Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/29/2008 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB191 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 191-PUBLIC EDUCATION OF HOMELESS STUDENTS
CHAIR DAVIS announced consideration of SB 191.
1:38:57 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Davis, sponsor of SB 191,
provided an overview of SB 191. This is an Act relating to
continuing the public education of a homeless student and to the
purpose of certain laws as they relate to children.
He pointed out that the fiscal note delivered by the Office of
Children's Services (OCS) indicates the intent of SB 191 was to
continue the education of a homeless student in the student's
school of origin and to provide comparable educational services
during the time a child is considered homeless.
1:39:43 PM
MR. OBERMEYER said that a child is considered homeless if he or
she is awaiting foster care placement. This would include
students placed in out-of-home care and in the custody of the
Department of Health and Social Services. The bill would have
nominal fiscal impact on OCS if, as proposed, the Department of
Education is responsible for transportation costs to and from
the location where the child is placed, and the child's school
of origin.
MR. OBERMEYER read the sponsor statement as follows:
Because of the overriding importance of school
stability for children in care and their need for
educational guidance and advocates, SB 191 seeks to
provide, to the extent feasible, comparable
educational assistance provided to all eligible
homeless children and youth in foster care under the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance
Improvement Act, a federal grant program reauthorized
under "No Child Left Behind" of 2001.
The McKinney-Vento Act reduces barriers that eligible
children and youth face in enrolling, attending, and
succeeding in school. The definition of eligible
children under McKinney-Vento are those who lack a
fixed, regular and adequate night time residence, or
are living in emergency or transitional shelters, or
are awaiting foster care placement. The last term
"awaiting foster care placement," while not defined in
federal law, is interpreted under SB 191, the new
section AS 14.03.096, to include all students who are
placed in out-of-home care and in the custody of
Health and Social Services.
This significant change under SB 191 recognizes the
many foster children who are in transition or are
between placements and are in need of educational
assistance. SB 191 Section 2 changes Sec. 47.05.060
Purpose and policy relating to children, to include
"adequate education" and "intellectual welfare" to
ensure that children and youth in foster care have
access to education-related support services.
McKinney-Vento protections include: the right to
remain in the school of origin when feasible;
transportation paid by the school district when
needed; immediate enrollment without red tape; timely
transfer of school records; staff assistance by a
designated district liaison and prohibition against
stigma as homeless.
SB 191 Section 1, subsection (2) defines "school of
origin" as the school that the student attended when
permanently housed, or the school in which the student
was last enrolled. Since the McKinney-Vento Act
presently provides only a small portion of the funding
expended in Alaska for educating and transporting
homeless and foster care children as required under No
Child Left Behind, the main purpose of SB 191 is to
improve educational outcomes for Alaska's most at-risk
children.
As a background to the bill, children in foster care
struggle academically and suffer more poverty, lowest
self-esteem and emotional trauma, social stigma, and
higher mobility than others. They are more likely to
drop out of school, repeat grades, and be placed in
special education. A 2004 study of Chicago public
school youth found that 15 year old students in out-
of-home care were half as likely as other students to
have graduated from high school five years later, with
55 percent having dropped out and 10 percent having
been incarcerated. Only 54 percent of young adults who
age out of care have completed high school. Youth and
foster care attending public schools score 16 to 20
percentile points below youth in the general
population in statewide standardized tests. And youth
in foster care on average, read at only a seventh
grade level after completing tenth or eleventh grade.
[I refer you to the Casey Family Programs white paper
on this.] These low educational outcomes are only
exacerbated by the high mobility of children in foster
care. The legal center for foster care and education
reported that children and youth in out-of-home care
experience on average, one or two foster care
placement changes per year, sighting US Department of
Health and Human Services Administration for Children
and Families. One third of children in foster care
stay in care for less than five months, and another
seventeen percent in care for one year or less.
Frequent school changes are associated with an
increased risk of failing a grade in school and of
repeated behavioral problems. By sixth grade, students
who have changed schools four or more times have lost
approximately one year of educational growth. A Casey
Foundation study of 1,087 foster care alumni found
that youth had one fewer placement change per year
were almost twice as likely to graduate from high
school before leaving care. While extending McKinney-
Vento Act protections to eligible homeless out-of-home
youth or foster care children increases some school
district direct and indirect costs, this will more
than likely be offset by savings in social transfer
costs, including decreases in physical and mental
health problems, school failure, rates of
incarceration, and increased lifetime earnings.
Fourteen or more states have already enacted foster
care educational legislation modeled after some
provisions of the McKinney-Vento Act; Alaska can
afford to do no less.
1:45:21 PM
MR. OBERMEYER reiterated that the fiscal note currently was
zero.
SENATOR DYSON questioned whether he meant it was a zero fiscal
note for the school or school district.
MR. OBERMEYER responded that it would have nominal fiscal impact
for the Office of Children's Services if, as proposed, the
Department of Education and Early Development would be
responsible for transportation costs.
