04/21/2001 11:22 AM House HES

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE April 21, 2001 11:22 a.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. 173 "An Act relating to establishing a screening, tracking, and intervention program related to the hearing ability of newborns and infants; providing an exemption to licensure as an audiologist for certain persons performing hearing screening tests; relating to insurance coverage for newborn and infant hearing screening; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 173(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 85 "An Act relating to conduct directed at a school employee as an aggravating factor for criminal sentencing purposes." - MOVED HB 85 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 71 "An Act relating to the education of children with disabilities and of gifted children; relating to the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 71(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 112 "An Act relating to information and services available to pregnant women and other persons; and ensuring informed consent before an abortion may be performed, except in cases of medical emergency." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 173 SHORT TITLE:SCREENING NEWBORNS FOR HEARING ABILITY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JOULE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 03/12/01 0542 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 03/12/01 0542 (H) HES, FIN 03/13/01 0579 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SCALZI 03/30/01 0794 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA 04/17/01 1021 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MORGAN 04/17/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/17/01 (H) Heard & Held MINUTE(HES) 04/18/01 1052 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS 04/19/01 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/19/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 04/21/01 (H) HES AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 85 SHORT TITLE:AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN SENTENCING SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/22/01 0143 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/22/01 0143 (H) EDU, HES, JUD 02/14/01 0328 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON 04/11/01 (H) EDU AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106 04/11/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee -- Location Change -- MINUTE(EDU) 04/12/01 0986 (H) EDU RPT 4DP 1NR 04/12/01 0987 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, GUESS, BUNDE; 04/12/01 0987 (H) NR: JOULE 04/12/01 0987 (H) FN1: ZERO(COR) 04/12/01 0987 (H) FN2: ZERO(LAW) 04/17/01 1021 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GUESS 04/21/01 (H) HES AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 71 SHORT TITLE:EDUC. OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/17/01 0112 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/17/01 0112 (H) EDU, HES, FIN

01/17/01 0112 (H) FN 1: ZERO(EED)

01/17/01 0112 (H) 519 Committee -- Location Change 1NR 1AM PORTER; BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:ABORTION: INFORMED CONSENT; INFORMATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)COGHILL Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS WITNESS REGISTER RICHARD BLOCK Christian Science Committee Publication of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on 173. VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director National Education Association-Alaska Juneau, Alaska 99811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB CHAIR DYSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 173, "An Act relating to establishing a screening, tracking, and intervention program related to the hearing ability of newborns and infants; providing an exemption to licensure as an audiologist for certain persons performing hearing screening tests; relating to insurance coverage for newborn and infant hearing screening; and providing for an effective date." Number 0230 RICHARD BLOCK, Christian Science Committee Publication of Alaska, testified via teleconference on HB newborn children is quite difficult to do. He added that children whose hearing loss is not corrected, either through intervention or prayer, will have profound learning disabilities and perhaps socialization ones. Number 0587 CHRISTINE HESS, Staff to Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska State Legislature, explained that page 5, subsection (f), provides an exemption from the testing on the grounds that the procedures conflict with the religious tenets and practices of the parent. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated: This sort of brings to mind for me [that] ... over time we've begun to be more sensitive about the words we use. We say hearing "loss," and in a way this may be a hearing "difference." And what we're really talking about is how we teach. I'm sure that [Mr. Block's] membership is not opposed to education, and really this is education. Number 0717 [There was a motion to report HB CHAIR DYSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act relating to conduct directed at a school employee as an aggravating factor for criminal sentencing purposes." Number 0880 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated, as sponsor of HB CHAIR DYSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 71, "An Act relating to the education of children with disabilities and of gifted children; relating to the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 71(EDU)]. Number 1938 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that one of the things he struggles with in this bill is that the language, except with what was amended, pretty much mirrors the IDEA language. He asked if one could construe that there is a civil right that is being protected. He also stated that with IDEA, inclusion is being forced, whereas with the GT, exclusion is being forced. He remarked that he finds this contradictory and would like some discussion on it. GREG MALONEY, Director, Special Education, Department of Education and Early Development, responded that in terms of how GT and IDEA 97 interact, there is no federal requirement for the gifted. Therefore, it was decided that both gifted [students] and kids with disabilities would be served under "exceptional children" on the state level. The current statute, he said, is for the education of exceptional children. He stated that in making that decision to clarify which special education and gifted requirements are state mandates, the federal government is most concerned with how [the EED] clearly outlines what are federal requirements when servicing kids with disabilities, and that federal funds are not used to support gifted education. MR. MALONEY stated that because "exceptional children" was used for both gifted and special education, "least restrictive environment" was put in. Under IDEA 97, least restrictive environment means that kids with disabilities are included in their regular classroom with their same-age peers to the degree appropriate in order to provide an appropriate education. That language was also put in for the gifted. He said there was a concern that if that language were in there for the gifted, then that would be taken to mean that there could not be "pullout" programs or separate programs for GT. He remarked that [the EED] understood that as meaning it would be up to each IEP (Individual Education Plan) team to make that determination. However, there was strong feedback from the GT community about the least restrictive environment. Since it is a state mandate, there was nothing that was federally required to be maintained for "least restrictive environment" for gifted education. He noted that this could never be done for the children-with- disabilities piece. The idea is not inclusion but [for GT students to be] involved in the regular classroom to the maximum degree appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that this is why he thinks this legislature should take this up as two separate issues. He stated that he is going to suggest that the question be divided, since one is a federal mandate and the other is a state option. Number 2077 MR. MALONEY clarified that the language chosen for the regulations also clarifies the gifted requirements from the federally mandated special-education requirements. He added that this is also how it is represented in the current bill. There are two components: the special-education component and GT. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this was why the change from "exceptional children" to "children with place. MR. MALONEY answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked where in the bill the division occurs. MR. MALONEY stated that it occurs on page 13, line 19 71(EDU)]. Number 2158 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated: I personally think that although this is not a federally mandated section of how we're providing services to our children, at the very same time I've known lots of Mensa folks - people with extraordinary mental ability - and know that most of them [didn't] attain what they could have attained. ... It was because of the way that we didn't provide services in schools. ... I would hope [that] if we're going attain what we can in this state, that we strive for excellence all the way through so that we can really do what we need to do in this state - and that's rise above and really compete out there. ... We're not going to be able to do [that] unless we serve all of our children. MR. MALONEY responded that there is a 30-year history in [Alaska] of providing gifted educational services. He stated that there is also a very strong feeling in the gifted community about the importance of those services. He said he thinks the difficulty for [the EED] has been that it has had the obligation to oversee those programs but has not had specific funding enabling it to do that. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that regardless of what direction [the committee] is going, he thinks it needs to be stated that there is another bill moving through the legislature - the charter schools bill - whereby potentially there could be a school within a school or a charter school strictly for gifted and talented students. He added that he also fears if [the committee] does not move this along, the GT part could get buried. Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, if these issues were separated and gifted and talented were taken out, whether districts could arrange for a GT [program]. MR. MALONEY responded that, in theory, districts could voluntarily choose to provide gifted services. However, there would be two concerns if this were left to the discretion of districts: whether the districts would choose to do so, and the consistency of services. He stated that there has been a clear message throughout the history of providing gifted service that some oversight from the state is appropriate, because then it allows for those services to be provided and for there to be some consistency, external to the district, in providing those services. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that the answer, then, is yes, [the districts] could. He remarked that this language is so close to what is installed on a federal level for civil rights that he is concerned it would create a problem in the civil rights area. He asked Mr. Maloney if he anticipates any discussion on that. MR. MALONEY replied that in the 30-year history there has been more confusion in terms of how gifted services are applied, because there has been some overlap of services. When the language was together under "exceptional children," there were times when it was not clear to districts and/or parents what applied to gifted and what applied to special education - it took a fine reading of the regulations to get that. He explained that in separating this, he thinks it clarifies what the special-education and the gifted regulations are that need to be followed. He said that there are some procedural safeguards that apply to both; however, there are more protections under the federal law in relation to due process. He added that there has been very little litigation based on civil rights issues. TAPE 01-48, SIDE B REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that without regard to the litigation issue, he thinks that starting with due process hearings and setting up frameworks of that type allows [the issue of civil rights] to be in that discussion. Number 2360 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether there already is a due process in place for all children. MR. MALONEY answered that there is a local administrative complaint procedure through the school boards. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if gifted children, then, already have [a due process procedure] in place, as do all other students. MR. MALONEY responded that they already have the due process procedures. He clarified that this is not a new piece for gifted students. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what is being added or taken away that is not already available. MR. MALONEY responded that in terms of GT, the major proposed change was to remove transportation reimbursement for gifted kids. However, that was returned to the bill in HEDU. He explained that this bill clarifies that some of the things that are federally mandated do not apply to gifted kids. He stated that at times this has been misinterpreted to mean that what is appropriate for kids with disabilities is appropriate for kids who are gifted. The strategy was to try to separate the two in order to clear up the confusion and to make sure that federal funds were not being used inappropriately for gifted kids. Number 2279 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that her concern is that every child should have the same opportunity in learning. She said it is federally mandated to separate the children with disabilities; however, she feels that the [other children] should have the same rights. She added that she has a problem with giving some children more rights than others. MR. MALONEY responded that he thinks members of the gifted community would say that there are also kids who have high abilities and have needs that are different from those of kids within the range of what may be considered traditional or normal. These are the kids who meet certain gifted criteria, who may have high cognitive scores, and who may have exceptional talents in some areas that the regular curriculum is not addressing. The concern that comes up, he stated, is that if this doesn't happen, then -much like what happens with children with disabilities - children won't be challenged, and they may experience a high dropout rate. They will get frustrated, and they may not do well in school, and. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if [students are already being challenged]. MR. MALONEY replied that in speaking for the gifted community, he thinks that - just as for kids with disabilities - the regular curriculum may not meet their needs. Therefore, it would require specific special services for the kids who are at a higher level in terms of cognitive ability. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that she agrees with what Mr. Maloney is saying, but there already are classes that do that. She said she is concerned with putting more demands on the schools. She asked what other states are doing in these same situations. MR. MALONEY responded that he doesn't have specific data on programs and how they relate in each state; however, this is a topic that most states have to deal with. He said Alaska is not alone in struggling with how to provide appropriate services for the entire range of kids. He added that most districts do have accelerated programs; however, in terms of the constant feedback from the gifted program, these are kids who require categorically different services in order to demonstrate appropriate achievement. Number 2131 CHAIR DYSON stated that regardless of what [the committee does], each district still gets 20 percent more for the GT, learning disabled, and vocational programs. Therefore, there is no change in funding. MR. MALONEY stated that Chair Dyson was correct. He noted that bilingual education is the one other program under the block grant. He added that special education has the most specific requirements; therefore, that funding has the most specific uses. Number 2089 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if she was correct is stating that each district gets a share for special education, but that the districts themselves determine how the money is spent. She stated that friends of hers who are teaching in the Bush are extremely concerned because even though their district received the money, it was being spent in other ways. She reiterated that people she has known who have exceptional abilities have not achieved what they could have achieved. MR. MALONEY responded that when the state provides the 20 percent block grant, which is based on total enrollment of students, there are no specific amounts or percentages that have to be spent on GT. He clarified that nothing addresses funding [in the bill]. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that under the block grant it's not only rural schools that may have a problem with how the money is spent. He asked if it is fair to say that in the more urban areas the money heavily goes to one or two of the [block grant] categories, such as special education, bilingual education in the rural schools, or vocational education. Number 1896 MR. MALONEY replied that the message he has gotten from superintendents and special education directors is that that is the case. He said one reason is that special education has the most legalistic and specified requirements. The challenge, then, is if a student has an IEP for a disability, it has to be implemented. If it is not [implemented], parent, have the right to challenge that. He noted that there is a similar right for the gifted, but in practice there has not been the same level of scrutiny provided through parents or others on the gifted program as there has been federally and statewide in terms of the special education requirements. Kids who have disabilities have expensive-educational programs; therefore, more funds tend to go toward those students. CHAIR DYSON stated that Representative Coghill has an amendment in the form of a committee substitute that would take gifted and talented out of [the current bill]. He said it is his sense that the rest of the debate should just be on that. He asked if it is fair to say that [the EED] has changed the regulations to separate GT, and is now asking [the legislature] to change the statutes to fit the regulations. MR. MALONEY answered yes. He clarified that even though the discussion focuses on GT, there are some specific pieces related to special education that are also in this bill. CHAIR DYSON remarked that he didn't mean to downgrade the importance of what [the EED] has done. He asked, if [the committee] does not pass this bill, whether [the EED] will have regulations that are out of conformity with the law. MR. MALONEY responded that the regulations that were adopted are in conformity with the current law. CHAIR DYSON stated that [the committee] wouldn't have to do anything, then. MR. MALONEY clarified that if [the committee] did nothing, the federal funding for this year would not be in jeopardy. The regulations address the changes that [the EED] is wanting to make; however, they do not take away the need to change the statute. CHAIR DYSON asked whether the federal government is not satisfied with its being changed in regulation, and is requiring that it be changed in law. MR. MALONEY answered yes, that [the federal government] is requiring [the EED] to move toward that. He added that the federal government has not been completely clear in its message to [the EED]. CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Maloney [what year the money would be in jeopardy]. MR. MALONEY replied that it is the money that would arrive on July 1, 2001. CHAIR DYSON asked, "If we did nothing now and did this 12 months from now, we could still save your bacon?" MR. MALONEY stated that that is his understanding. Number 1720 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for 71(HES) Services Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1. HB CHAIR DYSON announced that the last order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 112, "An Act relating to information and services available to pregnant women and other persons; and ensuring informed consent before an abortion may be performed, except in cases of medical emergency." Number 0218 SID HEIDERSDORF, Alaskans for Life, came forth and stated that [Alaskans for Life] supports HB ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:09 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects