Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/24/2023 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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB111 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2023
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jamie Allard, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative CJ McCormick
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Andi Story
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to parental rights in a child's education;
relating to access to school records; relating to sex education,
human reproduction education, and human sexuality education;
relating to school disciplinary and safety programs; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act authorizing lump sum payments for certain teachers as
retention and recruitment incentives; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 111
"An Act relating to public school students who are deaf or have
a hearing impairment."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) EDC, JUD
03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/30/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/30/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/13/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124
04/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) EDC, FIN
03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/12/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
SPONSOR(s): ALLARD
03/13/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/23 (H) HSS, EDC
03/22/23 (H) HSS REFERRAL REMOVED
03/22/23 (H) BILL REPRINTED
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ED MARTIN, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 106.
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff
Representative Jamie Allard
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Allard, prime
sponsor, presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 111 - Deaf & Hard of
Hearing Children's Bill of Rights" and gave the sectional
analysis on HB 111, Version S.
ANDREA SAMUEL, Speech-Language Pathologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 111,
Version S.
RICHARD SAVILLE, Program Coordinator
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 111,
Version S.
DONALD ENOCH, Special Education Administrator
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
111, Version S.
HEATHER BATCHELDER, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:25 AM
CO-CHAIR JAMIE ALLARD called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives Prax,
McCormick, McKay, Himschoot, Ruffridge, and Allard were present
at the call to order. Representative Story arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 105-SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
8:02:22 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to parental rights in a
child's education; relating to access to school records;
relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and
human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and
safety programs; and providing for an effective date." [Public
testimony was left open from the meeting on 4/13/23.]
CO-CHAIR ALLARD closed public testimony on HB 105.
8:02:37 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE addressed the confusion on whether public
testimony should be left open, as his office has received
multiple accounts of individuals wanting to testify.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD responded that the bill was listed as "a
previously heard bill."
8:03:15 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 105 was held over.
HB 106-TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT
8:03:41 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act authorizing lump sum payments for
certain teachers as retention and recruitment incentives; and
providing for an effective date."
8:03:45 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 106.
8:03:51 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:03 a.m. to 8:08 a.m.
8:08:33 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, announced that public testimony would be
left open on HB 106.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 106 was held over.
[The committee returned to HB 106 during the meeting at 8:21
a.m.]
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:09:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school
students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment."
8:09:37 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33-LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23,
as a working document. There being no objection, Version S was
before the committee.
[HB 111, Version S, was set aside until 8:31 a.m.]
8:10:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:10 a.m. to 8:21 a.m.
HB 106-TEACHER RECRUITMENT; LUMP SUM PAYMENT
8:21:17 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would
be a return to HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act authorizing lump sum
payments for certain teachers as retention and recruitment
incentives; and providing for an effective date."
8:21:35 AM
ED MARTIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 106.
He stated that money should be spent with regards to colleges,
as Alaska does not have an accredited education course in the
state. He argued that this is why the state is having problems
filling education positions. He expressed shock at the
legislature's spending, and he suggested the bill should die in
committee. He opined that money should go towards teachers in
rural communities and asked the committee to "honor their
oaths."
8:23:54 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, announced that public testimony would be
left open on HB 106.
8:24:49 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 106 was held over.
8:24:55 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:24 a.m. to 8:31 a.m.
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:31:16 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school
students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment."
8:32:29 AM
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff, Representative Jamie Allard, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Allard, prime sponsor,
presented a PowerPoint, titled "HB 111 - Deaf & Hard of Hearing
Children's Bill of Rights" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. She began with a summary of the information shown on
slide 2, titled "Who Does HB 111 Effect?," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
WHO DOES HB 111 EFFECT?
There are currently 149 deaf or hard of hearing
children in the State of Alaska.
79 Students in Anchorage
3 Students in Annette Island
12 Students in Fairbanks
3 Students in Galena
3 Students in Juneau
9 Students in Kenai Peninsula
5 Students in Kodiak Island
14 Students in Mat-Su
9 Students in Northwest Arctic
8:33:39 AM
MS. CAUSER continued to slide 3, titled "What services are
currently being offered?" She explained that the services being
offered are based on the district and its available resources.
She added that there is nothing currently which requires school
districts to provide information about available resources to
students. She stated that the proposed legislation would ensure
that students and parents are aware of the resources available,
and each district is providing the same resources. She further
noted that the school for the deaf is currently in
administrative code, but not provided in statute.
8:34:53 AM
MS. CAUSER continued to slide 4, titled "What Does HB 111 Do?,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHAT DOES HB 111 DO?
01. School District shall provide parent of child who
is deaf or hard of hearing with comprehensive,
neutral, and unbiased information on hearing
technology, methods of communication, services and
programs, and support and advocacy services offered by
public and private agencies.
02. Allows the parent of a child who is deaf or hard
of hearing to choose the method of communication that
the parent determines is the most appropriate.
03. Requires school district to provide services using
the parent's chosen method of communication for the
child.
04. School district shall deliver services to a child
who is deaf or hard of hearing through professionals
with training, experience, and background in the
chosen method of communication and shall inform a
parent of a child who is deaf or heard of hearing of
the school districts duties and of the parent's rights
provided.
05. Defines the following terms; bilingual approach,
cued speech, deaf, hard of hearing, listening and
spoken language, and total communication
06. Will codify the existence of a centralized school
of the deaf, moving it from Admin Code to Statue for
those that it is determined placement at the program
is appropriate for a child who resides in the
district.
MS. CAUSER further explained that the proposed bill would not
force students in the state who are deaf or hard of hearing to
go to school in Anchorage. Instead, it would provide services
for those who want to stay with family and be in the school they
are already enrolled in.
8:36:47 AM
MS. CAUSER presented the sectional analysis for HB 111, Version
S, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: amends AS 14.30.272 by adding new
subsections:
1. School district must provide parent with
comprehensive information regarding,
a. Hearing technology
b. Different methods of communication
c. Services and programs designed to help
children who are deaf and hard of hearing
d. Information on support and advocacy services
offered by public and private agencies.
2. Parent chooses the method of communication that
will be the most appropriate for their child.
3. Services are delivered to child through
professionals with training, experience and a
background in the chosen method of communication.
d. School District must inform parent of school
districts duties and the parents rights under section
c.
e. In this section,
1. Definition of "bilingual approach"
2.Definition of "cued speech"
3.Definition of "deaf"
4. Definition of "hard of hearing"
5. Definition of "Listening and spoken
language"
6. Definition of "total communication"
Section 2: amends AS 14.30.276 by adding a new
subsection that requires the department to establish
and operate a centralized program for students whose
primary language is American Sign Language in the
least restrictive environment for those students,
provide residential services as part of the program,
establishes that a school district may operate the
program under specific requirements, and provide
funding for the students who attend the program
operated by a school districted under this subsection
to that school district.
MS. CAUSER added that the attached fiscal note shows a one-time
legal fee of $6,000 to implement the necessary regulation
changes.
8:39:16 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:39 a.m.
8:39:52 AM
ANDREA SAMUEL, Speech-Language Pathologist, provided invited
testimony in support of HB 111, Version S. She shared that her
daughter uses cochlear implants to listen and talk, and she
informed the committee that for the last ten years she has
practiced speech and language pathology. She said that she
helps individuals with communication disorders regain their
ability to access language; however, she does not participate in
the education of these children. She continued that currently
there is not a universal means for screening [for hearing loss],
creating different difficulties for families whose child's
hearing loss was not detected at birth. She stated that these
families need unbiased counseling to make a good decision for
their child; therefore, the right professionals need to be
available. She reiterated her support for HB 111, Version S,
and all things recognized within the bill.
8:45:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned who diagnosed her child's
[hearing] issue.
MS. SAMUEL replied that in 2008 [Early Hearing Detection and
Intervention] was mandated for newborns in Alaska; therefore,
hospitals had screeners in place, and this is how she found out
about her child's hearing. Because of the lack of resources in
Alaska, she said she was forced to go out of state for help.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned whether she financed her child's
care through personal finances, insurance, or other means.
MS. SAMUEL replied, "All of the above." In response to the
concerns about delays in detection, she concurred that it is a
worry; however, she noted that most children have their hearing
assessed at birth. She added that late onset of hearing loss
would not be caught right away.
8:52:27 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned how the proposed legislation would
help any barriers to her child's education.
MS. SAMUEL responded that her family lives in the Anchorage
School District (ASD), which is well resourced. She said that
she would like to see more awareness among teachers and
administrators in supporting students with hearing loss. She
added that environmental modifications are important, as well as
a well-versed educational audiologist on hand to counsel staff.
8:56:14 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned whether more statutory mandates
are needed for districts to be able to provide more resources.
MS. SAMUEL replied yes. She expressed the opinion that when
districts are not resourced for a task, they "kick the can down
the road." She opined that the bill would correct many issues
facing the treatment and education of hearing-impaired students
and their parents. In response to a follow-up question, she
expressed the opinion that the proposed bill would provide the
structure. She added that the bill would make clear to school
districts that all options must be presented for helping deaf
and hearing-impaired students.
9:00:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated that Version S would have a
$6,000 fiscal note for the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED). She questioned whether districts need
resources. She questioned the Special Education Service Agency
(SESA).
MS. SAMUEL discussed the funding that would be attached to the
bill. She acknowledged the state's current deficit; however,
she stressed the importance of the proposed bill. She added
that funding also comes from the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) which serves special education (SPED).
Regardless of how much money the state has, she opined, the
proposed legislation is the right thing to do.
9:03:58 AM
MS. CAUSER drew attention to page 2, lines 3-7 of the bill,
reiterating that parents would be able to choose the method of
communication most appropriate for their child.
9:04:38 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD argued that deaf and hearing-impaired students
should be provided with the same opportunities as hearing
children. If students choose not to attend a specialized
school, they should be able to go to any public school of their
choosing.
9:05:08 AM
MS. CAUSER revisited the fiscal note and shared her belief that
the increase for intensive-needs students and SPED would fall
underneath the base student allocation (BSA); therefore, it
would be a part of the [Foundation Funding Formula] increase.
9:05:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reinforced her support for the bill.
She highlighted page 3, line 3. She questioned whether the
statement "must provide residential services" would generate an
additional fiscal note.
MS. CAUSER expressed the belief this was already addressed in
the fiscal note but offered to follow up with the committee.
9:06:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern about the language on
page 3, line 9, and she questioned whether the word "parent"
should replace the phrase "school district."
CO-CHAIR ALLARD expressed the opinion that this was addressed in
the first part of the bill.
9:08:14 AM
MS. SAMUEL offered closing comments and said there is funding in
place through federal law, adding that [the proposed
legislation] would not go above what is already in federal law.
She reiterated that the bill would inform school districts
concerning deaf and hearing-impaired students.
9:09:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed the school districts' funding
through IDEA. She expressed the belief that many deaf and
hearing-impaired students do not receive the "intensive times
13" funds [in the Foundation Funding Formula] because of the
required criteria for intensive-needs students. She suggested
that districts would struggle to meet the need and opined that
more fiscal monies should be in the bill.
MS. SAMUEL acknowledged the shortage of individual aides in the
districts. She explained that some children do not need a one-
on-one aide; however, they need other support, such as
environmental support.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified that the funding which comes with
a full-time aide is needed in many cases.
MS. SAMUEL likened students to bonds, indicating that an early
investment would make a difference. She suggested that the
proposed bill would give students the access they need to learn.
9:12:19 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD related that she worked with Ms. Samuel on the
proposed legislation, and she was an intricate part. She opined
that no cost is too high to establish education for all
children, and she expressed the belief that no child is less
important than another.
9:13:15 AM
RICHARD SAVILLE, Program Coordinator, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, testified in support of HB
111, Version S, and provided a summary of his role in the
council. He noted that he is the vice chair for the Alaska
Advisory Board for the Education of the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing. He explained that 17 other states have passed similar
legislation, which is based on the federal Bill of Rights for
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children. He reiterated several
reasons to support the bill, emphasizing that it should be a
parent's choice. He added it would also ensure that families of
deaf and hearing-impaired children understand the available
resources. He said that the aspirational aspect of the bill is
the deaf and hearing-impaired children in the state would be
treated as equals and receive the needed support to fulfill
their full potential.
