Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/02/2001 01:59 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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."
BRUCE JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT testified in support of HB 71. The
department worked with the Governor's Council on Special
Education and Disabilities, PARENTS, Inc., the Disability
Law Center, and school district representatives to obtain
their input in drafting legislation governing children with
disabilities. The department also solicited information and
feedback from parents and others representing gifted
children.
Mr. Johnson noted that HB 71 accomplishes several important
purposes for children with disabilities. First and foremost,
the HESS CS for HB 71 updates the state special education
statute in accordance with the federal statutes - IDEA 97.
The HESS CS for HB 71 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
dollars. He noted that HB 71 in its original form more
clearly differentiated the federal and state requirements
for providing educational services to children with
disabilities from the state requirements for providing
educational services to gifted children.
The HESS Committee Substitute for HB 71 is silent on the
education of gifted students. School districts would
continue to receive funds to provide services for gifted
students through the 20% "add-on" provision in the
foundation formula. The 20 percent "add-on" covers the
education of children with disabilities, gifted education,
vocational education and bilingual education.
Mr. Johnson observed that the department applauds the
efforts of various committees to help Alaska comply with the
federal statutes addressing children with disabilities. The
department anticipates that with the passage of HB 71 the
U.S. Department of Education would find Alaska in full
compliance with federal requirements. He encouraged members
to consider an amendment that would require gifted education
programs in all districts, with details determined at the
district level.
MATT LOVERN, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. He
expressed concern with the deletion of Article 3A: Education
for Gifted Children. Mr. Lovern stressed the importance of
the program to parents and children. He emphasized the
importance of challenging gifted children. He maintained
that busing should be provided to the program.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, MEMBER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL BOARD testified
via teleconference. She noted that the Board is concerned
with the elimination of the requirement for gifted services
and related busing. She stressed that if these needs aren't
met that there would be increased dropout rates, chronic
underachievement and behavior problems [among gifted
children]. She maintained that the right to independent
evaluation, challenges to placement, regular families of
gifted children would use reevaluation of needs and the
right to appeal placement. Anchorage would lose
approximately $220 thousand dollars if [busing for gifted
and talented students] is no longer required. She added that
they have concerns with the due process hearing language and
felt that it would drive up the district's costs. Special
Education costs continue to escalate independently. She
expressed concern with the elimination of the Department of
Education and Early Development's decision-making regarding
residential placement out-of-state. The legislation has no
mention of discipline, which is one of the Anchorage School
Board's major issues. She maintained that the legislation
lacks clarity as to how the district can assess Medicare.
She urged that the legislation be retained in Committee.
Vice-Chair Bunde thought that the legislation only removed
the state mandate for gifted and talented programs. He asked
if Anchorage would offer the program if the state mandate is
removed. Ms. Ossiander responded that, as a school board
member, she would continue to support it. She stated that
without the mandate they would lose reimbursement for busing
and the rights of families to appeal decisions outside of
the district.
Representative Croft questioned if the district would lose
state or federal reimbursement for busing. Ms. Ossiander
explained that there is no federal funding. The Anchorage
school district would lose access to state funding for
transportation. Representative Croft concluded that the
programs would be viewed as optional. Ms. Ossiander affirmed
and noted that the state only reimburses for essential
transportation. Transportation to school and transportation
for special education purposes are considered essential.
Under the legislation, transportation of students to
participate in gifted programs would no longer qualify for
reimbursement.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Ms.
Ossiander noted concerns with the due process hearing
language contained in AS 14.30.193. As outlined in the bill,
hearing officers could potentially live outside of the
district, which would result in significant travel costs. A
one-tiered hearing process has potential for escalating
costs for districts because there would be a potential to go
to Superior Court more quickly. She maintained that the
legislation could be improved and offered to send written
testimony.
JO GARRETT, SUPERVISOR, GIFTED PROGRAMS, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. She
expressed concern with the issue of equity. She noted that
children with disabilities were addressed and emphasized the
need of addressing children with exceptionalities, of which
gifted is one. She encouraged legislators to make sound
educational decisions based on what is best for the
education of children and not [base their decisions] on
financial issues. She spoke against the removal of Article
3A from HB 71. There are 2,500 thousand gifted students in
Anchorage. She stressed that there is a lack of regard for a
population that includes gifted students. She maintained
that Districts with one or two students would not receive
services. Services in Anchorage would be eliminated due to
the lack of transportation reimbursement. She stressed that
helping gifted students lifts all students. She urged that
the bill be held.
BARBARA WEBER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference. She used the analogy of a
winning dog team. She stressed that gifted children are the
talent that will become our future leaders.
TAMEA ISHAM, TEACHER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference. She urged that Article 3A be
put back into the bill. She maintained that gifted education
needs a state mandate and transportation needs to be
provided.
JODY VISCARDI, TEACHER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference. She noted that gifted children
are the most at risk student population for suicide or
dropout. Gifted children learn the least amount of new
information in a school day of all students. Gifted students
need to be challenged to use their abilities. She maintained
that they are handicapped by the discrepancy between their
high abilities and the instruction level in the regular
education classroom.
TERRI SEMMLER, TEACHER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference in support of including Article
3A. She maintained that most people do not recognize the
intellectual, emotional and psychological struggle gifted
children have on a daily basis while waiting for a
challenging education to be offered to them. Gifted students
are capable of mastering curriculum far above their grade
level so they wait for their classmates to catch up. They
have high rates of alcohol and drug consumption and are at
risk for suicide and dropout.
MERRI K. VANDERPLOEY, EDUCATOR, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. She expressed
concern with the elimination of Article 3A. She stressed the
efforts of Anchorage teachers, parents and other interested
parties in keeping gifted education within the special
education statutes. She noted that a decision was made to
keep both programs together on a state level. She maintained
that the financial responsibility cannot be passed solely to
the school district. She observed that there is a threat of
tax caps and dissatisfaction with increased property taxes.
PAMELA BICKFORD, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. She
spoke in support of eliminating section 4, which amends AS
14.30.186(e). This section provides that parents cannot be
forced to receive services for home-schooled children. She
felt that parents would be forced to home school children by
the school district if the district could not provide
services. She maintained that the provisions regarding the
right to appeal are unclear.
JEAN SCUITO, TEACHER, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference. She expressed concern with the
elimination of Article 3A. She noted that it is difficult to
meet the needs of kids on the high end in the regular
classrooms. She emphasized that kids that don't fit into the
regular classroom find a niche in the gifted classroom.
RICHARD MONKMAN, PARENT, JUNEAU testified in support of the
inclusion of Article 3A. He stressed that gifted children
have special needs, such as the need to be challenged,
stimulated and engaged. If they are not engaged they will be
disengaged. Many gifted children drop out.
Representative Hudson asked if the services are outside of
the regular classroom teaching. Mr. Monkman explained that
the gifted program has its own classroom. Children are taken
from their regular classroom for a period of time.
MARGO WARRING, PARENT, JUNEAU testified in support of the
reinsertion of Article 3A. The state of Alaska has a 30-year
history of recognizing the needs of gifted children. She
maintained that school districts with the fewest kids and
the smallest resources would be dropped off first.
GRETCHEN KAISER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KERTULLA provided
testimony. Currently, Alaska statutes provide direction to
public school districts to identify and provide educational
services to gifted children. About 5,000 Alaskan kids
throughout the state are identified as gifted because of
their outstanding intellect and abilities. The state has an
obligation to provide educational leadership. As a policy
matter; the state has recognized the needs of gifted
children for 30 years. All Alaskan children deserve an
education geared to their abilities so that they can
maximize their potential. The bar needs to be raised for
higher ability children. Without an educational program,
which provides adequate stimulation, these children are
often bored and not infrequently become underachievers. She
acknowledged the very serious needs of children with
disabilities, but urged recognition of the special
educational needs of another group of Alaskan children.
VEIDA FORREST, STUDENT, JUNEAU DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL, JUNEAU
testified in support of gifted programs. She shared her
frustration at being in classes below her achievement level.
She felt that she would not have been in the program without
testing. She noted that children have dropped out for lack
of challenge. She spoke in support of retaining Article 3A.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that the legislation speaks to
the state mandate. He suggested that the Juneau School
District could continue to test. Ms. Forrest acknowledged
that the Juneau School District would continue testing but
felt that smaller schools would suffer.
In response to a question by Representative Hudson, Ms.
Forrest discussed her participation in the program. She
observed that, through the program, she is an intern in
Representative Kerttula's office.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Amendment 1
would add Article 3A back in to the bill.
TAPE HFC 01 - 111, Side B
Mr. Johnson acknowledged the concern of parents regarding
the inclusion of Article 3A. Parents feel that oversight is
important in order to ensure that districts provide
services. Parents also want to have authority to oversee
districts in the event that they do not take the
exceptionality seriously. These concerns were addressed in
the original legislation. He observed that the original bill
contained Article 3A.
Vice-Chair Bunde felt that gifted and talented programs
should be addressed in separate legislation.
Mr. Johnson noted that the gifted community felt that there
needed to be oversight of the districts. The department
estimated that oversight of the program would be
approximately $103 thousand dollars. This would provide a
half-time position in the Department of Education and Early
Development with some support staff to look over the program
and provide some routine monitoring visits to schools on a
contract basis.
Representative Croft questioned if the fiscal cost included
oversight of the children with disability program. Mr.
Johnson clarified that there is no oversight of the state's
disabled program included in the fiscal note.
Representative Croft observed that testimony indicated that
the state would not pay to bus [gifted and talented]
students and that the cost to Anchorage would be $200
thousand dollars. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that Anchorage is
the district most engaged in transporting students with the
exceptionality. He maintained that districts would be
eligible for reimbursement through the related service
clause of the current legislation.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Mr. Johnson
clarified that the department supports the inclusion of
gifted and talented services. The department is willing to
seek middle ground if the amendment is not acceptable. He
stressed the importance of services for gifted students and
noted that the state of Alaska has a 30-year history of
providing services for these students. He noted that the
department proposed language in the proceeding year, which
would require school districts to recognize the
exceptionality and plan programs for these students. Details
would be the responsibility of the separate school districts
without state oversight. Co-Chair Mulder agreed that it
should be a local option and responsibility.
Representative Hudson questioned if the programs are offered
universally around the state. Mr. Johnson noted that they
are offered universally around the state, but the urban
areas have sufficient numbers to do more than a pull out
program.
Vice-Chair Bunde observed that federal funds cannot be spent
on gifted and talented programs. State funding provides an
additional 20 percent for gifted and talented and special
educational students. Mr. Johnson affirmed that the 20
percent would remain. The 20 percent "add-on" is for gifted,
special, vocational, and bilingual education. The
legislation would not change the foundation formula. The
funds are non categorical. School districts have the
responsibility and authority to spend the funds in any
manner that they want.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, MEMBER, HOUSE EDUCATION AND
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE provided information. He noted
that the House Education and Social Services Committee heard
testimony on the need for [gifted and special] services. He
observed that services are disabled students is a civil
right. Gifted and talented services are not a civil right.
He maintained that the issues are separate. Gifted and
talented programs are a local option discussion. The
Individuals with Disabilities Act is a national civil rights
discussion. He asked the Committee to keep the issues
separate and stated that he is committed to working on the
issue. He observed that the authority still remains with the
local school districts.
Representative John Davies questioned why the discussion
cannot occur within the same piece of legislation. He noted
that the issues are related in a number of ways.
Representative Coghill acknowledged that there are some
similarities but pointed out that one calls for inclusion
and one calls for exclusion. He added that one calls for a
civil right action that is closely monitored and includes
parents, while the other leaves the debate open. He stressed
that the legislation brings the state into conformity with
federal authorization, which brings money into the state.
The amount the state wants to put into the gifted and
talented program is an entirely different issue.
Representative Croft questioned if additional legislation
has been introduced. Representative Coghill stated that he
had not introduced separate legislation. Representative
Croft questioned why it makes sense to pursue one issue
without the other. Representative Coghill noted that the
intent is to clean up statutes before federal funding is
lost.
Representative John Davies questioned if the legislation
would still contain the necessary cleanup for federal
requirements of separation with the adoption of Amendment 1.
Mr. Johnson affirmed that legislation would still meet the
federal requirement with the adoption of the amendment.
Representative John Davies argued that the program should
remain in tack until the debate occurs.
Co-Chair Mulder argued that (school districts) should be
allowed to choose how to provide services. Representative
Hudson summarized that funding could still be provided, but
that the mandate would be removed.
Representative Whitaker asked for clarification regarding
funding for gifted and talented programs. Vice-Chair Bunde
noted that there are two funding streams: federal funding,
which cannot be used for gifted and talented services, and
state funding for special needs, which is still received by
school districts.
Representative Whitaker observed that there would be no
mandate for school districts to use funding for these
programs.
Co-Chair Williams observed that Representative Coghill has
indicated that he would work on further legislation.
In response to a question by Representative Whitaker, Mr.
