Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/10/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
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 | |
| HB82 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 102-RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS
8:45:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act providing for funding of educational
services for students in residential psychiatric treatment
centers."
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved CS for HB 102, labeled 29-LS0519\P,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version P
was before the committee.
8:46:29 AM
JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the CS for HB 102 and advised the intent
is to make it equitable for those in psychiatric residential
treatment centers for education, and to bring a collaboration
that when students are out of their home school district whether
they are in Anchorage or another part of Alaska, that their home
school's curriculum is considered in the process.
The intent is also to establish where the money comes from and
the bill states that wherever the student is enrolled, that the
money follows the student to the residential treatment center.
She noted that probably most of the students in the residential
psychiatric treatment centers are from Anchorage as very few
come in from other areas. She referred to Version P, and
explained it establishes, in coordination with the Department of
Health and Social Services, a program for the continuing
education of children admitted to residential psychiatric
treatment centers in the state, and approval of educational
programs provided at residential psychiatric treatment centers.
She said the bill includes the application process for approval
of educational programs, specifies the content of the
application including accountability standards similar to
charter schools, and educational funding to be provided to
residential treatment facilities similar to charter school
funding.
8:50:11 AM
EVELYN ALSUP, Director, Education, North Star Behavioral Health,
deferred to Mike Lyons.
8:50:35 AM
MICHAEL LYONS, Vice President, Specialty Education, Universal
Health Services of Delaware, advised that Universal Health
Services of Delaware is the parent company of North Star
Behavioral Health System in Anchorage. He said they appreciate
the awareness this bill has generated within the disability
community and various stakeholders throughout the state. He
explained that this committee substitute adds substantial
accountability measures to assist children residing in
psychiatric treatment facilities earn the educational credits
they need to move to the next grade level. He referred to the
existing statute AS 14.03.083, "Contracting for services," and
read "a school district may contract for educational services
provided to students in the district by an agency that is
accredited by the department under AS 14.07.020, and (b) of this
section. (b) states the department shall adopt regulations and
establish program standards for educational services that may be
contracted for by a school district." He explained that the
goal is to allow residential psychiatric treatment providers to
become the educational services providers, and existing statute
sets the framework for this.
8:52:45 AM
MR. LYONS referred to CSHB 102, Version P, and advised it
expands upon AS 14.07.0[20]. He referred to the first change,
[AS 14.07.020(a)(18), Section 1,] page 3, lines 29-31, which
read:
(18) establish, in coordination with the
Department of Health and Social Services, a program
for the continuing education of children who are
admitted to residential psychiatric treatment centers
in the state;
MR. LYONS surmised there is agreement that the ultimate goal is
to strengthen the service delivery model in the state to ensure
that not only will students' mental illness issues be addressed,
but educational opportunities strengthened. Mr. Lyons referred
to the second part of that [[AS 14.07.020(a)(19), Section 1,]
page 4, lines 1-2, which read:
(19) approve educational programs provided
at residential psychiatric treatment centers
[REPEALED].
MR. LYONS referred to new language that would strengthen that
approval process by EED, page 4, beginning line 6, Sec.
14.16.300 "Approval process for educational programs at
residential treatment centers," and explained it specifically
refers to over 22 accountability provision that a residential
psychiatric center must demonstrate to EED for approval of their
application. He referred to AS 14.16.300(a)(20), page 5, lines
24-26, which read:
(20) a commitment that, as a condition of
funding, the center shall only expend funds received
under AS 14.16.310 for educational services provided
at the center;
MR. LYONS said that all funds generated by the students must be
spent on their education, and education only, and it would be
audited by EED.
8:55:14 AM
MR. LYONS referred to a new section, AS 14.16.310, "Education
funding for students in residential psychiatric treatment
centers," page 6, beginning line 9, which specifically outlines
how the funding would be distributed to the residential
psychiatric treatment center. The intent, he advised, was to
have a majority stay with the child's resident school district
so when that child returns, that school district still has funds
to serve that child. Under the existing model, those funds go
to the school district where the facility is located and when
the child goes home, that school district is left to serve that
child. He opined this committee substitute gets the committee
closer to allow for this unique population of students and
environment to have the flexibility to deliver an education
program that best sets them up for transitioning home.
CHAIR KELLER advised that the committee's intent and goal is to
ascertain that these students are served appropriately according
to the intent of the legislature.
8:57:33 AM
MS. ALSUP referred the committee to a chart offered on the
screen, entitled "Comparison of Services," in order to explain
how this is being handled now at the Anchorage School District
in North Star Behavioral Health. She pointed out that one
school administrator is shared with several different
facilities, an administrative assistant shared with many
facilities, and a counselor that is .5 shared with many
facilities. She offered that six teachers are provided, two
teacher assistants, and only two-four hours of online
instruction. She said in the RPTC there are approximately four
to four and one half hours for middle and high school, and
elementary approximately five hours. She proposed that there
would be one on-site administrator, one on-site administrative
assistant, a part-time counselor - an ESE specialist which is a
special education administrator, 12 teachers, cross-train 10
mental health technicians to be the aides in the classroom, 5
hours of a hybrid model including direct instruction, online
instruction, direct teacher support, and video instruction that
can include the school of residence when appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the acronym for ESE.