9:18:42 AM
MR. SAVILLE pointed out that the statewide school for deaf and
hearing-impaired is located in Anchorage and funded through both
ASD and DEED. He briefly explained how housing works for rural
children. He noted that he also works with SESA.
9:21:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX pointed out that some services provided
through ASD meet some of the needs; however, he questioned how
much is not being met.
MR. SAVILLE replied that he could not provide an answer
currently. He reiterated that the funding is not only through
ASD.
9:22:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether a larger fiscal note is
needed. In reference to the gaps in services, she requested
clarification.
MR. SAVILLE stated that there are staffing shortages everywhere,
and anything to promote recruitment is welcomed. He expressed
uncertainty whether the specific needs of children were being
met. He offered to gather information and report back to the
committee.
9:25:07 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reported that the number of deaf and hearing-
impaired students in Alaska is 149. She added that few people
know American Sign Language (ASL) and pointed out that the
proposed legislation would allow a parent to go into a child's
classroom and interpret.
9:25:51 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE referenced DEED's Guidance for Special
Education Personnel and the section on teachers with students
who are visually impaired or deaf. He expressed the
understanding that there is an issue finding teachers who meet
the requirements. He highlighted page 2, line 7 of the bill,
which referenced delivering services to deaf children, and
stated this provision would codify the regulation which is
already currently not being met. He asked what the state is
currently doing for the 149 deaf or hard of hearing students,
and he further questioned how the services would be blended so
all students' needs are met in one classroom.
9:28:06 AM
MR. SAVILLE expressed the understanding that the language in
Section 2 is no different than language which requires that
students with disabilities be in an educational environment
along with other students, which has been required by federal
law for over 30 years. He requested that the question be
repeated.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned whether having a special school
specifically for the deaf and hearing-impaired children would
fall outside what [educators] are already asked to do, which is
educate students in the environment in which they live.
MR. SAVILLE expressed the belief that having a school for deaf
and hearing-impaired students is good because it allows families
to make the choice about what is best for their children.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked how the state was doing in terms of
following the guidance for special education personnel.
MR. SAVILLE replied that he would look into specifics and report
back to the committee at a later date.
9:32:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether the 149 [deaf and hard of
hearing students] fall under the intensive needs portion of the
[Foundation Funding Formula] fully, partially, or not at all.
MR. SAVILLE expressed uncertainty concerning the intensive needs
portion in the formula. He deferred to DEED.
9:33:46 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD questioned whether passing the proposed
legislation would encourage schools to be more willing to
provide education to deaf or hearing-impaired students.
MR. SAVILLE expressed the opinion that statutes carry more
weight.
9:35:07 AM
DONALD ENOCH, Administrator, Special Education, Department of
Education and Early Development, in response to the question
from Representative McKay, explained that it is a district's
responsibility to submit a student's Individualized Education
Plan (IEP) for review for intensive-needs funding. He added
that students who require specialized instruction because of
hearing and visual impairments are exempt from the seven
criteria for intensive-needs students. He added that a full-
time aide would be waived. He confirmed that students
considered deaf would still qualify for the intensive-needs
funding under the category of "deafness."
9:37:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that IEP "carries a lot of
weight" and people are responsive to it; nonetheless, she
suggested that more needs to be done.
9:37:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX referred to a previous testifier's story
about discovering the hearing loss of her child well before the
child's involvement in the education system. He said by
focusing only on the school district, many children may be
missed, and he opined that assessments for potential problems
should be done earlier by the Department of Health (DOH).
MR. SAVILLE agreed that children may be missed between birth and
preschool, and he encouraged a legislative solution to this
problem. He opined that including this language in the bill
would only have positive results.
9:40:20 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD related a personal story about her daughter's
hearing issue, explaining that the discovery was made by a
school nurse. She expressed the opinion that there are still
students struggling with hearing loss and emphasized the
importance of addressing it as early as possible.
9:41:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT questioned the Child Find program.