Johnson noted that there is no recognized organized group at
the state level that speaks for gifted and talented
children. There are groups at the local level. Some are
advisory groups formed by the local school districts. The
makeup tends to be associated teachers, parents, and former
students.
Mr. Johnson observed that the number of gifted children is
approximately 10 percent of the population and is somewhere
between 5,000 and 13,000 thousand students.
In response to a question by Representative John Davies, Mr.
Johnson clarified that federal funding has never been
available for gifted and talented programs. Under the
instructional unit formula, funding was provided for the
support of identified students. Under the current foundation
formula, there is an additional 20 percent added on for
gifted, special, vocational, and bilingual education. Under
both formulas a local school district could use the funds
any way they feel is necessary.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned the percentage of federal
funding for special education. Mr. Johnson answered that the
state expects approximately $19 million dollars for special
education from a $700 million dollar budget. He clarified
that the federal funds have never been used to support
gifted and talented programs. The state commingled
responsibilities. The state received federal funds to
provide technical assistance and monitoring of special
education programs around the state. The department while
doing this business also did the business of gifted and
talented programs. The noncompliance issue did not stem from
inappropriate use of federal funds by the districts, but the
department's use of funds used for the monitoring and
technical assistance of children with disabilities.
Vice-Chair Bunde summarized that the legislation would not
take funds away from gifted and talented services. Mr.
Johnson noted that questions [relating to gifted and
talented services] asked of a person being paid with federal
special education funds would be deferred to the deputy
director of Teaching and Learning Support. There is no
funding stream.
Representative Whitaker observed that policy is being
changed by the removal of the mandate and questioned the
effect. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that the full ramification
is unknown. The department has not had funds to monitor or
support the program on the local level for the past three
years.
Representative Whitaker observed that gifted and talented
programs exist in all school districts. Mr. Johnson affirmed
that every school district has provided a planned service
for delivering educational services to its identified gifted
and talented population. The programs differ widely.
Representative Whitaker questioned what guarantees exist to
assure that these children would receive services. Mr.
Johnson noted that there would be no state oversight. He
reiterated that a state mandate could be provided without
state oversight.
Representative Whitaker summarized that the legislation
would present a policy of not recognizing gifted and
talented students. Mr. Johnson noted that the responsibility
would be shifted to a local level. Representative Whitaker
stated that there would be no local responsibility.
Co-Chair Williams questioned how long it would take for the
programs to fall apart if the mandate is removed. Mr.
Johnson stated that it would differ community by community.
He noted that staffing decisions for the next year have been
identified and felt that programs would be retained in the
next year. He did not think that there was support for the
theory that programs would fall apart in small schools over
larger schools.
Representative Croft spoke in support of the amendment. He
observed that gifted and talented programs would be
eliminated [without the amendment] by the provision on page
15, section 40. He acknowledged that programs vary widely.
The questioned is whether the state mandates the service. He
noted that school districts could eliminate programs. He
recounted personal experiences with dyslexia and boredom in
the classroom. He did not think that there was a strong
commitment to pursue legislation in the following year and
argued in support or retaining a state mandate.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hudson, Moses, Whitaker, Croft, Davies,
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Bunde, Foster, Williams, Mulder
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).e felt
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.
Programs for gifted children. Every school district
shall establish educational services for gifted
children that provide for student identification,
student eligibility, student learning plans, and
parental and student participation, including an
appropriate review process, consistent with regulations
adopted by the department.
Representative Davies explained that the amendment would
require school districts to establish programs for gifted
children, but allow them to decide how the services would be
provided.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 to change "shall"
to "may".
Representative John Davies argued against the amendment to
the amendment. He emphasized that a portion of state support
is for gifted and talented students.
Co-Chair Williams spoke in support of the amendment to the
amendment. Representative John Davies argued that the
amendment to the amendment would gut the amendment.
TAPE HFC 01 - 112, Side A
Representative Whitaker argued against the amendment. He
emphasized that the amendment to the amendment would
establish the status quo until there is a better idea of the
affect of the change.
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his amendment to Amendment 2.
Representative Hudson suggested the addition of "consider".
Representative John Davies stated that the change would
effectively gut the amendment. He argued that every district
is being provided funding for the purpose. He stressed that
the change to "consider" would take away the parents' right
to insist on services.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Representative John Davies observed that a title change may
be required with the adoption of Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that funding is already provided and a
fiscal note would not be needed.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 71 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 71 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note by the Department of Education and Early Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|