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 |