MR. ENOCH explained that Child Find is a federal requirement,
and all school districts must participate; however, not all
districts participate the same way. He explained that larger
districts participate monthly while smaller districts
participate on an as-needed basis.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what ages are covered and whether
hearing loss in a child would be detected in a Child Find
screening.
MR. ENOCH replied that the ages for SPED services are typically
children from 3- to 5-years old, but it could reach up to 22-
year-olds.
9:43:46 AM
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE offered his understanding that in order for
IEP to qualify for intensive-needs funding, the student would
need a full-time interpreter. He referred to Ms. Samuel's
testimony about the technology which allows children to have
education given in multiple language formats, as this does not
always require an interpreter. He asked whether individuals who
do not need one-on-one time would qualify for intensive-needs
funding. He questioned whether these students would still
qualify as deaf or hard of hearing.
MR. ENOCH responded that students who require an interpreter at
any point during the day would qualify for intensive-needs
funding.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE questioned whether a student who required an
interpreter only one day of the week would still qualify for the
intensive-needs funding.
MR. ENOCH replied that intensive-needs funding provides a
foundation for how the files are reviewed. He continued that
these intensive-needs reviews have gone through many changes,
including regulatory changes. He said that on the rare occasion
where a student requires an interpreter only once a week, the
district would be contacted and informed of a waiver process
available to them.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE asked whether a student who does not require
an interpreter would qualify for intensive-needs funding.
MR. ENOCH said that would be a district decision. He added that
the state does not require districts to ask for additional
funding, but most districts do. Based on criteria written in
the regulations, the student would qualify, he said.
CO-CHAIR RUFFRIDGE, per the 149 children identified as deaf or
hard of hearing in the state, asked for an estimate of the
percentage of these individuals who qualify for intensive-needs
funding.
MR. ENOCH confirmed that he could provide the answer at a later
date.
9:48:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether DEED would know an estimate of
how many children may be "falling through the cracks."
MR. ENOCH replied that is typically handled at the district
level through the Child Find process and referrals. The issue
is making sure the districts are aware of the Child Find
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether there have been any complaints
from parents concerning school districts not providing services
under the current system.
MR. ENOCH confirmed that he has received a number of complaints
from parents who were not satisfied with services being received
at the school district level; however, he offered his
understanding that none have been specific to deafness.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned DEED's follow-up procedures to
complaints.
MR. ENOCH explained that in the event of a complaint, the
district investigates, and all parties are spoken to.
Afterwards, he said, a report is generated for all levels, and
if a district is in default, a corrective action would be
issued.
9:51:25 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 111.
9:51:41 AM
HEATHER BATCHELDER, representing self, testified in support of
HB 111. She clarified that Child Find and early intervention
services exist under Part C of IDEA. She stated that children
who are deaf and hard of hearing are born with the same ability
to acquire language as any other child, and they deserve the
same opportunities. All families of deaf and hard of hearing
students should have access to appropriate early intervention,
family education services, and state resources.
9:55:06 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, announced that public testimony would be
left open on HB 111.
9:56:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that he would contact the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District and obtain its
perspective on Version S. He opined that [the proposed
legislature] was rushing the issue, and DOH needs to be
questioned. He suggested that the legislature should move
slowly and deliberately with the bill.
9:58:25 AM
MS. CAUSER echoed Mr. Saville's sentiments about statutes
holding more weight.
9:58:48 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 111 was held over.
9:59:29 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 111 Letter of Support - Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bill of Rights.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB 111 LOS A2P2 - Help Me Grow Alaska.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Hope - Support Letter.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111- Hope - Support Letter |
| HB111 CS.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Hearing Request - HEC.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 Hearing Request |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 Sectional Analysis |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 - Sponsor Statement |
| HB111 presentation.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB106 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB106- House Education Hearing Request.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0106A.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0106-Fiscal Note.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0105A.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105- House Education Hearing Request 3-8-2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105-Fiscal Note.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Constituent Emails.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 - emails |
| HB111 testimony - Andrea Samuel.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 24.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 25.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 26.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 27.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 28.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 29.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 30.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 31.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 32.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |