what the department would like
to do is have the statute in place as the regulations are
developed so "they are not wandering around in the field." A lot
of work has been done because it is a huge effort, but certainly
there is the commitment if the bill were to pass in the form of
the CS, that the EED will have an obligation and will come forth
with regulations to support the services of GT students at the
local level.
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it is permissive because this new
reenacted language is very directive that every school district
shall establish a program for these services. He finds that
troublesome in the context of what HB 301 is trying to do with
IDEA. He asked if there has been any legal action on Alaska for
not complying with IDEA or is it just a threat that the money
will go away.
DR. JOHNSON explained that at this time the EED is under
corrective action which means there may be sanctions in the
future if the EED doesn't come into compliance with federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this skirts that then. He asked
if this isn't close to non-compliance.
DR. JOHNSON answered the EED doesn't believe so the way this is
put together. The federal government will obviously review this
when it comes forward with the monitoring review. The federal
government prefers that the EED doesn't co-mingle any GT issues
with children with disabilities issues clearly. That is the
cleanest way to do some things. As the EED looked at a strategy
to accomplish what it needed to do to protect the federal funds
and to assure the EED was in compliance with the civil rights
issues around IDEA and serve children with disabilities, the EED
felt this was a good strategy to separate the GT issue totally
out of the entire statute, have a specific section and only a
single section that deals with it beyond definitions and go in
that direction.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said they agree that it is a separate
issue. Putting this in this bill hooks it to this issue almost
inextricably. Leaving in the language statutorially allows the
EED to go to another title. That is a separate debate that needs
to happen. He just doesn't know if it is wise to have it in this
bill. He is sure this will be revisited in an emergency
situation. He is not against the gifted and talented as far as
the debate goes; he might debate on the wrong side of it, but at
this point, he believes there could be problems.
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said Dr. Johnson mentioned that the EED
has an obligation to craft regulations as the CS is currently
laid out which has the mandate to local school districts. If
that section is taken out that mandates the school districts to
have a gifted and talented program, which is what this amendment
does, does that remove the EED's obligation to craft regulations.
It seems to him the EED would no longer need to craft regulations
if there is no mandate by the state for school districts to have
a gifted and talented program.
TAPE 00-42, SIDE B
Number 2344
DR. JOHNSON said that issue hadn't been discussed. That line of
reasoning is not out of line at all. There would be nothing to
compel the department if the reference to gifted and talented is
removed from this bill. There would be regulations in place that
are not attached to any statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the department has to go to the
legislature for funding the gifted and talented program, or is it
going to be funded within the department without a legislative
funding request. He asked if it would be a BRU [Budget Review
Unit] or will each district be on its own.
Number 2307
DR. JOHNSON said if the CS would pass as written, the department
would see the responsibility at the local level. There are no
dollars coming in from the state to the department; the funds go
directly to the individual school districts in the 20 percent
received for vocational education, special education and ...
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL interjected because of that, it should be
more permissive.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if the amendment as proposed does
not affect funding.
DR. JOHNSON agreed it does not affect funding.
Number 2274
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if it allows local districts to
decide the disposition of gifted and talented programs within
their districts.
DR. JOHNSON answered that districts must provide a program for
the gifted and talented population. How that is done or how
extensive it is would be left to the discretion of the individual
school districts under the CS.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said assuming the amendment, the "must"
would be extracted from Dr. Johnson's statement and a "may" would
be inserted.
DR. JOHNSON answered yes, that is his understanding of the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if he is missing anything beyond
that that directly relates to the amendment.
DR. JOHNSON answered not that comes to his mind. He believes it
is straightforward, and Representative Whitaker has clarified the
issues on this particular amendment.
Number 2221
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, came forward to testify. He said he believes the
amendment would be appropriate to allow latitude. If not, it
would be a large unfunded mandate on the local schools.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said his concern is while the proper
public approach to the gifted and talented is addressed, the
protections should not be eliminated for the gifted and talented
programs out there now. Those protections should be maintained
as that dialogue happens in the future. He asked for a "nay"
vote on this amendment.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Representative Kemplen when he says
"protections" he is meaning directive mandating language as
opposed to permissive language.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered yes.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Whitaker, Morgan,
Coghill and Dyson voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives
Brice and Kemplen voted against it. Representative Green was
absent. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt corrected Amendment
4 which read:
Page 1, line 12
Delete "shall"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete subsection (1), subsection (2) and subsection
(3);
page 1, line 12, after the words "The department may"
Insert:
, notwithstanding any other provision of AS 14.30.180 -
14.30.350, may
(1) do all things necessary to qualify for federal
funds that are available to the state for the education
of exceptional students;
(2) adopt regulations necessary to comply with AS
14.30- 14.30.350.
Page 2, line 7:
Delete: (4)
Insert: (3)
Page 5, line 5, after "14.30.285,"
Insert: 14.30.335,
page 5, line 2:
Delete:
"under state and federal law, including regulations
adopted by the department;"
page 5, line 2:
Insert:
under state law;
Number 2144
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said this whole bill is saying Alaska is
going to give the federal government absolute control over what
is done in Alaska with very little framework, and he objected to
doing that. He referred to page 1, line 13, "do all things
necessary to continue state eligibility ..." His real objection
is the whole section (2), page 2, line 2, which says on line 3:
" ... and other federal law related to children with
disabilities; if a provision of AS 14.30.180 - 14.30.350
conflicts with federal law and the conflict would affect the
continued receipt of federal money, the department shall comply
with the federal provision necessary to ensure continued receipt
of that money;" He said what effectively is being done is
putting the state statute under the authority of the federal law,
whatever it is and whenever and however it is changed, the state
doesn't get the purview.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed the amendment for the committee.
The rationale behind the changes are to do things necessary to
install IDEA but not to give a carte blanche authority for that.
The amendment says if there is going to be a change in this law,
it has to go through the legislative process. If that isn't
done, then the department will be able to write regulations, the
law can change, and the legislature will be out of the purview of
it, and the legislature will be continually asking questions that
it doesn't understand the federal law. It will be continually in
the dark. "I think we're treading on really poor constitutional
ground here but if nothing else, the people of the state of
Alaska, as far as the legislature is concerned, lose their part
in the discussion. Those folks watching on television don't get
to see any of it." Page 5, line 2, is a critical part of the
argument; change line 2. That way the law of the state has to be
changed every time the federal government changes IDEA.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 1, line 11, and agreed that
"things" needs to be changed because it is very vague. He
pointed out that the language on page 1 refers to the department
being able to create regulations, which it should do; however,
page 2 says it can't [create those regulations]. Although he
agreed that referencing the federal law that can change without
the state is of concern, he would prefer that they adopt
standards above and beyond what the federal law has and put those
into statute. He believes what is being done here is basically
creating an endless loop that never arrives at the desired answer
and basically removes any legislative oversight in the
development of special education laws in Alaska. He said, "I
appreciate what you're [Representative Coghill is] trying to say;
I don't think we get there with Amendment 4 so I would probably
say I oppose it."
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to the language "do all things
necessary to qualify for federal funds" and remarked, "...talk
about opening up the barn door and letting all the animals out."
For example, if the federal government were to require that all
exceptional students had to be blood tested or had to have
national identification cards, this certainly authorizes the
department to comply with that [federal requirement] without
having to come to the legislature. This is broad language.
Number 1814
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was willing to change that, but he
pointed out that the aforementioned language is already in the
CS.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that was the point he was going to
make. However, although "things" is in the CS, the latitude
provided for by the amendment is not in the CS. The CS says
"shall," the amendment says "may." Therefore, Representative
Whitaker said he is going to support Amendment 4.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Representative Whitaker if he was supporting
the amendment with the change in the word "things?"
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he didn't know what "things" would
be substituted with.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested "to what is reasonable" but the
other is language he took right from the bill itself.
CHAIRMAN DYSON suspended the hearing on HB 301 to take up the
confirmation hearings. [The minutes for HB 301 continue after
the confirmation hearings.]
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the committee would consider Ernest Hall
for the State Board of Education. They would not vote for the
nominee but would pass him out of committee for full
consideration of the House and Senate. (A resume was provided
for the appointee.)
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Hall to summarize his qualifications and
why he wants to serve on the State Board of Education.
Number 1747
ERNEST HALL, Appointee to the State Board of Education, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted that his many years
of experience with the Anchorage School District qualify him. He
has a great deal of commitment in working with the school
district administration, and he helped the district come up with
new standards for contracting. He chairs the Career Technology
Advisory Committee for the Anchorage School District. All of his
children went through the Anchorage School District, and now he
has grandchildren starting their way through. He has concerns
about education even though he hasn't been tightly connected to
it recently. There is no question in his mind that education is
the future of everyone because the children who are going through
the system now are going to be the future leaders.
Number 1678
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Hall what emphasis he will place
on the importance of early childhood development and what will he
do to strengthen the connection between early childhood
development and education.
MR. HALL said currently he and his wife are chairing a new
committee for the United Way in Anchorage called "Success by Six"
which addresses children from birth until 6 years old. The
thrust of this committee is to ensure that by the time children
turn 6, they are ready to go to school and have the ability to
learn when they get there. That age group is critical.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE urged Mr. Hall to consider the prenatal
group especially with the state facing issues such as Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome babies and drug-addicted babies.
MR. HALL agreed that is important. He explained that the new
committee has a great group of about 15 couples, grandparents and
single parents, and they all recognize how critical the prenatal
group is because there are individuals bringing children into the
world who are not prepared to do it. The amount of drugs and
alcohol that are consumed during pregnancy has to be understood
just how critical it is during pregnancy. He said this committee
is hoping to come up with a web page in Anchorage on a level that
anybody can read and understand because there are a number of
services available. The majority of the people who need help
don't even have a reading level to access and read and understand
the information.
Number 1531
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Hall what he sees as the top
three educational issues facing Alaska's students and how he
plans on addressing those.
MR. HALL answered it is tough to tie down three. One of the
biggest issues for him is the discipline issue in the schools.
He believes that a good qualified teacher could probably go in
and teach a class of 28-30 students, but if there is one student
who is real discipline problem, that one will destroy the
education of the other students because the teacher devotes so
much time trying to take care of that problem. He doesn't
exactly know how to "wrap our arms" around that. It is getting
to the point he continually asks himself how these people
continue to go into the classrooms if they don't have an ability
to address the discipline of students in the class.
MR. HALL said the funding problem is something everyone is going
to have to work and try to address in some form to make sure
there is the ability to pay for the education of children.
MR. HALL noted another major issue is parental involvement in
their children's education. The schools with active parents in
the PTA [Parent-Teacher Association] have higher scores than
schools where parents just don't care. A lot of things are
involved using common sense approaches and finding out how to get
ownership out of everyone involved education and participation
from them to ensure the children can get the needed education.
CHAIRMAN DYSON thanked Mr. Hall for his willingness to serve.
MR. HALL said he will give it his best. He looks forward to
working closely with the committee as well as the counterpart
committee in the Senate. He believes that something that becomes
a problem sometimes is a lack of communication amongst all who
are concerned about education. Sometime private agendas tend to
get in the way. As long as there is an open line of
communication and people work together, the winners are going to
be the children graduating from Alaska's schools.
Number 1362
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA) came forward to testify. He spoke in
support of the three candidates for the State Board of Education:
Mr. Ernie Hall, Paula Pawlowski and Sally Rue. The ACSA supports
these people because they all have their hearts in the right
place.
HB 301 - EDUCATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
[The beginning of the HB 301 minutes precedes the confirmation
hearing of Mr. Hall.]
CHAIRMAN DYSON reopened the hearing on House Bill No. 301, "An
Act relating to the education of exceptional children; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed he had struggled with the language
"do all things necessary" on page 1, line 13, so he deleted that
language and added "take needed action."
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there was any objection to the amendment
to Amendment 4. There being none, the amendment to the amendment
was adopted.
Number 1262
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that Dr. Johnson pointed out that on
line 13 of Amendment 4, there is an error in the statute number
and it should read AS 14.30.180.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said to Dr. Johnson that he was amazed when he saw
the original bill with the similar language in there that said
"do anything necessary." He asked if that is standard in trying
to bring state law into compliance with federal laws.
DR. JOHNSON answered he didn't know if it is standard, he is new
at this game. It was a carryover from the previous statute. It
has been in state law for some period of time.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said "what I hear you all having said, and maybe
the state law said before, you say to our federal overlords we've
done everything we know that you want us to do, and if we missed
anything, we did that too."
Number 1174
DR. FORD-SLACK said it does something else too. She has been
using that language as a way to appease the federal government
over the last few months when it was questioning the EED's
commitment to implementing IDEA with a lack of staff, lack of
change in statute and regulations since 1997, and lack of action
on the corrective actions from the monitoring report. The EED
had been using AS 14.30.180 as sort of a failsafe that the
current state statute as it is, if nothing happens, means that
the legislators had, in their wisdom, put that the department was
still supposed to do what the federal government said to make
sure that children with disabilities got the needed protections
and programs that they were to have. That is what the EED has
been using.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said this closes the door for anything the
EED wants and even if it is changed and the department has to
change, but the legislature and the rest of the state are out of
the loop. This at least brings them back into the loop. He
asked Dr. Ford-Slack if she had any comment on that.
DR. FORD-SLACK said she doesn't have any problem; she was using
the language that had been in the statute before to cover her
back and the state's back at the time, and it has worked well for
about nine months. When the EED was looking at statutory change
that appeared to be needed with IDEA, the EED just followed what
had been in the previous statute.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why then is HB 301 needed if the
department is doing it anyway.
Number 1058
DR. FORD-SLACK answered in 1997, when Alaska received its
monitoring report ten days before IDEA was reauthorized, it threw
the federal government into a dilemma, with all states that had
been monitored under the old IDEA in the previous year.
Therefore, the EED, with its single staff person, was asked to
convene a committee of stakeholders. In October 1997 those
stakeholders were to sit with the Office of Special Education
Programs representatives and a technical assistance agency to
take the corrective actions from the monitoring (of which there
were four fairly stringent ones) and roll them into a
comprehensive state implementation plan, which is about 16 pages
long. That implementation plan not only took care of the
corrective actions, but also required the state, under every
single section of IDEA, to 1) look at and amend its statute and
2) look at and amend its regulation. She noted that when she
originally took this job she thought she was just dealing with
the corrective actions of monitoring, but instead she was
informed by the Office of Special Education Programs that the
state of Alaska had submitted the implementation plan; it had
been approved in January 1998; and it was their understanding
that that's what the EED was working off of. That is why the EED
was to do statutory change.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to line 8 of Amendment 4, "The
department may," and said that "may" is permissive. He also said
that a less-enlightened administration would not be required to
take that action and thus he wondered if that would be a problem.
Number 0919
DR. FORD-SLACK said she believed that the federal government's
response would probably be that certainly, states have a right to
do what they want; education is clearly a state act. The federal
government will come and monitor the state, and it will do the
things that it believes it needs to do to bring the state into
compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said if Alaska doesn't want to be
enlightened, it doesn't have to be.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said the federal government might withdraw the
funding, and it might be a teachable moment.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked to hear from the department.
Amendment 4 deletes Section 2, (2) and (3) on page 2, lines 2-9.
He asked what impact that would have.
DR. JOHNSON said the position of the EED is it does not object to
the proposed Amendment 4. The way it was written provided lots
of emphasis, and the EED believes that the amendment captures
what it is most interested in which is that the department comply
with the federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out during testimony that AS
14.30.180 is presently in statute but section AS 14.30.182 (1),
(2), (3) and (4) is new and is not presently in statute.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Whitaker
and Dyson voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Brice
and Kemplen voted against it. Representative Green abstained on
his vote since he had missed most of the discussion on Amendment
4. Representative Morgan was absent. Therefore, Amendment 4 was
adopted by a vote of 3-2.
Number 0714
ROBERT BRIGGS, Staff Attorney, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the
committee that he did not have a copy of Amendment 5.
CHAIRMAN DYSON read the amendment to him.
MR. BRIGGS said Amendment 5 tracks what the Disability Law Center
recommended in its April 5 letter.
Number 0631
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 5 which
read:
In Section 6, page 3, line 22, delete "school district"
and add the phrase:
"department through a process of random selection"
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Briggs to explain to the committee why
this amendment should be adopted.
MR. BRIGGS explained the purpose of Amendment 5 is to ensure
that, especially in smaller school districts where there may not
be many hearing officers available, the school districts may have
the power through the ability to nominate three people to
essentially give only one viable candidate, and that candidate
may not necessarily be predisposed to hear fairly all the issues
in a case. He felt there was agreement with the department on
this subject that if there was a random process of selection,
just as any case that is filed in a civil court is randomly
assigned to a judge, the parties would be assured that there
would be a free and open process and less likelihood of
attempting to influence who the decision-maker ultimately is.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Dr. Johnson if the EED has a position on
Amendment 5.
DR. JOHNSON answered the EED has no objection to Amendment 5. It
is an improvement. The Disability Law Center has raised some
legitimate issues. If this were to be adopted, he suggested also
changing the words "school district" to "department" on page 3,
line 24.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there was any objection to this amendment
to Amendment 5. There being no objection, the amendment to
Amendment 5 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if there was any objection to Amendment 5.
There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 6 which
reads:
Page 3, following line 16:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 14.30.272 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.30.272. Procedural safeguards
for gifted children. (a) A school district
shall inform the parent of a gifted [AN
EXCEPTIONAL] child of the right to review the
child's educational record, to review
evaluation tests and procedures, to refuse to
permit evaluation or a change in the child's
educational placement, to be informed of the
results of evaluation, to obtain an
independent evaluation by choosing a person
from a list provided by the district or by
choosing a person by agreement between the
parent and school district, to request an
impartial hearing, to appeal a hearing
officer's decision, and to give consent or
deny access to others to the child's
educational record.
(b) The department shall establish, by
regulation, impartial procedures for a school
district to follow for hearings under this
section [AS 14.30.193 TO COMPLY WITH
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN
FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS, INCLUDING 20
U.S.C. 1400 - 1485 (INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT)].
* Sec. 10. AS 14.30.274 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.30.274. Identification of gifted
[EXCEPTIONAL] children. Each school district shall
establish and implement written procedures to ensure that
all gifted [EXCEPTIONAL] children under the age of 22 who
reside in the district are identified and located for the
purpose of establishing their need for gifted [SPECIAL]
education and related services.
* Sec. 11. AS 14.30.278 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.30.278. Individualized
education program for gifted children. (a)
The individualized education program for each
gifted [EXCEPTIONAL] child must include
(1) a statement of the child's
present levels of educational performance;
(2) a statement of annual goals, including
short-term [SHORT TERM] instructional objectives;
(3) a statement of the specific gifted
[SPECIAL] education and related services to be provided to
the child, and the extent to which the child will be able to
participate in regular educational programs;
(4) the projected dates for initiation of
services and the anticipated duration of the services;
(5) appropriate objective criteria and
evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at
least an annual basis, whether the short-term [SHORT TERM]
instructional objectives are being achieved.
(b) Each meeting concerning a gifted [AN
EXCEPTIONAL] child must include
(1) a representative of the school
district, other than the child's teacher, who
is qualified to provide or supervise the
provision of gifted [SPECIAL] education;
(2) the child's teacher;
(3) at least one of the child's parents;
(4) the child, when appropriate;
(5) other individuals selected by
the parent or school district.
(c) Each school district shall develop an
individualized education program for every gifted
[EXCEPTIONAL] child who receives services or whose parent
requests services under this section [AS 14.30.180 -
14.30.350]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 20, following "department.":
Insert "The regulations adopted by the department
must require separate accounting by the department and
each school district of money spent for programs under
this section, including procedures to ensure that
federal money provided under 20 U.S.C. 1400 - 1487 is
not used under this section."
Page 4, following line 1:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 15. AS 14.30.350(3) is amended to read:
(3) "consent" means, as applied to
parents of gifted children, the parent has
been fully informed of all information
relevant to the activity or the release of
records for which consent is sought and the
parent understands and voluntarily agrees to
the activity or release of records;
* Sec. 16. AS 14.30.350(4) is amended to read:
(4) "educational records" means,
as the term is applied in gifted education,
those files, documents, records, and other
material that contain information directly
related to a student and are maintained by a
school district or a person acting for a
school district; the term "educational
records" does not include the personnel
records of the school district, maintained in
the normal course of business, that relate
exclusively to a person's capacity as an
employee, or other records as designated by
the department in regulation;
* Sec. 17. AS 14.30.350(7) is amended to read:
(7) "individualized education
program team" means, as applied in gifted
education, a group of people that translates
child assessment information regarding a
child into a practical plan for specially
designed instruction and delivery of services
for the child, and includes the following:
(A) [A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, OTHER THAN THE CHILD'S TEACHER, WHO IS
QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE OR SUPERVISE THE PROVISION OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION;
(B)] the child's teacher;
(B) [(C)] the child's parent;
(C) [(D)] the child, if appropriate;
(D) [(E)] other individuals, at the
discretion of the child's parent or the school
district;
* Sec. 18. AS 14.30.350(8) is amended to read:
(8) "parent," as applied to the parents of
gifted children, includes a guardian and [,] a person acting
as a parent of a child; [, AND A SURROGATE PARENT APPOINTED
UNDER AS 14.30.325.]
* Sec. 19. AS 14.30.350(9) is amended to read:
(9) "related services" means, as
the term applies to gifted children,
[TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL,
CORRECTIVE, AND OTHER] supportive services
required to assist [CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES OR] gifted children to benefit
from gifted [SPECIAL] education and includes
[BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO SPEECH PATHOLOGY AND
AUDIOLOGY,] psychological services, [PHYSICAL
AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, RECREATION,]
counseling services [INCLUDING REHABILITATION
COUNSELING], and medical services for
diagnostic or evaluation purposes; the term
also includes [SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES,]
school social work services [,] and parent
counseling and training;
* Sec. 20. AS 14.30.350 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(12) "gifted education" means specially
designed or accelerated instruction, at no cost to the
parent, that meets the unique needs of gifted children."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "14.30.272, 14.30.274,"
Page 4, line 3:
Delete "14.30.278,"
Page 4, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "14.30.350(3), 14.30.350(4), 14.30.350(7),
14.30.350(8), 14.30.350(9),"
Page 4, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 22. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION. The Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development shall adopt regulations required
under AS 14.30.315, as repealed and reenacted by sec.
12 of this Act, by January 1, 2001."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Number 0465
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
Number 0444
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said this amendment provides a statutory
skeleton for the regulations that the EED has alluded to in
providing certain procedural safeguards for GT. It is a little
bit of statutory oversight for what is expected to come out of
the regulatory process.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Representative Brice if there is any
part of Amendment 6 that is currently embodied in HB 301.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered no. That was a question he asked
of the drafter. He had Mr. Briggs also go through the amendment
to be sure current sections within the CS were not being messed
with. It basically provides for those issues on gifted and
talented.
Number 0322
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told Representative Brice that this
amendment is exactly why this should be a separate issue.
Amendment 6 really embodies a whole different bill. Though he
believes it is a worthy debate, it is out of line with this
particular issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said actually it is perfectly in line with
this piece of legislation given the fact that the department
raised the issue. The fact that the EED is in the process of
writing the regulations for gifted and talented and needs the
statutory authority in which to write those regulations now. If
the legislature wants to get rid of GT across the state, it can
leave HB 301 as it is, and the statutory authority will be too
limited for the department to adopt the regulations it has been
talking about. He believes this is an extremely timely
amendment, and it is perfectly appropriate.
Number 0218
DR. JOHNSON commented obviously, this is a challenging issue.
There are no federal dollars associated with gifted and talented;
there are no state dollars that currently come to the department
but rather to the individual school districts. He indicated that
the EED believes it can regulate, to some degree, what is going
on in the school districts since they do get money in the form of
the 20 percent add-on. With that the school districts need to
provide services for all children, including the gifted and
talented children. Dr. Johnson noted that Representative Brice
has raised the issue of a good, healthy discussion of what the
EED wants to do. The EED would certainly support that discussion
and wants to be a part of that discussion, but it is the EED's
strong opinion, that to the extent possible, the two issues,
disabilities and gifted and talented, need to be separated even
though historically in Alaska, it has been done differently.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Dr. Johnson the department put AS
14.30.315 into the CS.
DR. JOHNSON answered that was a strategy call on the part of the
department. It did not want to leave what has been a long-term
program recognized under exceptional children out of the
legislation. The department felt it would make it difficult to
move the bill forward to have the kind of statute necessary for
the EED to fully comply with the federal dollars for exceptional
children.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Dr. Johnson then what is the
department's statutory authority to bring up chapter 53 in the
administrative code which was referenced earlier for gifted and
talented.
DR. JOHNSON said the department believes that AS 14.30.315, where
every school district is required to establish a program, gives
the department the authority to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Dr. Johnson what is the problem with
the language before him.
TAPE 00-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
DR. JOHNSON said the department believes it is talking about a
fiscal note here if the department were required to provide the
kind of language that is outlined in Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said to Dr. Johnson that the department is
going to write the regulations, chapter 53 without a fiscal
impact, but if the legislature were to give the department the
authority to write those regulations, then there is a fiscal
impact. He asked for clarification.
DR. JOHNSON replied that he wasn't sure if he grasped the
question fully. The department will be using department staff to
draft regulations to support gifted and talented. For instance,
in procedural safeguards there are some heavy monetary issues for
the department if it is going to establish hearing officers in
the area of gifted and talented. Those hearing officers will
need training to do the complaint investigations, the mediation
and the due process hearings that are required in a dispute.
Those are the monetary issues he was referring to in the
department.
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he is assuming under current AS
14.30.315 the department isn't going to have any due process or
procedural efforts.
DR. JOHNSON answered yes, in AS 14.30.315, the department does
want a review process, but it would be at the local level not the
state level. The department would not play a role in it but
would require districts to establish those kinds of opportunities
for parents who feel that their children are not served well.
The money is at the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the amendment says "school districts."
The EED is not referenced. He just wants to make sure there is
statutory authority for the department to be writing the
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Chairman Dyson if Margo Waring could
speak to Amendment 6.
Number 0268
MARGO WARING came forward to testify. She spoke in support of
Amendment 6 and urged the committee to adopt it because it
provides exactly what the gifted and talented students have now,
nothing more, nothing less. The department has the money and the
trained staff to do it now; it has been doing it and can continue
to do it. It is an effort, as it was described by Representative
Brice, to provide a skeleton for future regulations which might
be written. Maybe this time language could be added that would
require the EED to produce regulations within some set period of
time. More important is children who have special educational
needs have been in the same piece of statutes for years. All the
federal government is requiring of Alaska is to separate them and
that is what the amendment does.
MS. WARING noted a member of her group has called the federal
Department of Education (DOE) and asked about this; the DOE has
said that having parallel statutes is fine; it has supported and
approved them in seven other states. There is no need to
eliminate what is there now. It just needs to be separated from
the proposed new statutes and regulations for special education.
MS. WARING urged the committee to support the amendment so the
rights that students now have are maintained. Not every school
district is stepping up to the bat as much as it needs to to
provide education for children with challenging needs. She urged
the committee, through this amendment, to put its support behind
the idea that school districts and the state have an obligation
to teach all of the children.
Number 0441
CHAIRMAN DYSON clarified that Amendment 5 was conceptual. If
there is another place where the word "department" should be
substituted for "school district" that is the intention of the
committee.
Number 0475
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said Amendment 6 is a separate issue and
will carry its own fiscal note and needs to go through its own
process. He understands it is a parallel problem. The gifted
and talented is definitely a debate, but it is not a debate in HB
301. It is a tough separation because it has been done this way
for years, but it needs to be debated separately. He urged the
committee not to pass the amendment until he and the department
have time to peruse it.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the department did bring it forward; it
was in the original bill and the CS. He just wanted to clarify
some things so the EED could have proper direction in their
efforts to develop the regulation. There isn't a fiscal note
because the EED is going to do it anyway.
Number 0566
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if Amendment 6 would negate
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL answered yes, it would negate Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said actually is does not negate Amendment 3
simply due to the fact there is still a section AS 14.30.315 in
statute, and this embellishes on that statute. It is perfectly
appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he has heard two diametrically
opposed answers and asked for further clarification.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said he couldn't answer the question succinctly.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he believes the answer is very simple;
it is what the vote is, and what the will of the committee is.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Brice and Kemplen
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 6. Representatives Morgan,
Coghill, Whitaker, Green and Dyson voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 6 failed to be adopted by 2-5.
Number 0721
CHAIRMAN DYSON told all the participants that this was one of the
better collaborative processes under difficult circumstances he
has seen. He suspects that none of interest groups are perfectly
happy with this bill. He noted it was a work in progress. He
expected some of the committee members to be back on this
committee next year, and they will continue to pursue this issue.
The details that aren't right in this iteration will be paid
attention to and come back to them later. He noted this bill
goes on to the Finance Committee so interested parties should
watch for when it comes up again there.
Number 0845
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move CSHB 301, version
GH2003\G, Ford, 3/27/00, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
Number 0848
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN objected. He said his concern is that
this committee has been quite comfortable with mandating programs
for school districts. Not too long ago the committee mandated a
security plan for all districts. Why there is now a concern for
not mandating services for gifted and talented seems to be
inconsistent. His problem with this bill is that it eliminates
educational rights for Alaska's best and brightest. For someone
who strives toward making a commitment towards excellence, he
wants to see Alaska have that same commitment towards excellence
in education. This legislation, as amended, is a step backward,
and thus he said he cannot support it.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Whitaker,
Green, Morgan, Dyson and Brice voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representative Kemplen voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 301
(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|