Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/05/2001 03:02 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2001
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to mental health treatment facilities;
repealing the termination date of the mental health treatment
assistance program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 219 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) am
"An Act relating to a two-year transition for implementation of
the public high school competency examination and to
establishing a secondary student competency examination as a
high school graduation requirement; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 219
SHORT TITLE:REPEAL SUNSET OF MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/28/01 0758 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/28/01 0758 (H) HES, FIN
04/05/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE:SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0598 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0598 (S) HES, FIN
03/09/01 0600 (S) HES WAIVED PUB HEARING
NOTICE, RULE 23
03/10/01 (S) HES AT 10:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/12/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/01 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/01 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/14/01 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/01 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(HES)
03/16/01 (S) HES AT 0:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(HES)
03/20/01 0732 (S) HES RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
03/20/01 0732 (S) DP: GREEN, LEMAN, WILKEN,
WARD, DAVIS
03/20/01 0732 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) Moved CS(HES) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/01 0819 (S) FIN RPT CS(HES) 6DP 1NR
03/27/01 0819 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, HOFFMAN,
LEMAN
03/27/01 0819 (S) GREEN, OLSON; NR: WILKEN
03/27/01 0819 (S) FN1: (EED)
03/28/01 0838 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/28/01
03/28/01 0840 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/28/01 0840 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0840 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/28/01 0841 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
133(HES) AM
03/28/01 0841 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
03/28/01 0841 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/28/01 0844 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/01 0844 (S) VERSION: CSSB 133(HES) AM
03/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/29/01 0767 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/29/01 0767 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
04/02/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/02/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/02/01 (H) Joint with EDU
MINUTE(EDU)
MINUTE(HES)
04/04/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/04/01 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 133(EDU) Out
of Committee
04/04/01 (H) HES AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/04/01 (H) Joint with EDU --
Meeting continued from 4/2/01
MINUTE(EDU)
MINUTE(HES)
04/05/01 0858 (H) EDU RPT HCS(EDU) NT 2DP 1DNP
1NR 2AM
04/05/01 0858 (H) TITLE CHANGE PENDING HCR 14
04/05/01 0859 (H) DP: PORTER, BUNDE; DNP:
WILSON;
04/05/01 0859 (H) NR: STEVENS; AM: GUESS, JOULE
04/05/01 0859 (H) FN1: (EED)
04/05/01 0859 (H) REFERRED TO HES
04/05/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 219.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 219.
KARL SANFORD
384 Snowy Owl Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 219.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on SB 133.
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as committee aide for the House
Special Committee on Education on HCS CSSB 133(EDU).
HANS NEIDIG, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Lyda Green,
chair of the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee, sponsor of SB 133.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: As the chair of the House Special Committee
on Education, testified on HCS CSSB 133(EDU).
ED McLAIN, Assistant Superintendent
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
148 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
GREG MALONEY, Director
Special Education
Department of Education and Early Development
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on SB 133.
AMY HEADRICK, Attorney
Disability Law Center
3330 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
JANEL WRIGHT, Legal Director
Disability Law Center
3330 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
TIM WEISS
Parents, Inc.
4743 East Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson,
Coghill, Stevens, Kohring, and Cissna. Representatives Wilson
and Joule joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 219-REPEAL SUNSET OF MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE
CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 219, "An Act relating to mental health treatment
facilities; repealing the termination date of the mental health
treatment assistance program; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0064
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE came forth as sponsor of HB 219. He
stated that [HB 219] was requested by Senator Kelly, who is
offering a companion bill [SB 154]. He explained that Section 1
of the bill repeals the sunset provisions in Sections 2, 4, 6,
and 9 of chapter 87 of SLA 1999. Those current sections that
would be removed would cover: the clarification of liability
for expenses of placement in a treatment facility; the
clarification of the definition of "designated treatment
facility"; and the definition of the eligibility and procedures
of the DET (Designated Evaluation and Treatment program)
including the applicability, eligibility for assistance,
application for assistance, decision on eligibility, eligible
services rates, payment, appeal, regulations, and definitions.
And, he said, it removes an effective date of sunset, July 1,
2001.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE read to the committee:
Those individuals who are working for people who have
no insurance nor do they have any Medicaid coverage
would still be afforded hospitalization if they meet
certain eligibility requirements.
He stated that these are people who are in a mental crisis. He
added that it further goes on to describe how these patients
would have to be removed if the sunset provision is not
repealed. They would then be moved to API (the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute), which is already crowded and would
entail movement costs.