MS. ALSUP responded that it is an education specialist, and
could not answer in full detail.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the education system uses
many acronyms and opined it is critical to keep the acronyms
straight. She said that counselors in the Anchorage School
District deal with hundreds of children and children are going
without graduation and work readiness counseling because their
funds are being cut.
MS. ALSUP responded that ESE means an exceptional child
specialist, which is a special education exceptional child
specialist.
MR. LYONS replied that ESE mean exceptional student education
specialist.
9:02:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER, with regard to the chart, noted that with the
school administrator there are no on-site services quantified,
and asked, from her experience, how often the school
administrator shows up on-site.
MS. ALSUP answered that this is the first school year that
(indisc.) has allowed North Star Behavioral Health to have vice
principals and the vice principals have been on-site five-six
times for the entire school year.
MS. ALSUP, in response to Chair Keller, answered that the vice
principals were on-site approximately one-two hours at a time.
9:03:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 4, line 29-31, and page
5, lines 1-3, and noted it was discussed within a previous
committee meeting, wherein the discussion was regarding a valid
teacher's certificate. He advised it was thought that the AS
14.30.250 was responsive to that, and included that it had to be
an Alaska teacher's certificate. Although, AS 14.32.250, is
teacher qualifications and a valid teacher's certificate is
required, and part of it is recognition of out-of-state
certificates. He advised, "I would like to at some point
whenever you feel it is appropriate to insert 'valid' before
'valid Alaska' ... after 'valid Alaska teacher's certificate,'
and on the next page on line 1 the same thing so that we're ..."
He advised he was bringing the issue up now because the
representation was that it was to be a valid Alaska teacher's
certificate, but the reference doesn't lead to that conclusion.
CHAIR KELLER stated that would lead the committee to a policy
decision and asked whether Representative Seaton prefers it to
be Alaska certification, and asked the reason. He said he would
have to ask EED what the meaning of it is, and whether there are
other teachers in Alaska operating with certification from out-
of-state.
9:05:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that sometimes there is a
preliminary recognition of a teacher's certificate until they
can [obtain an Alaska certificate], but the bill is not
requiring it to be an Alaska teacher certificate and he wants to
include the sponsor's intent.
MS. ALSUP stated it would not be a problem to add "Alaska" valid
teacher's certificate as the intent was that the statute is
there but it can be clarified.
9:06:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that the Kenai Peninsula School
District has questions regarding how the funding is handled and
the aggregate allocation. He suggested that clarity could be
brought to how this will handled.
CHAIR KELLER opined the model was used from charter schools.
MS. ALSUP said it was addressed because there is a differential
rate depending upon where the school districts are located. She
said it was addressed by saying the amount appropriated to the
school district for the student enrolled is reduced under AS
14.17.400.
CHAIR KELLER asked where she was reading.
MS. ALSUP referred to [AS 14.16.310(d)], page 7, lines 14-16,
which read:
(d) If the amount appropriated to the school
district where the student is enrolled is reduced
under AS 14.17.400(b), the school district shall
reduce the funding provided to the residential
psychiatric treatment facility as necessary.
MS. ALSUP advised that North Star Behavioral Health is proposing
to take the funding from wherever the facility is located, that
would be the funding rate they would use, or it would take the
less of the two.
9:08:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he understands that portion of it,
but the school district itself is funded on all of the large and
small schools put together. He advised it is not clear as to
whether the bill is saying "Okay, if you came from Seldovia or
Tyonek, you know, how do we calculate that amount that goes ...
or Soldotna High School, whether it's there." He opined that
the funding model used deals with districts, and school size
factors are a factor, but it is unclear exactly when the money
is being transferred ... the money from a district will go for a
student to make sure it has been aligned. He asked whether it
is the average of all students in a district without the
geographic cost differential and whether that is the number, or
whether reaching back to an individual school within the
district.
CHAIR KELLER said that EED may be able to provide assistance.
9:10:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that EED will need to confirm, but
there is a basic allocation for each individual student and
special needs students receive additional funding per student.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the separation of the Anchorage
School District that has been providing this service. He asked
about the students enrolled in private schools and home schools,
without any input of money from the education system, whether
North Star Behavioral Health will absorb that in supplying these
educational services.
MS. ALSUP pointed out that last year, four percent of the
children were not attached to a school district in the state.
North Star Behavioral Health's intent is to educate those
children and work with the home schooling parents and align
those transcripts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated it is important to determine how
a home school student, without money from the state, whether
this system will have North Star Behavioral Health providing the
educational services without a reimbursement from the state or
school districts.
9:13:47 AM
LUCY HOPE, Director, Student Support Services, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District, testified with concern for the proposed
language, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In looking further at this bill's committee substitute
(P), we do not see anything referencing where a
student would actually be enrolled, whether this is
the district of the families' residence, or the
district where the RPTC is located. This has a
bearing on where high school credits or a diploma
would come from. Graduation requirements vary between
districts. As you know, teachers are required to be
highly qualified in each subject area, in order to
earn high school credits that lead to a diploma. If
the students remain enrolled in the school district
they came from, or in the district where the facility
is located, those districts cannot ignore the
regulations that address these teacher qualifications,
and yet they may be asked to issue credits or
diplomas.
In reference to the funding to the RPTCs coming from
the school district where a student is enrolled, we
remain concerned about a district turning over
implementation of an existing IEP to a private entity
without parent participation. According to IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act),
placement of a student is an IEP (Individual Education
Program) team decision, and that student's IEP remains
the responsibility of that school district. The
parent is an integral part of that IEP team. We do
not see a way to legally give away this responsibility
under federal law. In fact, we do not see parents
mentioned anywhere in this legislation. It concerns
us that this statute does not address a fundamental
requirement of federal law, which specifies that a
school district in which a private school is located
is responsible for special education services for that
child.
It seems that in the Committee Substitute, with the
addition of the adoption of regulations, approval
process to review and approve applications of an
educational program by the Department of Education and
Early Development, and then an appeal process to the
state Board of Education and Early Development, there
is now a cost to the state. We have already raised
concerns about fiscal impact to districts as a result
of this bill, and now see that there will also be a
fiscal impact to the state, as well.
In summary, we respectfully ask that these private
entities work with school districts in a collaborative
process to ensure educational services for students.
We do not believe this bill will assist in that
effort.
9:16:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked Mr. Lyons or Ms. Alsup to address Ms. Hope's
concern regarding enrollment as his understanding is that it is
clarified in the committee substitute.
MS. ALSUP responded that North Star Behavioral Health would
leave the child enrolled in the home school district.
MR. LYONS reiterated that the child would remain enrolled in
their district of residence, which allows them to open
communication between the facility and the resident school
district, which is an important piece to this legislation. He
referred to Ms. Hope's concern regarding parental participation
within the IEP, and advised that the facility is a supporter of
parental participation and understands the obligations of the
IEP team. He pointed to a collaborative process happening
across the country wherein school districts work with
educational services providers in allowing them to deliver
services. He then referred to Ms. Hope's concern regarding the
fiscal impact to the state and school districts, and reiterated
that the district of residence actually is better served because
when the child returns home funds are available to continue
serving that child as opposed to the current model where the
funding remains in residential facility location.
CHAIR KELLER advised Ms. Hope that the committee will continue
to work with her and the policy decisions that must be made
clear by the committee before it presses on.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Hope to restate her
concern regarding IEP teams and placements of students.
MS. HOPE advised that currently under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is federal law, is the
requirement that placement be an IEP team's decision. She
offered that the placement decision and responsibility for
implementation of an IEP in this bill would fall outside of the
IEP process. She opined that North Star Behavioral Health is
stating it will follow the IEP process, but the placement and
IEP process is a large part of that.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned what language gives her
pause that placement decisions would circumvent the existing
process for placement decisions.
MS. HOPE stated the concern regarding the placement is basically
turning over the IEP responsibility to a private entity as
currently the school districts have the ability to do that if it
is an IEP team placement decision. She said, in this case, she
would be turning over that responsibility along with the funds
to the private entity as a matter of course.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the page and line
number.
MS. HOPE advised page 6, lines 9-31, and page 7, "where it
basically says a school district 'shall' provide funding and it
goes through which students it would provide it for, and then it
speaks to 'within five days of admission' the center notifies
the district, and then the district turns funding over to the
residential psychiatric facility."
9:22:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that it broadens the
criteria significantly for how a student can be placed into a
RPTC and receive state education funding. He questioned whether
Ms. Hope anticipates that the additional four points listed in
statute that, from her professional perspective, there would be
a significantly greater number of student that would have that
placement decision made that the district's IEP team might not
concur with.
MS. HOPE said "I can't say," as her concern is more that this
does not follow federal IBEA law and that the state turning
responsibility over to another entity to provide special
education services for a child with an IEP is currently spoken
to in IBEA, and it specifically states that the school district
where a private school is located is responsible for the
education of that child.
9:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the definition of IEP and walk the
committee through the process of how the team determines an IEP.
MS. HOPE explained that an IEP is an individual education
program developed by a team including the parents, and specific
members of a school district that work with the student, which
is governed by federal law. She offered that an IEP is
developed after a multi-disciplinary evaluation occurs, which is
also governed by federal law. The IEP team meet annually and
reviews the child's needs based upon the evaluation that had
been done and the child's current progress and present levels of
performance, and develops a program for that child for the next
year.
9:25:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the percentage of students in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District with IEPs.
MS. HOPE responded 14.3 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND queried the North Star Behavioral Health
people how many of the students placed in their facility have
IEPs and assumed that the Anchorage School District has a
similar number of students.
MS. ALSUP answered that the facility's number fluctuates and
currently it is below 30 percent for special education IEP
students.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND estimated twice as many children with
IEPs have psychiatric issues that cause them to be hospitalized
in long term care facilities.
MS. ALSUP reiterated that the number fluctuates and it could run
lower than that number.
9:27:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ questioned that once a student attends
the facility, what current coordination occurs with regard to
their IEP.
MS. ALSUP related that currently once a child starts attending
the school they become an Anchorage School District child and
the Anchorage School District takes over implementation and
coordination of their IEP with the parent or guardian, and the
district the child came from is no longer involved in the IEP
process.
9:28:07 AM
DAVID BOYLE, Alaska Policy Forum, said he has experience with
residential treatment centers in that one of his children spent
time there. He noted that the discussion highlights the
problem, specifically within the Anchorage School District, that
the intensive needs money the legislature appropriates does not
follow the child as it goes into the general fund of the
Anchorage School District. He opined that statute could be
changed such that the money would follow the child and be
earmarked for the child with intensive needs. He addressed the
constitutionality of the bill and pointed to the Alaska State
Constitution, Article VII, Section 1, which read:
The legislature shall by general law establish and
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State, and may provide for other
public educational institutions. Schools and
institutions so established shall be free from
sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public
funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other
private educational institution.
MR. BOYLE referred to "no money shall be paid from public funds
for the direct benefit of any religious or other private
educational institution," and he asked the committee to turn to
page 6, line 7, which read: "A school district shall provide
funding under this section to a residential psychiatric center
for educational services provided to a student." He opined this
may be indirect funding of another educational institution and
reminded the committee of the Sheldon Jackson's case in the mid-
1970s, which also included indirect funding and was interpreted
to mean it could not occur as the funding must stay within the
actual public school system. He suggested addressing the
constitutionality of this particular bill.
CHAIR KELLER responded that he appreciates him pointing this out
for the record and part of the committee consideration.
9:31:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to his comment "intensive
needs" and asked for a witness to explain the difference between
intensive needs special education and where that falls in the
grand scheme of things. She asked whether Mr. Boyle's child had
intensive needs required to be served by the school district, or
a regular IEP.
MR. BOYLE explained that his child was not intensive needs and
did not have an IEP through the school district, but was
provided some educational services by the Anchorage School
District within the residential facility.
MS. ALSUP replied that an intensive needs child is a child
deemed to need more services that require extensive specialties
and specialists, such as children who go beyond just needing an
IEP that does not serve ... She deferred to Mr. Lyons.
MR. LYONS explained that intensive needs are children who need
more intensive services delivered by a variety of different
professionals, such as a child on the autism spectrum that needs
a small class size possibly with one-to-one assistance with
intensive speech and occupational therapy. In that regard, the
IEP team meets and determines that this child's needs are above
and beyond services, the district identifies those and ...
9:34:21 AM
CHAIR KELLER offered that these terms are defined in statute and
the funding issue is the BSA times 13 for intensive needs in
special education which is "general 20 percent over in the
process of the formula and that all has to be calculated out as
part of the process in figuring out what the district should
pass forward."
MS. ALSUP added that for an intensive needs child to be
classified as intensive needs it must go through the district to
EED to be classified as an intensive needs student.
9:35:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [AS 14.16.310(b)] page 7, line
5-7, which read:
(b) ...includes federal impact aid, the required
local contribution under AS 14.178.420(b)(2), the
local contribution under AS 14.17.410(c), special
needs funding under AS 14.17.420(a)(1), intensive
services funding under AS 14.17.420(a)(2), ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the funding wherein a small
district has an intensive needs student and that student remains
in the district and is not transferred to a residential
psychiatric treatment center for education. He asked whether a
portion of the intensive needs funding to the district goes to
the residential psychiatric treatment center for education. He
stated he brought it up for clarification at the next meeting.
CHAIR KELLER announced CSHB 82 is held in committee.
9:36:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:36 to 9:43 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB82 Work Draft LS0307 W.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 FiscalNote.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents Nome Public Schools Testimony.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents (70-30 list).pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents e-rate schools.PDF |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| CSHB102 draft version P.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Support Mike Lyons.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| CSHB85 Version F.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |