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.