Number 0322
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forth and
stated that this allows the DET program to continue beyond July
1 in its current configuration. He remarked that it is far
better, therapeutically, for people to remain in their home
communities and receive these services. He explained that the
attached fiscal note shows the entire cost for the DET program
in fiscal year 2002 is $2.6 million. Those funds are included
in both the House and the Senate versions of the fiscal year
2002 operating budget. In the middle of the form there is a box
[that is checked, which notes] that this bill is included in the
governor's budget, as it was and is in the House and Senate
budgets. He clarified that it is actually a zero fiscal note in
the sense that [DHSS] is not looking for additional funds.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the source of the funding is.
MR. LINDSTROM answered that there are a variety of funding
sources. He stated that two years ago, when Senator Kelly
introduced a bill that modified the program, one of the primary
funding sources was a federal grant [DHSS] received courtesy of
the delegation, which is not a continuous source of funds. He
said he believes the sunset was put on the bill recognizing that
those funds would not continue. He added that [DHSS] has been
able to construct a mechanism using other non-general funds to
pick up the slack from that lost federal grant. This involves
the disproportionate share payments through the Medicaid program
and a non-general fund source. He stated that while there is
about $1.1 million in general funds, the fiscal year 2002 budget
was only a $200,000 increase in general fund and [DHSS] has been
able to pick up the rest of the cost with the other non-general
funds.
KARL SANFORD testified via teleconference. He stated, on behalf
of the hospital in Fairbanks, that he was in support of HB 219.
Number 0616
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to move HB 219 from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 219 moved from the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
SB 133-PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPETENCY EXAM
[Contains discussion relating to HB 94; part of proposed CSHB
94, Version J, had been incorporated into HCS CSSB 113(EDU).]
Number 0668
CHAIR DYSON announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) am, "An Act relating to a two-
year transition for implementation of the public high school
competency examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation requirement;
and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
HCS CSSB 133(EDU).]
Number 0735
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation included]:
1. Page 4, Section 4, line 15
Delete "January" and insert "February" to read
"Sec. 14.03.078. Report. The department shall
provide to the legislature by February 15 of each year
an annual report regarding the progress of each school
and school district toward high academic performance
by all students..."
2. Page 7, Section 9, line 11
Delete "January" and insert "February"
CHAIR DYSON asked Bruce Johnson if the [Department of Education
and Early Development] has a problem with [the proposed
amendment].
BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of Education, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this means that this legislation
will not be dealing with [the reports].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the reports will be back
February 15 instead of January 15.
Number 0880
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no objection, Amendment 1
was adopted. He stated that he would like to deal with another
inconsistency, referring to paragraph 5 on page 6 and Section 9
on page 7.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which
read:
Page 7, line 12-14
Delete
Representative Joule stated that this would take out
contradictory language.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that report language was included on page 7, lines 22-27, when
the House Special Committee on Education passed its Amendment 6,
which is consistent with the Senate version. She remarked that,
afterward, it didn't seem correct to have two reports back from
the EED. She noted that the House Special Committee on
Education had discussed deleting this on page 7, line 12-14;
however, they forgot to delete it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is in favor of the section's
being deleted and suggested, in Section 5 that is being added,
to propose regulations rather than adopt regulations. He added
that he wants to make sure that [the regulations] are coming
back to this legislative body before they are implemented. He
withdrew his objection.
CHAIR DYSON asked, if this amendment passes, whether the
paragraphs would be renumbered.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied yes.
Number 1136
CHAIR DYSON stated that he thinks Representative Coghill could
accomplish his desires by adding a new sentence on page 6, line
15, that says "the regulations implementing the waiver will be
presented to the legislature date X, 2002."
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded that she thinks it might be
cleaner if Representative Coghill were to edit page 7, lines 22-
27.
CHAIR DYSON asked [whether there would be any legal
implications] if the words "for legislative review" were
inserted after the word "report" on page 7, line 23.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he thinks that would be
understood [without the added language].
Number 1242
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which
read:
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 2, line 13, through page 4, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.075, added by sec. 1, ch. 58, SLA
1997, is repealed and reenacted to read:
Sec. 14.03.075. Academic standards for high
school graduation. (a) Before graduating from
high school, each student is required to
(1) be tested in a graduation
examination in the areas of reading, English,
and mathematics; and
(2) meet academic requirements
established by the state and the governing
body.
(b) The department shall determine the form
and contents of the graduation examination and
shall score completed examinations.
