Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/07/2001 01:37 PM Senate 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
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 7, 2001
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Jerry Ward
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to the award of a high school diploma to certain
World War II veterans."
MOVED CSSB 64(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 40
"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."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 40 - No previous action.
SB 64 - No previous action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Major General Phil Oates
Commissioner
Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs
PO Box 5800
Ft Richardson, AK 99505-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 64
Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 40
Greg Maloney, Director
Division of Special Education
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 40
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-9, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Present were
Senators Leman, Wilken, Davis and Green. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 64.
SB 64-HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA FOR CERTAIN WWII VETS
MAJOR GENERAL PHIL OATES, Commissioner of the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), stated that SB 64 honors our
veterans and recognizes the achievements that WWII veterans made to
our country. Some 15 states have already enacted legislation
awarding high school diplomas to WWII veterans and 11 states have
legislation pending. About 63,000 veterans live in Alaska today;
about 10 percent of those are WWII vets. About 150 Alaska veterans
would be eligible to receive a high school diploma under SB 64,
including Alaska's Territorial National Guard members.
SB 64 applies to WWII veterans who dropped out of high school or
did not finish high school because of their military service. This
project is known nationally as Operation Recognition. During WWII,
many men and women left the comforts of home and high school to
fight. Later in life, many wished they had received a diploma.
Providing one is the least we can do as a sign of respect and
recognition. SB 64 will allow the Alaska Department of Education
and Early Development (DOEED) to award a diploma to WWII veterans
who served during the period from August 7, 1940 to July 5, 1947.
Veterans with a GED are also eligible. He asked committee members
to support the bill.
SENATOR WARD joined the committee.
SENATOR LEMAN asked, tongue in cheek, "General Oates, you know how
we've been working for accountability in our education system, do
you think it would be appropriate to have these veterans pass the
competency exam?"
MAJOR GENERAL OATES replied, "Senator Leman, since we're not quite
to the competency exam period, I think we'll move with haste at
this time." He added he is quite confident that all of these
veterans have exceeded the requirements expected of a high school
graduate.
SENATOR WARD asked if SB 64 applies to the Merchant Marines who
were called to duty.
MAJOR GENERAL OATES said it does as they are recognized as
veterans.
CHAIR GREEN announced that she sponsored an amendment at the
request of DMVA. The intent of the amendment is to allow WWII
veterans who later received a general equivalency diploma to apply
for a high school diploma. It reads:
Page 1, lines 12-13, delete "or general equivalency diploma".
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt the amendment. There being no
discussion or objection, the motion carried.
There being no further questions, SENATOR LEMAN moved CSSB 64(HES)
from committee with individual recommendations and its zero fiscal
note.
CHAIR GREEN announced the committee would hear SB 40.
SENATOR WILKEN announced that he would be leaving shortly to
testify before another committee.
SB 40-EDUC.OF DISABLED OR GIFTED CHILDREN
DR. BRUCE JOHNSON, Deputy Commissioner of DOEED, stated he was
testifying on behalf of the Administration and made the following
comments. Since a similar bill was considered by the legislature
last year, DOEED worked with the Governor's Council on Special
Education and Disabilities, Parents Inc., the Disability Law Center
and school district representatives to obtain input in drafting
this legislation. Members of the three advocacy groups then
reviewed the proposed legislation and provided feedback that was
incorporated into SB 40. A list of the representatives from the
various organizations who worked with DOEED has been distributed to
committee members. DOEED also solicited information from parents
and representatives of gifted children. SB 40 accomplishes several
important purposes. He provided the following highlights.
SB 40 updates the special education statutes in accordance with the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Act as amended in 1997 (IDEA
97). IDEA 97 contains a number of policy modifications, including
strengthening parental rights and improving academic outcomes for
children with disabilities. SB 40 helps ensure that children with
disabilities will continue to receive appropriate educational
services and that Alaska will continue to be eligible for federal
special education funds. For FY 02 these funds are expected to
total more than $19 million.
SB 40 further defines Alaska's special education policy in areas
where IDEA 97 provides states with discretion. For example, SB 40
modifies current statute by requiring state boarding schools and
statewide correspondence schools that enroll children with
disabilities from outside their district to provide special
education and related services. SB 40 also limits a school
district's responsibility to provide services to children with
disabilities who attend private schools to the level required by
IDEA 97.
SB 40 more clearly differentiates the federal requirements for
providing educational services to children with disabilities from
state requirements for providing educational services to gifted
children.
CHAIR GREEN asked Dr. Johnson to repeat his statement about private
schools.
DR. JOHNSON explained that SB 40 limits a school district's
responsibility to provide services to children with disabilities
who attend private schools. He said Mr. Maloney will elaborate on
that concept. Students will still receive services but the
services will be limited to what is required by federal law.
DR. JOHNSON continued highlighting SB 40.
Under SB 40, school districts must continue to provide gifted
education programs, however districts are required to serve only
gifted children enrolled in and attending public schools.
Additionally, districts will no longer be required to provide
related services, such as individual transportation to gifted
children. However, a gifted student could be identified as a child
with a disability as well, thereby qualifying for related services.
Where appropriate, different terminology describing the components
of gifted education has been incorporated to further distinguish
gifted education from federally funded and mandated special
education and related services.
SB 40 also maintains DOEED's responsibility for overseeing the
gifted education programs provided by school districts. Although
the new legislation does not add new responsibilities, DOEED has
not previously had the resources to adequately fulfill its
obligation. Therefore a general fund increment in the FY 2002
budget for the Division of Teaching and Learning Support is
requested to cover the cost of DOEED's oversight responsibilities.
DR. JOHNSON asked Mr. Maloney to outline some of the proposed
changes within SB 40.
MR. GREG MALONEY, director of the Division of Special Education,
DOEED, referred to a DOEED document entitled, "HB 71/SB 40 An Act
Relating to the Education of Children with Disabilities and Gifted
Children" and made the following comments about the provisions of
SB 40.
First, SB 40 changes the terminology in statute from "exceptional
children" to "children with disabilities" and "gifted children."
Subsections (3), (4) and (5) were added to Sec. 14.30.186.
Subsection (3) states that children at a treatment, correctional or
youth detention facility who are eligible for special education and
related services shall be served by the borough, city school
district, or regional educational attendance area in which the
facility is located. Subsection (4) will require special education
services to be provided by state boarding schools that enroll
students with disabilities. Subsection (5) requires a district
that provides a statewide correspondence study program to ensure
that services are provided to children with disabilities enrolled
in those programs.
Regarding due process hearings, DOEED is proposing to change the
current two-tier due process system. Under the current system, the
district is responsible for assigning a hearing officer and, after
the decision, the parent or district can appeal to DOEED. Under SB
40, DOEED would assign the hearing officer and an appeal of the
hearing officer's decision would go directly to the Alaska Superior
Court.
CHAIR GREEN asked if payment for the hearing officer would remain
at the local district level.
MR. MALONEY said DOEED anticipates it will be paid for by the local
school district.
MR. MALONEY explained the next change pertains to mediation; AS
14.30 will be amended to add a new section. Mediation is a
voluntary dispute resolution process provided for in the most
recent federal statute and regulations pertaining to special
education. States will sponsor programs in which districts and
parents can voluntarily enter into mediation to resolve issues.
CHAIR GREEN asked if DOEED will name the mediator, subject to the
approval of both sides.
MR. MALONEY said DOEED is already doing that. DOEED oversees the
mediation system but has a contractor that provides mediators and
does the day-to-day logistical assignments. The mediators go
onsite. The process is free to both the district and the parents.
CHAIR GREEN asked if that cost is included in DOEED's budget and
will continue to be.
MR. MALONEY said yes.
CHAIR GREEN asked if a mediator can be used for either students
with a disability or for gifted students.
MR. MALONEY said that mediation is not available for gifted
education because it is a federally funded program.
MR. MALONEY continued discussing SB 40. The next change to statute
is to individualized education program (IEP) components. In the
current statute, the IEP components for gifted education and
special education and related services are combined. In SB 40,
DOEED separated the special education requirements, which are the
federal requirements, for students with disabilities, and cited the
federal regulations that pertain to the IEP components. For gifted
students there is no federal mandate, so the components were
maintained and listed in the section of SB 40 that relates to the
gifted IEP.
CHAIR GREEN asked Mr. Maloney if he believes it is appropriate to
use the same name for both categories of students.
MR. MALONEY said DOEED has changed that and now calls it
"individualized gifted education program."
MR. MALONEY explained the next change is a DOEED proposal requiring
districts to serve students enrolled in private schools to the
degree mandated by federal regulations and legislation. Currently,
students enrolled in private school are served by the resident
district and there is no difference between the services provided
to public or private school students. Districts do not receive
similar funding for those students. Under DOEED's proposal,
private school students would be able to receive services from the
districts according to mandates contained in the federal
regulations.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the districts will receive any funding for
providing those services.
MR. MALONEY explained that under current Alaska statute, a student
enrolled in private school is eligible for the same services as a
student enrolled in public school. The federal law and regulations
require less than that - they require that a proportionate share of
funds be spent on private school special education. Districts
would not be required to provide the total array of services to
students enrolled in private school.
CHAIR GREEN asked if that level of service is referenced in 34 CFR
300.450-462.
MR. MALONEY said that is correct.
CHAIR GREEN asked if it says the services provided to these
students would not have to be the same as if they were enrolled in
public school.
CHAIR GREEN asked what DOEED is currently doing.
MR. MALONEY said under statute, private and public school students
would be treated the same.
SENATOR LEMAN said he is trying to figure out what problem this
fixes. He asked Mr. Maloney to supply him with a list of the
services required under federal law and the services provided now.
CHAIR GREEN asked if only federal money will be used.
MR. MALONEY replied, "The way the federal government would look at
it is they would track how we are spending their federal funds and
so the proportionate amount would be how we spent - has the
district spent a similar amount of federal funds on private school
as they have on public school, or kids who are enrolled in the
school district itself? So they don't track the state funding,
particularly in the block grant, if there is no direct correlation
between student enrollment with special ed and funding."
CHAIR GREEN asked if it is possible to get partial funding so that
if there is the need, the funding follows the child.
MR. MALONEY said funding does not typically follow the child - not
in public school either. Funding is based on the count periods but
those have been changed.
SENATOR LEMAN said it is based on a count on a specific date so a
student can withdraw but the school will continue to get funded for
that student.
CHAIR GREEN said that prior to the passage of SB 36, a district
could quantify a special education student. Now, the actual number
of those who qualify for gifted, special education, vocational
education or bilingual education is not used, a straight 20 percent
is used. She said she thinks it is important that the treatment be
equal and she would prefer to find a way to do that.
DR. JOHNSON said the part-time student law does address this -
those students are counted for at least one quarter. A student
with a more significant disability gets counted in the regular
student count for funding purposes and then gets the add-on of 20
percent to help offset the higher costs of special education
services. The difficulty is a situation where a student is not
enrolled part-time or the service provided might only be offered
for a total of one hour per week. That does not meet the
proportional minimum of one quarter time so the funding comes
directly from the district's pocket. Therefore, under the old
formula, private school students receiving special education
services from the public school were counted in the district.
Districts were given some money to support those services.
CHAIR GREEN said she thought that was an omission.
MR. MALONEY said it has been a resource issue as well as a
logistical issue for how best to serve students in these
institutions. DOEED will provide the committee with additional
information.
SENATOR LEMAN said his initial reaction is to figure out a fix
along the lines that Chair Green mentioned. He agrees that a fix
is necessary.
CHAIR GREEN asked, if a student is fully qualified for special
education services, how much of the 20 percent is actually spent on
the student. She questioned what the financial requirement is to
provide the average service and whether a lesser amount would
fulfill it.
MR. MALONEY continued with his presentation. On page 25 of the
handout, the requirements for the gifted education programs have
been separated out into separate sections of the statute
(14.30.351).
CHAIR GREEN pointed out that all of those provisions are beyond
what the federal government requires or pays for.
MR. MALONEY referred to page 27 (Comparison of Current and Proposed
Legislation) and said one of the purposes is to make it easier for
parents and districts to refer back to see what the requirements
are for gifted education and how they differ from special education
services. He noted that districts will no longer be required to
provide related services to gifted students, including
transportation. Related services also include occupational, speech
and language therapy, and counseling. He explained that the
current statute says that exceptional children will receive special
education services so some differences were created when gifted
children were separated out.
CHAIR GREEN noted that goes back to the original concept for
special transportation - that special education students might have
special safety and access needs, which one would assume that a
gifted child who is not disabled would not need.
MR. MALONEY summarized by saying the bill is complex in that it
mixes state and federal terminology. DOEED has published an Alaska
Special Education Handbook. It is a policy and procedures guide.
DOEED is currently printing an updated guide for parents.
CHAIR GREEN asked if districts will make that available to any
parent who inquires about special education services.
Number 2069
MR. MALONEY said they will. He noted DOEED also supports the
Governor's Council with advocacy efforts to provide support to the
parent and training information center, which is Parents, Inc.
DOEED continues to look for ways to make the information more
accessible because the statute is very complex.
CHAIR GREEN agreed that the statute can be daunting to parents
because it contains references to federal statute.
SENATOR LEMAN asked for a copy of the parent guide when it is
available.
CHAIR GREEN took public testimony.
Number 2133
MR. STEVE LEVINE, Mat-Su Borough School District Supervisor for the
Gifted and Talented Education Extended Learning Program, said he
wanted to reiterate some of the testimony given this morning on HB
71. He expressed concern that the least restrictive environment,
on page 15 of SB 40, would preclude the gathering of gifted and
talented students. Research shows that a necessary part of their
program is to spend time together because of their common
intellectual abilities. Second, he is concerned about a statewide
definition of what "gifted" is. He believes the local education
areas should define that for their communities and establish
eligibility criteria based upon that definition.
CHAIR GREEN asked if Mr. Levine means that a gifted child in Mat-Su
might fall under different eligibility requirements than a gifted
child in Juneau.
MR. LEVINE said the definitions can differ radically. One district
may make the eligibility criteria specific to those who are
cognitively gifted while another might include gifted and talented
or speak of multiple intelligences.
CHAIR GREEN asked Mr. Levine if he is referring to the
identification section on page 13 (Sec. 14.30.353).
MR. LEVINE said he is. He pointed out language on page 17, lines
15 and 16, contains a definition of "gifted education."
CHAIR GREEN said she would have a representative from DOEED address
that concern after the public testimony is taken.
Number 2338
MS. DEBBIE OSSIANDER, Anchorage School Board, said in general,
Anchorage is not supportive of separating gifted services from
special education services unless it has been determined with
certainty that Alaska is in jeopardy of losing federal special
education funds.
TAPE 01-9, SIDE B
MS. OSSIANDER made addressed the following points.
· Page 3, Sec. 5. The Anchorage School District has been
struggling with the best way to incorporate Medicaid payments
for children who are served by the district. The District
understands that Medicaid should be the first payer for health
services. Currently, students enter school with Medicaid
services, but once they are enrolled in the District, the
District must assume the cost of those services. The
Anchorage School District would like language added to the
bill to reflect its understanding of federal requirements that
Medicaid pay first.
· Page 9, Sec. 21. This section addresses children who have to
leave their home district for services. The Anchorage School
District's concern is centered around children who need
residential services for mental health problems. These
students are very expensive to educate and currently there are
not adequate services for these children in Alaska.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Ossiander if her concern is the phrase
"school district" on line 8.
MS. OSSIANDER said her concern is on line 17. She believes a
sentence should be added to clarify who will absorb the cost when
an exceptional circumstance occurs.
CHAIR GREEN noted that this concern is not new ground.
MS. OSSIANDER said the districts have received regulations about
this section and current regulations say something to the effect
that if there is a situation of exceptional cost, the district can
request help from the State. Her understanding is that DOEED is
considering eliminating that section. She expressed concern about
the word "may" on line 17, page 9.
CHAIR GREEN pointed out that the only change to that section of
statute is the word "school" was inserted before the word
"district." She acknowledged that Ms. Ossiander is asking that the
entire question of who will absorb the cost be addressed.
MS. OSSIANDER continued.
· Page 12, line 22. DOEED needs to clarify its expectations
about "informed consent" and to provide formalized
instructions to parents. She noted that it is expensive to
provide a booklet to parents, especially in light of the fact
that about 80 languages are spoken in Anchorage.
· Page 13, Article 3A. The Anchorage School District is
concerned about immediately going to due process without
mediation or an administrative review because it will require
a more expensive approach.
MR. MALONEY explained that mediation would not be provided for
gifted students because mediation falls under a federally sponsored
program that does not cover gifted students.
CHAIR GREEN asked when a preconference hearing occurs.
MR. MALONEY said the preconference hearing is addressed on page 16,
line 16 of SB 40.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the same hearing officer would preside at the
preconference hearing.
MR. MALONEY said yes.
CHAIR GREEN said it could be termed a form of mediation but it is
not referred to as such because mediation is a federally funded
program.
MS. OSSIANDER said she would like to discuss that with the
Anchorage School Board. Her next concern is on page 14, lines 17
and 25. The Board will need clarification from DOEED of what
"short-term instructional objectives" means. She also expressed
concern about the least restrictive environment section on page 15.
All educational research that she has seen indicates that it is far
more appropriate to "pull out" gifted children. She explained that
the Anchorage School District has two programs of service for
gifted students. One program is for highly gifted students who are
in the top two percent of the population. Those children attend
one elementary school and one high school in Anchorage. They are
bussed from Girdwood, Peters Creek and all over Anchorage. The
district also provides gifted services for elementary students by
having them pulled out one day per week to a regional elementary
school to take classes for a half day. If the district uses a
strict interpretation of least restrictive environment, it would
have to provide extensive justification for every student for
bussing them elsewhere.
Number 1925
SENATOR LEMAN said he would like the bill to require school
districts to meet the minimum and allow them to go beyond that by
providing a separate environment.
CHAIR GREEN commented that this is an issue of population.
MR. MALONEY stated that this section of the bill does not mandate
that the same provisions be applied to all students. In fact, the
least restrictive environment is mandated to the maximum extent
appropriate. That means when the eligibility and program
determination groups get together, they would talk about the
services that each student would require and where those services
would best be provided. This section emphasizes the benefit of
including disabled and gifted students with their same age peers
who are not designated as such.
CHAIR GREEN said it will be up to the districts to fund the systems
they have chosen. She asked Mr. Maloney if he thinks anything in
that section should be revised to address Ms. Ossiander's concern.
MR. MALONEY said, as he reads Section 14.30.355, it still resides
within the district to make the determination of how students who
are identified as gifted will receive services. However, a parent
has the right to challenge a district's program under the current
statute.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the due process hearing would be based on SB
40.
MR. MALONEY said it will if the bill passes.
SENATOR LEMAN said he is troubled by this language and feels the
committee's intent should be clearly established in this hearing
record.
CHAIR GREEN asked Ms. Ossiander and Mr. Levine to contact her
office or Mr. Maloney to discuss this section and get back to the
committee with suggestions. She noted she sees the difficulty in
writing language for a gifted program for a district that has
multiple schools and thousands of students, versus a district with
one school.
MS. OSSIANDER said she agrees with Mr. Levine about the
identification of gifted children. The Anchorage School Board
reads this to mean it would have to operate under a statewide
identification system. The Board favors local control in this
matter and it has some concerns about expanding the definition
beyond the service that it currently provides. Her last point was
that the special education budget for Anchorage, and other
districts, is inadequate. This is the one budget area that keeps
climbing and the districts are continually striving to deal with
the mandates they face. She urged the committee, as it looks at
the private school issue, that districts are straining to
adequately provide special education services. She also urged the
committee to include, as is current practice, transportation for
gifted students because Anchorage is bussing gifted children to one
school.
Number 1634
MS. LOUISE PARISH said she is speaking on behalf of children and
herself. She is a member of several advocacy organizations. She
has a 16 year old, dyslexic daughter who she has had trouble
getting services for. She has been through a due process hearing.
She read from IDEA 97 regarding the least restrictive environment
and noted that she would fax a copy of the questions that she asked
the House Special Committee on Education that morning. She is
concerned about the state performance goals and indicators and
believes DOEED should publicly [indisc.] for regular students'
performance. She feels the least restrictive environment section
should include the words, "if it cannot be achieved
satisfactorily." Regarding participation assessments, DOEED should
allow for appropriate participation in statewide assessments. The
section about procedural safeguards does not contain the new IDEA
97 procedural safeguards. She read the IDEA 97 section on
evaluations, which states that no singular procedure shall be the
sole criteria for determining an appropriate educational program
for a child. She would like that requirement put into statute.
[MOST OF MS. PARISH'S TESTIMONY WAS INAUDIBLE.]
CHAIR GREEN thanked her and noted her questions would be
distributed to committee members.
Number 1217
MR. BOB BRIGGS, representing the Disability Law Center of Alaska
(DLCA), informed committee members that he worked on this
legislation during the interim. He met with DOEED one day last
fall, along with five other people representing the DLCA. Two of
those people were parents of disabled children; one a lawyer and
one a retired school administrator. They were thankful to debate
the different aspects of HB 301/SB 205, last year's legislation.
He clarified that his group did not participate in the drafting of
SB 40. His group did have an opportunity to meet with DOEED
officials to discuss the bill but he doesn't feel the group was
able to respond to DOEED as well as it would have liked. DOEED has
definitely made an overture to get the group's views but the DLCA
staff person assigned to this bill resigned last year and, coupled
with the death of DLCA's executive director, DLCA is very short
staffed. He offered to submit a written statement to the committee
at this time but he would like to discuss some concerns with DOEED
prior to bringing them to the committee.
CHAIR GREEN noted she would schedule Mr. Briggs to give his
presentation the following week. She asked Dr. Johnson and Mr.
Maloney to address some of the concerns expressed during public
testimony.
DR. JOHNSON said they would address the more straightforward
concerns right now and address the more complicated ones at a later
date, due to time constraints.
MR. MALONEY said his thoughts on the concerns expressed about the
least restrictive environment section are that the special
education community sees a value in educating disabled students
with their non-disabled peers to the extent possible. In looking
at that same environment for gifted students, there may be some
different desires but that will depart from the current statute.
Current statute treats the least restrictive environment provision
similarly for children with disabilities and gifted children.
CHAIR GREEN thought the difference to be acceptable.
DR. JOHNSON noted that one of the challenges that DOEED faced at
that last go-around was that anytime they tried to differentiate,
it was suggested that DOEED was limiting the scope of services for
gifted students. Therefore, DOEED's approach in SB 40 was to
include everything that is currently in statute unless there was a
specific reason to change it.
MR. MALONEY said the second concern expressed was about the
statewide definition of "gifted." Currently, districts are
required to identify gifted students so each district submits a
plan with identifying criteria to DOEED. There is no move to have
a statewide definition that prescribes who is gifted and who is
not. It provides a general overview of what gifted is but each
district is required to put that in more detail.
DR. JOHNSON added that eligibility criteria is for communication
purposes at the local district level. DOEED does not have enough
lifetimes to figure out a statewide definition, given what it hears
from around the state.
CHAIR GREEN thought the bill may need some clarifying language to
specify DOEED's intent. She asked if DOEED will continue its
current practice of approving each district's eligibility criteria.
DR. JOHNSON said the eligibility criteria will be approved district
by district.
MR. MALONEY said, regarding Medicaid funding for disabled students,
Medicaid funding cuts across agencies, it is not necessarily an
education funding issue. DOEED has been working with school
districts and other agencies to explore ways to maximize the
funding that can be received under Medicaid. He said he could
assure the respondent that DOEED is looking for all ways to
increase resources to districts.
MR. MALONEY stated that, regarding students who need placement
outside of a school district for mental health or other issues, the
Alaska Youth Initiative is designed to keep students in Alaska and
local whenever possible. DOEED has been working closely with that
group to improve and increase their capacity.
Regarding the concern that required information be presented to
parents in different languages, the Parent Guide, published by
DOEED, will be translated into three languages: Spanish,
Philippine, and Yupik. DOEED also plans to translate its
procedural safeguards into three languages.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the documents will be translated into the
Tagalog dialect.
MR. MALONEY said that is correct. Regarding short term
instructional objectives, he said that is a standard approach to
IEPs. An annual goal is created and that goal contains specific
objectives.
CHAIR GREEN asked if that is something that can be quantified and
identified so that a mid-year review can occur.
MR. MALONEY said right now it requires an annual review but the
short term objectives are reviewed so if they are met, it is
presumed the annual goal will be met. He noted an annual goal
might be that a child's reading skills improve by one grade level.
The short term objectives speak to how that will be done. He noted
that has not changed.
MR. MALONEY said DOEED is working on performance goals and
indicators. Data on graduation rates, disability drop-out rates,
and performance on assessments is available and DOEED is refining
it. DOEED is required to report that information to the federal
government.
CHAIR GREEN announced that the committee will revisit this issue.
She announced the committee, during the week of February 12, will
hear an overview by DOEED and discuss the high school graduation
qualifying exam. The committee will also be hearing about
standards assessments, test contractor passing scores, and the
legal defensibility of the current test. She then adjourned the
meeting at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|