Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/14/1993 09:10 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 14, 1993
9:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 235(FIN)
"An Act relating to educational programs and services for
children with disabilities and other exceptional children
and to persons with a handicap; and providing for an
effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to state agency publications."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 235 - No previous action to record.
SB 186 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Myra Howe, State Director of Special
Education
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 235
Dennis Wetherell
P.O. Box 876862
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns with HB 235
Mark Grober
Nenana, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns with HB 235
Brian Davis, Staff to Senator Steve Frank
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on SB 186
Rhonda Weiss, Legal Counsel
Ms. C.J. Jenzano
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 235
Willie Anderson
NEA-Alaska
105 Municipal Way
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports original version of HB 235
Janice Levy
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 235
Jack Phelps, President
Alaska Private & Home Educators Association
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to HB 235
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-27, SIDE A
Number 001
The meeting of the Senate State Affairs Committee was called
to order by Chairman Loren Leman at 9:10 a.m.
Number 010
SENATOR LEMAN introduced CSHB 235(FIN) (SPECIAL EDUCATION &
RELATED SERVICES) as the first order of business.
MYRA HOWE, State Director of Special Education, Department
of Education, explained the primary purpose of the
legislation is to come into compliance with new federal
requirements, as well as some cleanup language that the
Department of Law has suggested.
Ms. Howe outlined the following sections which bring the
state into compliance with the federal law.
Section 8 of the bill allows the school district to take a
parent to due process hearing for denial of initial consent
for evaluation of placement.
Sections 11 and 20 deal with the definition of "consent."
Section 22 adds "rehabilitation services" to the definition
of "related services."
Section 24 adds autism and traumatic brain injury as new
disability categories. It is also a definition of
"educational records."
Number 100
DENNIS WETHERELL, testifying from Anchorage via the
teleconference network, said he was present as the concerned
parent of a gifted child.
Mr. Wetherell said he has had an opportunity to look at the
federal statutes, and he questioned whether HB 235 actually
complies with federal law at all in the areas in which it is
intended to comply.
Mr. Wetherell voiced concern with the gifted education
provision in the bill. He said he does not see the
connection between the provisions of the bill which pertain
to gifted education and compliance of disabilities law.
Mr. Wetherell's concern stems from previous and ongoing
actions by the Department of Education. HB 235 is identical
in wording to HB 419, which was introduced last year at the
request of the Department of Education and would have
eliminated any reference to gifted education from state law,
except that in a few places the clause "and gifted child"
has been inserted in an effort to placate parents and
educators of the gifted. DOE has also has had legislation
introduced this year which would reduce funding for gifted
education 40 percent and separates gifted education from
special education for funding purposes.
Mr. Wetherell contended that DOE's goal is to get out of
gifted education and turn all aspects of the program over to
local school boards. Throughout the United States where
such actions have been taken, the effect has been to
virtually eliminate gifted education except in a few
scattered districts.
Mr. Wetherell does not believe that existing state law is
strong enough with respect to gifted education, and that HB
235 weakens state law with respect to gifted education.
Mr. Wetherell outlined three amendments he recommends be
made to HB 235: (1) a new paragraph added to AS 14.30.278
which requires an IEP to be reviewed or revised on at least
an annual basis, or upon reasonable request of the
amendment; (2) an amendment which requires each school
district to develop a plan of service for every category of
exceptional child served; and (3) amending Section 24,
paragraph (9) to read: "gifted children mean children who
exhibit outstanding intellect, ability, or creative talent,
as determined, using methods of evaluation and eligibility
thresholds defined under regulations adopted by the
department."
Number 185
MARC GROBER, testifying from Nenana via the teleconference
network, said he had submitted a point by point sectional
analysis of all the problems included in HB 235, as well as
other information to the committee.
Mr. Grober presented a brief history of HB 235, which he
said has been introduced in almost identical form during two
previous legislatures, but was killed in committee on both
occasions because every parent who was allowed an
opportunity to testify on the bills testified against them.
He contended that there was limited opportunity to testify
on HB 235 in the House.
Mr. Grober said HB 235 is not an appropriate vehicle to
discuss gifted education. He said if the Department of
Education is being truthful and really only wants to secure
funding from the federal DOE, then he thinks it is
appropriate to essentially remove all the portions of HB 235
that have to do with gifted education until gifted education
can be addressed from educational standpoints as the rest of
the state's special education issues.
Mr. Grober said HB 235 is poorly drafted and he has
submitted a draft committee substitute which addressees the
alleged demands of DOE as far as securing funding without
addressing the problems of gifted education, without denying
parents of due process and without the so-called caretaking
changes which have been undocumented and unsupported. He
noted the Governor's Council has not endorsed HB 235, nor
has any parent organization endorsed the bill.
Number 322
SENATOR LEMAN asked for a motion to adopt a proposed
committee substitute.
SENATOR MILLER moved that SCS CSHB 235(STA) be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the Chair stated the motion had
carried.
SENATOR LEMAN stated HB 235 would be set aside momentarily
so that the committee could take action on another piece of
legislation.
Number 330
SENATOR LEMAN brought SB 186 (STATE AGENCY PUBLICATIONS)
before the committee.
BRIAN DAVIS, staff to Senator Steve Frank, explained the
legislation repeals a statute that was put in place in 1990
that provided that publications of state agencies shall be
produced at a state operated facility. SB 186 replaces that
statute with language that provides that publications of a
state agency shall be produced according to standards which
promote the maximum use of private sector printing
facilities. The intent is to shift business from state
operated facilities to private sector printers.
SENATOR LEMAN asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR MILLER moved that SB 186 be passed out of committee
with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it
was so ordered.
Number 350
SENATOR LEMAN brought HB 235 back before the committee. He
then asked Rhonda Weiss, an attorney in Washington, D.C.,
what the minimum is that the State of Alaska has to do to
meet the deadline to come into compliance with federal law
and not lose funding.
RHONDA WEISS of the U.S. Department of Education in
Washington, D.C., responded that in order to receive the
Part B grant award for this fiscal year, Alaska is required
to submit a Part B state plan that meets the requirements of
the individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Sections 612 & 613 and the department's implementing
regulations in 34 C.F.R., Part 300.
Ms. Weiss said for two prior years, Alaska has provided
assurances to U.S. DOE that certain statutory and/or
regulatory changes would be made to satisfy all applicable
federal requirements. The purpose of the current legislative
action is to ensure that these assurances are met in
connection with the department's conditional approval of
Alaska's Part B grant.
Number 423
MS JENZANO, U.S. DOE state contact person for the State of
Alaska, testifying from Washington, D.C., referred to
subsection (e) on page 3, lines 16 and 17 of CSHB 235(FIN)
and said it was their understanding that there was an
amendment to have that section deleted and having three new
subsections inserted. She stated they would have a problem
with that being deleted from the statute because it is a
federal regulatory requirement, as well as having a problem
with the proposed new subsections. The department also has
concern with subsection (b) on page 4, line 2, and suggests
that "federal" be incorporated into that sentence.
Number 470
SENATOR LEMAN referred to subsection (e) on page 3, lines 16
and 17, relating to the hearing officer's decision, and the
new subsections (f), (g) and (h) and said it is his
understanding that those terms came from Oregon statutes.
He asked if Oregon was out of compliance because they have
those provisions in their law. RHONDA WEISS answered that
they couldn't comment on it until they have reviewed
Oregon's law, but that in a direct review of this
information, it does not meet the regulatory and statutory
requirements.
Ms. Weiss also added that their concern with the proposed
statutory language is that it combines the consent provision
with the hearing officer's decision and confuses the
subjective consent provision, in essence, for a party's
right to appeal a hearing officer's decision if they
disagree with that decision.
Number 515
WILLIE ANDERSON, representing NEA-Alaska, stated he was
testifying in support of the earlier version of HB 235 that
dealt with the funding for special education.
Mr. Anderson stated NEA-Alaska does not have problems with
the "gifted" language, because it is their opinion that it
meets the need to have gifted education funded by the state.
However, they want to make sure that the state doesn't lose
$8 million in terms of federal funding for the schools.
Mr. Anderson urged that the committee make minimum
amendments to the legislation and/or go back to the House
version of the bill.
Number 535
JANICE LEVY, representing the Department of Law, said the
crux of the problem and the difficulty for Alaska is that
the federal regulations and the federal code do require that
there be a vehicle for overriding parental consent and
that's the difficult issue. She said the procedure that was
suggested in HB 235 that she reviewed a couple of weeks ago
would have met that requirement. She noted that procedure
does allow for eventually appealing to the level of the
Superior Court.
TAPE 93-27, SIDE B
Number 001
JACK PHELPS, President of the Alaska Private and Home
Educators Association, said their concern is two-fold. They
believe it's important for the state to protect its federal
dollars, but at the same time, they want to ensure that
parents are not put at a disadvantage in terms of making
decisions that will affect the lives of their own children.
Mr. Phelps said he does not think that changing subsection
(g) on page 3 to make the hearing officer's decision
binding necessitates the removal of subsections (e) and (f).
Mr. Phelps suggested that perhaps a mediatory procedure that
would happen before it went to a hearing officer could be
written into the bill, and he said that may be able to solve
some of these conflicts between districts and parents at an
earlier stage and in a less confrontational manner.
Number 048
SENATOR LEMAN said HB 235 would be held over for the April
19 meeting. He then adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|