(c) Based on the results of the graduation
examination, each student receiving a high school
diploma shall receive an endorsement on the
diploma as follows:
(1) a student who exhibits proficiency
in mathematics - a mathematics endorsement;
(2) a student who exhibits proficiency
in reading - a reading endorsement;
(3) a student who exhibits proficiency
in writing - a writing endorsement; and
(4) a student who is not eligible for
an endorsement under (1) - (3) of this subsection
- and endorsement consisting of the Alaska flag
symbol.
(d) The department shall establish by
regulation uniform standards for awarding and
endorsement required under (c) of this section."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 9, through page 6, line 15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, lines 8-29:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "except as provided in sec. 11 of this
Act, this"
Insert "This"
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that Mike Ford, from Legislative
Legal and Research Services, said this [amendment] would not
change the title. She stated that it maintains the purpose and
intent of the quality schools initiative but eliminates Section
2 on page 2, line 13, and replaces it with what essentially
allows for academic standards for high school graduation that
are not linked to the exit exam itself. She further explained
that the benchmarks are exactly as they have been proposed, the
report is exactly as it is in [SB 133], and the competency
testing is in place, but the link to the graduation diploma is
severed. She added that this is similar to Senator Ward's bill
that gives a diploma with the high scores of the tests, and if a
student failed one portion [of the test], it would show the
state flag.
CHAIR DYSON announced that he was going to hold [Amendment 3] in
order to hear an explanation of HCS CSSB 133(EDU).
Number 1475
KAREN McCARTHY, Staff to Representative Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, came forth as committee aide for the HEDU committee
to explain HCS CSSB 133(EDU). She stated:
House committee substitute (HCS) for CSSB 133(EDU),
Version R, is a combination of the Senate-passed
version and the Education Committee's [proposed CS
for] HB 94. It maintains accountability for the state
performance standards. It also addresses the public's
concerns about opportunity to learn, children with
disabilities, and students who transfer into an
Alaskan high school from another state. The work that
has gone into this effort, by both the Senate and the
House to date, is intended to make the High School
Competency Test fair to all students and legally
defensible.
The bill includes the following provisions: It delays
the effective date of the High School Competency Test
until February 1, 2004; the legislature's commitment
to improving education through the state performance
standards and the intent that the High School
Competency Test is part of an evolving process; the
student must demonstrate mastery of the State
Performance Standards in reading, English, and math in
order to receive a diploma; receive a waiver from the
governing body; or have passed a competency test in
another state. If a student cannot demonstrate
mastery of the standards, he or she would receive a
certificate of achievement, which would note which
portions of the test the student had passed, his or
her attendance record, and any other qualifications
the district felt were appropriate.
MS. McCarthy continued explaining the provisions of the bill.
Special-education students may demonstrate mastery by
a combination of passing the test without
accommodations, with accommodations, or through a
portfolio of work; a requirement that the Department
of Education [and Early Development] will provide the
legislature with an annual report showing indicators
of the progress that schools are making toward high
achievement is included; it rewards students, between
2002 and 2004, for passing the High School Competency
Test; and asks the department to make recommendations
to the legislature regarding waivers, an appeals
process, and portfolios.
CHAIR DYSON asked Hans Neidig, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, to
explain what the House Special Committee on Education had done
to the Senate version that the sponsor takes exception to.
Number 1613
HANS NEIDIG, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, spoke on behalf of Senator Lyda Green, Chair of the
Senate HES committee, which had sponsored SB 133. He stated
that there are a couple of concerns. He referred to language on
page 1, line 13, and page 2, line 11, which states "minimum
competency". He said the Senate feels that this language could
send the wrong message that the legislature is suggesting the
[EED] lower the standards for the exam. He said the Senate has
come up with language stating "focus on essential skills".
CHAIR DYSON asked why the House Special Committee on Education
felt "minimum competency" was preferable to "essential skills."
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, asked how
"essential skills" would be defined.
ED McLAIN, Assistant Superintendent, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, testified via teleconference. He stated that
he also co-chairs the state's math content review committee,
which has representatives from businesses, schools, and the
community from around the state. He said this review committee
is tackling the question of what the essentials are from the
perspectives of people who are reflective of Alaska. The kind
of common-sense question that [the review committee] asks is,
"Is this something that a person [needs] to operate in our
society at an introductory level, and would really need to know
or be able to do?"
CHAIR DYSON asked if the essential skills will be uniform across
the state.
MR. McLAIN responded that rather than thinking of minimal
skills, which really connotes lowering the standard, [the review
committee] likes "focusing on."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified that if the committee is going to
talk about essential skills for a variety of young people who
may be college-bound, trade-school-bound, or military-bound, the
common skill to look at would be a minimum competency - the
trade school might be different from the graduate school.
Number 1867
MR. McLAIN stated that he believes the wording is critical in
terms of the message. The [review committee] is not
envisioning, necessarily, testing the minimum or very elementary
types of skill levels, but believes that "essential skills" does
provide a more accurate focus than simply saying "minimum".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that he is comfortable with
"minimum competency" and thinks that it says exactly what [this
legislation] is asking - to be competent at a minimum level. He
stated that he sees no reason to change [the language] at this
time.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he would be in favor of
striking "minimum" and letting the debate go through the
reporting process being demanded in the bill.
CHAIR DYSON stated that his own view is that Representatives
Stevens and Bunde are logically correct. If the tests are going
to be a criterion for graduation, then there is a standard.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the language, "minimum competency
of essential skills".
Number 1993
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING made a motion to adopt [conceptual
Amendment 4] on page 1, line 13, to read "minimum competency in
essential skills".
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked what it means to add "essential
skills" and asked what essential skills were.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded that much that is done in the
legislature needs to involve a good deal of comfort level and
awareness in the public. As [the legislature] has gone through
the process of discussing this [bill], one of the concerns has
been, "This is a college-prep experience, and you are penalizing
the vast majority of kids that don't go on to college." The
other [concern] is, "You're expecting too much." He stated
that he thinks "minimum competency" says, "We're not expecting
too much; this is the base, and we expect a good bit more than
this." He stated that for a young person to face the world in
whatever he or she does, these are essential skills.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that one of the things that [this
legislation] is trying to do is get secondary education
criteria. He suggested adding that this competency exam allows
the measure of secondary competency.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this would present any new
challenges to the [EED].
MR. JOHNSON responded that he doesn't think that this would
present any challenges to the [EED] and thinks the intent is
clear. He added that [the EED] is working with a group of
Alaskans in an effort to try to determine the competencies
necessary in the essential skills.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS withdrew his objection.
Number 2152
CHAIR DYSON announced that there being no further objection,
conceptual Amendment [4] was adopted.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment on page 2, line 11, to read "minimum competency in
essential skills". There being no objection, conceptual
Amendment 5 was adopted.
MR. NEIDIG stated that another concern [that the Senate had] was
found in the IEP (Individual Education Program) section of the
bill on page 3, lines 18-19. The House Special Committee on
Education had added language that seems to dramatically change
the Senate's version of the bill. He said the House language
would deny some special-needs [students] the ability to attempt
to earn a diploma. The intent of the Senate, he said, was to
ensure that every student is reasonably given the opportunity to
earn a diploma.
CHAIR DYSON asked what wording he or [Senator Green] would
propose.
MR. NEIDIG responded that he believes that Representative
Stevens is offering an amendment for the committee to consider.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, in response to Mr. Neidig, stated that he
doesn't see it that way, that this somehow precludes special-
needs [students] from an opportunity to receive a diploma.
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Bunde what it would do to the
process if the committee were to adopt Representative Cissna's
amendment [Amendment 3].
TAPE 01-41, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded that he would do all that he
could to defeat the bill, because it would create an empty
diploma.
MR. NEIDIG stated that there was a piece of legislation in the
Senate that was very much like [Representative Cissna's]
proposed amendment and that's not what [the Senate] ended up
going forward with.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that her constituents want to test
the school. She mentioned accountability, something they can
understand easily, high expectations, hope for their kids, and
fairness. She continued, stating that they want to make sure
schools attain the highest standard they possibly can and make
sure that their kids get the best education that they can. She
said [her constituents] want their kids to put in 12 years
following instructions and then get a diploma, whether or not
they had to struggle with disabilities or coming into the school
late. She stated that this amendment makes that possible
without missing any steps.
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS made a motion to adopt [Amendment 6,
labeled in packets as Amendment 8] which read [original
punctuation is included]:
Page 2, following line 12:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Education and Early Development, through
its existing federally required monitoring program of
district special education programs, review the
potential for an individualized education program
team's inappropriate lowering of individualized
education program goals and objectives for the purpose
of providing a diploma to a student who has not
achieved the state performance standards to the
maximum practicable and take appropriate corrective
action."
Page 3, lines 10-19:
Delete all material and insert:
(1) a student who is a child with a disability and who
does not achieve a passing score on the examination
required under (a) of this section is eligible to
receive a diploma if the student successfully
completes and [sic] alternative assessment program
required by the student's individualized program or
required in the education plan developed for the
student under 19 U.S.C. 794; alternative assessment
program must, to the maximum extent possible, conform
to state performance standards established for the
competency examination required under (a) of this
section;"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(f) A student shall receive an endorsement on the
student's diploma and transcript identifying the areas
of the examination successfully passed.
(g) The department shall by regulation establish
uniform standards for an alternative assessment
program required under (c)(1) of this section. The
alternative assessment program under (c)(1) of this
section may not be changed after February 1 of the
student's junior year of study."
Page 7, lines 16-18
Delete
CHAIR DYSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA withdrew her previous amendment [Amendment
3].
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS stated that [Amendment 6] speaks directly
to the issue of special-education students. He explained that
the first [part of the amendment] deals with not lowering
standards; the second portion provides an alternative program,
through the IEP, to those who did not pass the test; and the
third portion has to do with the endorsements and the timing of
the alternative assessment program.
Number 2139
CHAIR DYSON called for an at-ease at 4:12 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 4:16 p.m.
MR. JOHNSON stated that the [EED] believes strongly in creating
winners out of all children. He remarked that the [EED] does
not want students to be sorted into two buckets: "winners" and
"losers." He said the issues before the committee today have
that potential.
GREG MALONEY, Director, Special Education, Department of
Education and Early Development, came forth to outline the
current status of the special-education population in relation
to their success rate with the High School Qualifying Exam. He
stated that the spring of 2000 was the first administration and
when the largest number of people took the test. The fall
administration was for those students who either missed the test
or retook the test. He stated that in spring 2000, 644 students
took all three sections of the test, and of that number, 16
passed, with a passing rate of 2.5 percent or a failing rate of
97.5 percent. He remarked that in the spring of 2000, 32
percent of the students with disabilities who took the reading
test passed, 7 percent passed the writing test, and 5 percent
passed the math test.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if accommodations were allowed in
the reading portion.
MR. MALONEY responded that appropriate accommodations designed
by the IEP team were available throughout all portions of the
test for students with disabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the students took advantage of
the [available accommodations].
MR. MALONEY answered that the [EED] has some reasons to believe
that not all students were provided appropriate accommodations.
He added that [the EED] believes that even with appropriate
accommodations, students with disabilities are going to struggle
on these exams.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how many of the students [with
disabilities who took the test] would be considered severely
[disabled].
MR. MALONEY stated that [the EED] does not break [statistics]
down by disability yet. He added that there is the alternate
assessment for students with severe cognitive impairments. He
explained that these are students who are not taking this test
but are completing a portfolio assessment that has been
determined and approved by the State Board of Education. Less
than 1 percent of the students on a yearly basis are expected to
take that assessment. He added that [the EED's] goal and the
federal management on IDEA [Individual with Disabilities
Education ACT] 97 is that all kids participate in the
assessments, including students with disabilities. Currently,
students can participate either with or without appropriate
accommodations or, if the IEP team determines it's appropriate,
they can participate in the alternate assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked why there is a big disparity in the
number of students that took the test in the spring of 2000 and
the fall of 2000.
MR. MALONEY answered that in the spring of 2000 the test was
available for all kids with disabilities who were in tenth
grade. In the fall, the test was only for students who either
had not taken the test or were retesting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if federal law allows for
modification as well as for accommodation.
MR. MALONEY responded that federal law does allow modifications,
both in a student's instructional program and on assessments.
He added that the federal law also states that modified
assessments do not have to be considered as valid assessments.
The federal law is trying to balance the rights and needs of
kids with disabilities to participate in assessments with the
recognized need for a valid, reliable assessment. He continued,
stating that in the fall of 2000, 285 [disabled students] took
all sections of the test and three passed. For the sectional
results, 19 percent passed the reading section, 4 percent passed
the writing section, and 7 percent passed the math section. He
stated that the concern is that a large number of students with
disabilities are not going to be able to receive a diploma.
MR. MALONEY noted that in the instructional programs of many
students with disabilities it is not unusual for modifications
such as spell-check or a calculator to be allowed. That kind of
modification is introduced frequently in either the later
elementary grades or early middle school grades. He said the
concern is that when these students are required to take the
test without those accommodations, the type of preparation that
they have for the test has not been the same.
MR. JOHNSON stated that he would urge the committee to adopt the
philosophy of doing no harm and avoiding unintended
consequences. He remarked, "If we can project that special-
education students will not fare well by mandating that they
meet identical requirement despite their identified ability,
let's err on the side of caution and fairness in these early
stages of our accountability reform effort." He said the
evidence being presented is that this population certainly is at
risk, and will probably always be at risk to a certain extent,
and that [schools] must always strive to teach these kids to the
highest standards possible. However, he said he thinks the
unintended consequences are very significant for this group.
CHAIR DYSON asked if the [EED] prefers the amendment that
Representative Stevens or Representative Cissna has offered.
MR. JOHNSON replied that it is a tough call. [The EED] has
focused from the early stages on not holding young people
accountable before holding the systems accountable. Therefore,
[the EED] has proposed an effective date of 2006. He stated
that Representative Cissna's amendment [Amendment 3, withdrawn]
moves toward that and gets the onus off of individual students
and more on the system. In regard to the amendment being
proposed by Representative Stevens [Amendment 6], [the EED]
believes that if a student has a disability, it does not make
sense to hold that student to the same standard as a student
without a disability.
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Bunde if Representative
Stevens' amendment is essentially what the House Special
Committee on Education ruled out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded yes.
CHAIR DYSON asked if Representative Bunde felt at that time that
taking that route would make [the legislation] vulnerable to
legal challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that 10 percent of high school
seniors do not get a diploma. He remarked that it is safe to
assume that many of those [students] are special-education kids.
Parents of special-needs children have said that they don't want
the standards "dumb-downed." He expressed that the problem is
that the system is not bringing those kids up. He said the
notion that "we" can hold the school accountable first and then
the kids later escapes his logic. He remarked that, to him,
this amendment allows modifications, which would not be legally
defensible, and he said he still harbors concern for the
endorsements on page 4, line 7, subsection (f). If only
special-education students are getting endorsements, then that
is "flagging," and he thinks that this invites lawsuits.
Number 1270
AMY HEADRICK, Attorney, Disability Law Center, testified via
teleconference. She clarified that [the Disability Law Center]
believes all students, with or without disabilities and
regardless of the severity of their disabilities, are entitled
to a diploma if they fulfill what they are supposed to fulfill
for graduation. For many students with disabilities that would
be passing the exam without accommodations; for many it would be
passing it with accommodations; and for those for whom the IEP
team has determined it is appropriate, it would be the alternate
assessment.
CHAIR DYSON asked if she was talking about alternate assessments
that still demonstrate the students' competency in passing all
three portions of the test without modification.
MS. HEADRICK replied that the alternative assessment would be as
required under IDEA, which would be whatever the State Board of
Education would set as the minimal competency standards that
[students] are supposed to demonstrate.
CHAIR DYSON asked if [students] would still have to demonstrate
competency on exactly the same material as those without
disabilities, but with accommodations and alternative
assessments.
MS. HEADRICK stated that she doesn't understand that to be the
law. The IDEA provides that all students with disabilities
should participate in the same exam, and for the majority of the
students that would mean the regular exam, with or without
accommodations. For a very select few, approximately 2 percent
whose cognitive functioning is so severely disabled that they
can't pass those tests, the State Board of Education is supposed
to set specific standards that students are supposed to
demonstrate and then participate in an alternate assessment
program.
Number 1073
MS. HEADRICK continued, stating that [the Disability Law Center]
does not support anything that would undermine the high
expectations, such as the districts' lowering the expectations.
CHAIR DYSON asked for her view on Representative Bunde's point
that having endorsements uniquely flags the kids with
disabilities.
MS. HEADRICK replied that Representative Cissna's amendment
would address endorsements that would apply to kids with or
without disabilities. She said [the Disability Law Center]
would not see this as having a conflict with the federal law.
If the bill is written so that only those students with
disabilities that can't pass sections of the test still get a
diploma but have endorsements as to the sections that they pass,
and the other students wouldn't, then the students with
disabilities would be treated differently from the students
without disabilities. This would undermine the federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE remarked that as he reads Representative
Stevens' amendment, special-education kids are the only ones
that get endorsements.
MS. HEADRICK remarked that she is not sure if [Representative
Stevens' amendment] would apply to all kids, with or without
disabilities.
Number 0857
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that with the amendment there are
three different ways to get a diploma and not get all of the
endorsements: through an IEP, through a waiver, or through an
appeals process. If someone looked at the diploma of a student
who had one endorsement, he or she would not know which one of
those three would be the reason [that student received the
diploma]. She added that it had been [the House Special
Committee on Education's] understanding, from the Office of the
Attorney General, that that would take care of the flagging
problem.
Number 0804
JANEL WRIGHT, Legal Director, Disability Law Center, testified
via teleconference. She remarked that with [Representative
Guess's] explanation, she is questioning whether or not students
without disabilities would also be under the same endorsement
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied that they would be.
MS. WRIGHT asked if the appeals process would be the only
process that would apply to students without disabilities,
unless there's some type of extreme circumstance where they
would get a waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS responded no, that students without
disabilities could get a diploma without all three endorsements
through either the waiver process or an appeals process. The
waiver process is a separate process to examine for students who
come in to the system late or have rare or unusual
circumstances.
MS. WRIGHT asked whether a student who is getting a diploma
through his or her IEP could not get any endorsements.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered that if the student successfully
passes the exam, and the exam comes with accommodations, then he
or she would get the endorsements. If there was an alternative
assessment for the math only, but the student passed the
competency exam in reading and writing, he or she would get
endorsements in reading and writing.
Number 0699
MS. HEADRICK asked if a student would not participate in a
standards-based test at all if he or she were to take
alternative assessment.
PHILIP REEVES, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, clarified
that the federal law refers to an alternate assessment, which is
what applies to severely disabled children who essentially don't
have the cognitive ability to even recognize the test. The
majority of children who are identified with disabilities and
operate under an IEP are required by federal law to be included
in the assessment. He added that this is required for the
purpose of accountability, and to ensure that the [EED] has a
record of how those children are doing in comparison to other
students. The federal law does not say that everyone is
required to receive a diploma or that a different standard
should be set for children with disabilities. He said the
federal law is actually silent about diploma requirements.
MR. REEVES, regarding flagging, stated that accommodations that
were used cannot be defined on the diploma. However, [the
committee] is talking about endorsements, which show whether or
not a student has passed individual sections of the test. He
noted that on page 3, starting on line 9, it states,
"notwithstanding (a) ... a child with a disability". Then
beginning on line 20 he read from the bill, "(2) a student who
transfers into public high school in this state shall receive a
diploma if the student (A) meets graduation requirements imposed
by the governing body and the state; and (B) has passed a
competency examination in the state from which the student
transferred." He explained that this student would not get any
endorsements if he or she did not choose to also take the Alaska
examination.
NUMBER 0507
MR. REEVES referred to the IDELR (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Law Report), which collects administrative decisions
from across the country. He remarked that in the [IDELR's]
special report number 18, Testing and Granting Diplomas to
Special Education Students, which is copywrited in 2000, it
states:
May a district use different diploma wording for
students with disabilities. ... The OCR (Office for
Civil Rights) guardedly stated, "Yes, so long as the
diploma for each student is similar in all significant
respects. The OCR did not define those terms. As for
wording on the diploma, [the] OCR stated, "Variations
in wording may not necessarily be in violation of
Section 504 or Title 2 so long as the wording is not
based on disability as a category of students. The
wording should be based on objective criteria and each
possibly be available to students on a non-
discriminatory basis.
MR. REEVES stated that the concept of endorsements, in his
opinion, is not illegal. He said he would be concerned if the
only person who could get a diploma without an endorsement was a
child with disabilities, because then that would be a flag. He
said as long as there is a waiver in the provision, then federal
requirements on that issue would be met.
MS. WRIGHT asked whether a student who took all portions of the
exam but only passed two and was given endorsements in those two
sections would still receive a diploma.
MR. REEVES responded that under this bill, unless that student
was either in the waiver section or was a child with
disabilities, he or she would not receive a diploma. He or she
would have to pass all three sections.
Number 0301
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Reeves if it is his opinion that
Representative Bunde's bill [HCS CSSB 133(EDU), which gives
students who don't demonstrate competency on the test with
accommodations or alternative assessments a certificate of
achievement, would violate federal law.
MR. REEVES responded that he believes that is legal and the
state has the ability to set a standard even though some
children don't have the cognitive ability to meet it. The issue
is whether the educational program has provided the students the
opportunity to learn.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it is his understanding that
those severely cognitively disabled children are currently
denied a diploma, and he doesn't know if under this bill they
would be awarded a diploma, which would be a change of the
status quo. He asked if alternative assessments constitute
modifications. He added, for the committee's information:
This notion about waivers, ... the sideboards are for
rare and unusual circumstances. So the vast majority
of people, I think, in reading this, that would get
endorsements would be special [education] kids, and
there would be very few that are waivered. Does that
constitute flagging? Well, I'm sure the lawyers will
have an interesting time discussing it.
Number 0174
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. McLain if he would comment on the specific
issues being discussed.
MR. McLAIN responded that he reads Representative Stevens'
amendment, referring to page 4, line 7, as being for all
students, and that he would argue that there would be no way to
know whether or not that student had only one or two or all
three [endorsements]. [The student] could be a "transfer kid"
who didn't take a math course or a special-education kid. On
the larger issue of allowing modifications, he stated:
Just as the general Alaska standards were designed by
community teachers, experts, parents, etcetera from
across the state as the goal for all kids ... is
analogous to the IEP team, ... just as we say for the
general [education] kid, if they do all they're
supposed to do to a level of what's expected, they
will get a diploma., the way they do that - the
regular [education kid] - is by passing the exam at
the appropriate levels and taking their courses,
etcetera So the kid who is fulfilling the IEP, if
that student meets all that's been asked of him and
does all that he or she's supposed to have done, it
seems to me to be an issue of fairness and of
rightness and of doing the intent of this bill ... to
encourage excellence and to encourage the best
performance.
TAPE 01-42, SIDE A
Number 0027
MR. McLAIN continued, stating that the accountability piece is
important and that his district has passed its own certified
diploma requirements prior to the states. He added that [his
district] is committed to the idea of having documented levels
of achievements. The accountability piece comes in with the
requirements for reports. He suggested that along with
providing on the reports how many kids graduate with waivers,
the [districts] could be required to report how many kids
graduate with modifications or other categories to make sure the
IEP team is being used appropriately.
Number 0142
TIM WEISS, Parents, Inc., testified via teleconference. He
stated that what he is hearing about Representative Stevens'
amendment falls in line with what parents around the state have
told [Parents, Inc.] in forum. It is also in line with what
Parents, Inc., believes in, which is having multiple methods for
students with disabilities to achieve what their potential is
and have a shot at getting a diploma.
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Weiss if [Parents, Inc.] wants not only
accommodations and alternative assessments, but a modification
that allows the child with disabilities to get a diploma even
though he or she may not be able to demonstrate competency in
all three of the tests.
MR. WEISS responded yes. He said as the state improves the
system and school districts improve performance standards, he is
sure that students with disabilities will be included in both
special-education programs. The system and procedures for
students with disabilities to graduate will also increase as
years go by.
Number 0276
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the way he reads this
amendment, a child with an IEP who does not pass the test would
be allowed an alternative assessment; therefore, there would
probably be as many tests as there are IEPs in that category.
He said the concern he has heard from parents with children with
disabilities is that there would be a tendency to shuffle more
kids into IEPs because now they get an alternative way to get a
diploma. He asked if this would be correct.
MR. WEISS responded that he has heard that argument before, that
there will be a rush of students into special-education
programs; however, the federal OSEP (Office of Special Education
Programs) has been monitoring states extremely carefully to try
to prevent that sort of thing. He added that he doesn't see
this as something that is likely to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if Mr. Weiss has any concern about
lowering the standards so that the standards go down to the
student rather than the student coming up to the standards.
MR. WEISS answered that he thinks more attention and programs
should be put in place to try to raise the students up to the
standards. He said right now many parents have difficulty
getting school districts to provide them with the very basics
that they need to meet a minimal standard so that [their kids]
can compete with non-disabled peers. He said because of
situations like that, he thinks [students with disabilities]
should be given some sort of equity in the way that they are
assessed.
Number 0476
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS referred to his amendment and explained
that the first section deals with the inappropriate lowering of
IEPs, and the final section states that an IEP cannot be changed
after February 1 of the student's junior year. Therefore, this
would provide that [an IEP] could not be easily or readily
changed at the last minute if things didn't work out. He added
that he would like to draw the committee's attention to the
figure provided by the [EED] that 97.5 percent of disabled
children fail. He said that's a figure that should stick in
everyone's head.
CHAIR DYSON asked Representative Coghill for the general subject
of [another] amendment he is going to propose.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the general subject is to
include in one of the reports to the legislature the number and
percentage of students who received a diploma under a waiver.
CHAIR DYSON announced that [Representative Stevens'] amendment
[Amendment 6] will "die" and will be taken up as the first order
of business at the next meeting.
[SB 133 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|