Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/03/2015 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Commission on Aging | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 76-GOV COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES/SPECIAL ED
3:53:55 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 76, "An Act relating to the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education."
3:54:31 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that proposed HB 76 removed the
word "gifted" from the enabling statute for the Governor's
Council on Disabilities and Special Education. She paraphrased
from the sponsor statement, which read:
The mission of the Governor's Council on Disabilities
and Special Education is to, "[create] change that
improves the lives of Alaskans with disabilities."
Since 1978, the Council has provided a constructive
process that has connected the public with
policymakers to ensure the thoughtful development of
an efficient and seamless service delivery system that
meets the needs of individuals with disabilities
across their life spans.
However, within their enabling statutes, the State of
Alaska also included "gifted" persons among the
individuals that the Council need work for and
support. The Council believes the term "gifted" to be
confusing and ill-fitting within the scope of their
aims and objectives. Furthermore, they believe
"gifted" should be removed for the following reasons:
Exceptionality is not a disability that entitles
students to special education. Gifted education is a
regular education program over which the council has
no oversight.
Gifted children are not eligible for additional
services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) or the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), policies whose adherence is
required per the Council's responsibilities.
Neither federal nor state law provide for special
employment benefits, or special avenues through which
to advocate for employment for those classified as
gifted.
The Governor's Council works tirelessly to advocate
for and access housing, employment, independent
living, health, transportation and community inclusion
for Alaskans with disabilities. Removing the word
"gifted" from their enabling statutes allows Alaska
law to be updated with the most accurate
representation of the mission and work of the Council,
as well as provide future Council membership with a
clear roadmap for success.
3:56:26 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification, page 2, line 14, that
changing the citation was updating the reference in the federal
registry.
MS. ABBOTT expressed her agreement, noting that the policy was
the same at the federal level.
3:57:11 PM
[Chair Seaton opened public testimony]
PATRICK REINHART, Executive Director, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, reiterated that the proposed
bill was "cleaning up our mission versus what's in our statute,
so that we don't get confusion on the public." He stated that
this had been on the agenda to fix for quite a while.
3:58:50 PM
CHRISTIE REINHARDT, Governor's Council on Disabilities and
Special Education, said that she was staff for the council,
specifically for the Special Education Advisory Panel. She
reported that one council responsibility was to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) stakeholder group, which
oversees and advises special education. She pointed out that
the Special Education Advisory Panel was federally mandated,
although Alaska was the only state where this panel resided with
the Council on Developmental Disabilities. She said that the
panel advised and administered special education programs
statewide. She pointed to a conflict, noting that in 2002 there
had been regulatory changes made to state education regulations
in response to statutory changes which had removed gifted and
talented education from special education and related services.
She reported that gifted and talented exceptionality was no
longer considered a disability program. There were now two
entirely separate programs. One of which, the special education
program, had very complicated, mandated federal and state
statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures; whereas, the
gifted and talented program was primarily developed and
administered by the local school district or education agency.
She noted that these programs were also funded differently.
While there were some individuals with a disability who were
also gifted and talented, there was very little overlap between
the two programs. She pointed out that, as there was very
little state oversight for the gifted and talented program,
there was often confusion from the parents with concerns for the
quality of the school districts' gifted and talented education
programs. She said there was not a gifted and talented
education program advisory committee and no specified mandated
funding. She expressed an understanding for the concerns of the
parents for their children's education, but this did not fall
within the purview of the council to effectively advise,
monitor, or advocate.
CHAIR SEATON asked about whether it was an efficient process for
the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education to
be the funding conduit.
MS. REINHARDT replied that this was a fantastic partnership, as
they were able to work closely with the early intervention
program, as well as some of the other programs at the council
which looked across the life span of support for individuals
with a disability. She pointed out that the kids in school
would be transitioning into the workforce, and as Alaska was
small enough, the program work could be through one centralized
agency. She noted that the Special Education Advisory Panel met
once each month, even though it was only federally required to
meet quarterly, and that the panel was a very active working
group with a large number of committed individuals invested in
quality special education services in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if one of the purposes for the change
to remove gifted was to relieve responsibility by the council to
the parents of gifted children.
MS. REINHARDT replied that a requirement for gifted and talented
programs was for the local education agency to have a review
plan, which was administered by the local school board, as
opposed to being overseen by the state. She reported that the
council worked at a state policy level, and not at the local
level. She shared another difference that special education
funding was federal and state match, whereas there was not any
designated funding for gifted and talented education. She
stated that local school districts were able to access gifted
and talented funding through the AS 5(d)(6) funds. She declared
that the spending was determined at the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for the total budget for the
council.
MR. REINHART replied that the council budget was a bit less than
$2.1 million, and its responsibility to the special education
advisory panel was a pass through amount from the federal
government to the Alaska Department of Education and Early
Development. He offered his belief that this amount was about
$170,000. He explained that the council was multi-level,
combining many different responsibilities, including the special
education advisory panel.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how much of the budget was from
general funds.
MR. REINHART stated that there were not any general funds among
the ten funding sources in the council budget, which included
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority funding and pass through
funding from the federal government.
4:07:45 PM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
[HB 76 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB76 Version A.PDF |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB76 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB76 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB76 Legislative Research Brief regarding intent.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB76 Letter of Support Governors Council.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB76 Fiscal Note DHSS.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| Roadmap Presentation_Commission on aging_3.3.2015.pdf |
HHSS 3/3/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Presentations by DHSS |