He understood that the Anchorage School District currently spent
about $175,000 on these and other types of children for special
transportation needs, so a great deal of expense involved beyond
even the Title 1 requirements.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the federal Act included reimbursing the
school district for its costs.
MR. OBERMEYER replied it was his understanding there is a
certain amount of "set aside" in the federal budget for
McKinney-Vento protections, but it is not enough to cover school
district over-all costs.
SENATOR DYSON questioned the phrase "when it's feasible" and
asked if there were guidelines regarding what would be
"feasible" and who would actually make the decision whether it
would be better for a child to go to a neighborhood school or be
bussed.
CHAIR DAVIS inserted that the guardian ad litem could make some
decisions for a child, but meetings of the guardian ad litem,
the Department of Youth and Justice, and the school districts
were ongoing on this topic and the participants were in favor of
this amendment. The bill would define the process in law so it
would not be easily subject to changes in the administration's
position.
MR. OBERMEYER also responded to Senator Dyson's question.
Referring to an attachment to the committee handout titled
"Improving Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth," page 3,
under "Educational Stability," it indicated that the [McKinney-
Vento] Act entitles students to stay in their original school
even when they move to a foster care placement in a different
school district, unless it is against the parent or guardian's
wishes. He reiterated that it was not intended to take control
away from the guardian or parent.
SENATOR DYSON said that his experience with foster children in
Southcentral Alaska was that they never had a problem enrolling
in school, with or without records. He conjectured that
"feasible" was used because it would be absurd to transport a
child to his or her original school if the child came from the
bush or was on an interstate compact. He did wonder whether this
would force a school district to go out of its way to transport
a child from one end of the district to another.
MR. OBERMEYER did not know.
CHAIR DAVIS interjected that is what they have administrators
for, to work out those details.
SENATOR DYSON said he was sure they would work it out, which was
why he is a little leery of giving the guardian ad litem too big
a part in making these types of decisions.
1:53:30 PM
SENATOR COWDERY said he expected that the district already
strove to keep these students in school.
CHAIR DAVIS responded that they do as much as they can.
SENATOR COWDERY questioned how the inclusion of the phrase
"adequate education" would change what is already being done,
and whether it would open the state up to lawsuits.
CHAIR DAVIS said she could not speak to that, although she did
not see how it could create a problem.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the legal difference is between
children "living in emergency or transitional shelters," and
children "awaiting foster care placement?"
CHAIR DAVIS clarified that each would be considered homeless.
SENATOR COWDERY asked for an explanation of the zero fiscal
note.
CHAIR DAVIS said the bill would not require any additional
monies. Some of the money would come out of federal Title 1
funds; the district would decide where the rest of the money
would come from.
1:55:41 PM
MIKE LESMANN, Community Relations Manager and Legislative
Liaison, Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS), said DHSS supports SB 191. Extending the
McKinney-Vento Act to children in DHSS custody would be in the
childrens' best interests. His understanding was that the school
districts would be required to set up a liaison assigned to
children in the department's custody, to help them with
transportation, transcripts and credits. He also believed the
benefits of tutoring and testing in the McKinney-Vento Act
itself would be extended to children in DHSS custody, both Child
in Need of Aid kids with OCS and a small segment of the Juvenile
Justice children with Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
SENATOR DYSON asked Mr. Lesmann if they were all in favor of
this.
MR. LESMANN said they were.
SENATOR DYSON asked if this would leave enough room for the
judgment of the case worker or guardian ad litem to decide
against a kid being transported some significant distance to the
school of origin.
MR. LESMANN thought it would. He explained that the department
had placement discretion for these children and there would be a
case-by-case decision made for each child.
SENATOR DYSON pressed for assurance that this bill would not
inadvertently restrict the current standard, "best interests of
the child".
MR. LESMANN declared that was his understanding.
SENATOR THOMAS asked Mr. Lesmann how many kids were in foster
care at that time.
MR. LESMANN replied that as of February 1, 2008, there were
approximately 2,091 children in the department's custody and
placed outside of their own homes.
2:00:18 PM
SENATOR THOMAS conjectured that many children move far from
their home communities and schools and may have to move several
times, depending on the foster care situation. He wondered how
much care was really given to what is in a child's best interest
and whether this change would make it better.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Lesmann if this bill constrained the
ability of OCS or a school district from moving a child to a
different school if the current situation was not working for
him or her.
MR. LESMANN did not believe so. His understanding of the federal
law and this proposed amendment was that OCS and DJJ would still
have discretion and authority to make decisions about a child's
placement and education. A team of professionals surrounding the
child would make that best interests decision.
CHAIR DAVIS added that it would not be in the best interest of a
child to stay in disruptive situation, so the bill would not
preclude a change. She acceded that there may be fewer options
available in the smaller districts but felt the school districts
could find an alternative. She believed the bottom line was
always the best interests of the child.
She continued that, although she would like to move the bill,
she did not want the members of the committee to feel compelled
to do that until they had heard sufficient testimony and were
comfortable with it.
2:06:06 PM
SENATOR DYSON said he would be comfortable with moving the bill.
SENATOR THOMAS moved to report SB 191 from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|