HB 102-RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS  8:27:01 AM CHAIR KELLER pointed out there have been a number of versions to the bill with concerns the committee has tried to accommodate, and the at ease was to ascertain a possible understanding. 8:27:28 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." [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 2/1/16, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 102, Version 29-LS0519\I, Glover, 1/29/16.] 8:27:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 102, labeled 29-LS0519\S, as the working document. Without objection Version S was before the committee. 8:28:29 AM JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, described the changes contained in Version S, which include: page 2, line 20, "may" was removed, and "shall" was inserted; page 2, line 23, "school board" was eliminated, as it will now apply to a proposed contract; page 4, line 19, the term of the contract was extended from "one" year to "three" years, to accommodate this pilot program. 8:30:01 AM EVELYN ALSOP, Education Director, North Star Behavioral Health, on request of Chair Keller, confirmed the proposed changes in the new version, as described. 8:31:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the CS page 2, line 20, to ask the intent behind the insertion of "shall", and what mandate it places on districts for contracting with a licensed provider. MS. ALSOP responded that the "shall" was inserted to allow for an appeal process. 8:32:36 AM CAELA NIELSEN, Parent, stated support for HB 102, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: I am writing this letter in support of HB 102. My name is Caela Nielsen and I am the parent of a child who has received mental health treatment in both the long term and short term facilities at North Star. The stress created in a family and a child when they enter treatment is great and can often exacerbate the already pre-existing conditions requiring treatment. This is multiplied many times over when your child does not receive education that is equivalent to the education he would receive in his regular school setting. My child has fallen behind in his schooling and struggles to reintegrate into the public school system due to this. Can you imagine being a child who just received help for a serious mental health problem and then being told you are now one year behind in high school? This causes even more stress to the family when trying to convince the child to continue their education rather than drop out. My family received the appropriate transition material for my child to return to the community, however the struggle was in getting the educational records needed for him to transition back into school. Many of the classes he took while in treatment did not align with classes being offered at his high school. The treatment facilities are in need of support in order to properly meet the educational goals of all children. My son has often times wanted to give up, but I have advocated for him and he will return to school however, it took a full week after we left North Star to transition back into the public education system, so he will now have even more educational material he has missed. The current system for educating this population does not work. I believe by passing HB102 the education and school transitions for children receiving mental health treatment in Alaska will greatly improve. North Star has the ability to incorporate education with mental health, and when working through the treatment team process create a sound, supportive educational and transition plan for each child. Please support this population of children and pass this bill to support their educational undertakings. 8:41:57 AM ED GRAFF, Superintendent, stated opposition to HB 102, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: The Anchorage School District is committed to working collaboratively with other organizations for the benefit of our students. We have enjoyed strong partnerships with Providence Hospital, Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Alaska Child and Family, Volunteers of America and Office of Children Services to name a few. Through collaboration with clinical care providers, we have continued to increase our educational service and supports for our children with the most complex mental health and behavioral needs. The Anchorage School District agrees with most of the legislative findings set forth at Section 1 of this bill. Students admitted to residential treatment facilities are entitled to educational services and those services should not be compromised by virtue of the fact that a student needs psychiatric treatment. Where ASD disagrees is with paragraph (3) of Section 1, which provides that a treatment center, in some instances, is able to provide more effective educational services to a student than a school district can provide. Additionally, ASD disagrees with paragraph (7) that there is a demonstrated need to provide uniform requirements to allow school boards to enter into contracts for treatment centers to provide educational services. School districts exist to meet the educational needs of students. That is their primary role. ASD is unaware of any statistics or anecdotal information supporting the premise that psychiatric treatment centers are more able to provide educational services to students than the public school district. ASD believes that a strong working relationship with these treatment centers is critical so that the corresponding needs of students for education and treatment can be accomplished. However, ASD also believes that this bill is not premised upon a need of students; but rather, upon a desire of certain private treatment centers to take over educational services at public expense. For this reason and others, ASD does not support HB 102. The Anchorage School District has several psychiatric treatment facilities within its geographical boundaries. Under current law, ASD is obligated to and does serve all students who are admitted to these treatment facilities, regardless of whether they are ASD students or students from other Alaska school districts. These current laws include both state law (AS 14.30.186, AS 14.30.340, and AS 14.14.090) and federal law (34 CFR 300.323). Because of the presence of treatment facilities in Anchorage, ASD serves a large number of Alaskan students who are in need of residential psychiatric treatment. For decades, ASD has met the general education and special education needs of these Alaskan students and intends to continue doing so. ASD provides direct instructional support to students through qualified teachers, administrators, and support personnel. In Anchorage, where most students are served, there is not a need for residential treatment centers to provide educational services, nor does ASD agree that such a center can provide more "effective" educational services. HB 102 has been compared to the charter school laws. The "contract" provided for in HB 102 is comparable to the charter school application required to be submitted by charter school applicants. There is an important difference, however, Charter schools are public schools. They are not private treatment centers. Additionally, the charter school laws allow public school districts to carefully consider the need for an educational program like that proposed by the charter school applicant. Under the law, the School Board has broad authority and discretion to approve or deny a charter school contract. Unlike the charter school laws, HB 102 removes all discretion from school boards because it requires a school district to execute a contract so long as the contract meets the requirements of the law. ("A school board shall enter into a contract to provide payments to a residential psychiatric treatment center ..." HB 102, Section 2.) ASD believes that HB 102 is unconstitutional. Article VII of the Alaska Constitution prohibits the expenditure of public funds for the direct benefit of a private educational institution. The Alaska Supreme Court has stated that "the direct benefit prohibition involves government aid to education conducted outside the public schools." Sheldon Jackson v. State, 599 P.2d 127, 130 (Alaska 1979). HB 102 does exactly what Sheldon Jackson v. State prohibits - it establishes a system of education to be provided by a private organization. The fact that the private entities at issue also provide treatment services does not mean that the educational services they provide can be supported with public funds. There's been some testimony that by providing ancillary services these treatment centers may not run afoul of the Constitution. This is not accurate. Even if non-educational services are provided, these private treatment centers would still be accepting public funds for providing educational services. The "contract" requirements of HB 102 are designed to ensure that the educational services comply with the same requirements in existence for public schools. The Alaska Supreme Court has also found that even indirect support of private schools (such as providing bus transportation to students) violates Alaska's constitutional prohibition of using public funds for private education; Matthews v. Quinton, 362 P.2d 932 (Alaska 1961). Here HB 102 provides for direct payment of a local school district's educational funds to a private treatment center for the sole purpose of allowing that private center to provide educational services to students. Finally, ASD believes the appeal process provided for in HB 102 is inappropriate. The proposed law provides a private vendor with a statutory right to appeal the district's decision to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. No other private vendor is afforded this type of appeal in Alaska's system of public education. This represents yet another example of how public funds will be expended to support private institutions. Thank you to members of the committee for your consideration of our written comments about HB 102. We would welcome and appreciate an opportunity to address the committee and describe in further detail our program to support students in treatment facilities, our record of success meeting these students where they are and keeping them on track to meet their educational goals, and our commitment to serving these students now and into the future. 8:47:05 AM KATHIE WASSMANN, Executive Director, Special Education, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, testified with concern for HB 102, pointing out the individualized education program (IEP) needs and requirements that the bill has not addressed. The lack of an IEP becomes a liability to the school district, not the contractor. Additionally, a means for tracking student funding is not clearly stated in the bill, and she provided several anecdotal scenarios for how special education funds are determined and the administrative issues that may arise. Solving the administrative concerns will incur costs as a tracking system will need to be established. As a parent with a daughter who has been in treatment, she said, when a student falls behind in school issues can arise and the IEP becomes crucial. 8:54:10 AM CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony. 8:54:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ inquired what the procedure is for a student to receive an IEP. MS. ALSOP described the collaborative process that is entered into when a student arrives. Parent's, certified teachers, the designated oversight administrator from the district, and other care providers, are included in meetings with the North Star staff when addressing/modifying an IEP. CHAIR KELLER confirmed that the parent is involved in the process. MS. ALSOP stressed that parental involvement is imperative. 8:56:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that federal law holds a school district responsible for providing special education services to students. He asked about the school district's ability to contract for those services, and how the districts responsibilities are satisfied. MS. ALSOP the intent of HB 102 is for the contractor to work closely with the district to develop the IEP, with the parents or other agencies involved with the student. REPRESENTATIVE COLVER commented that this is a highly litigious area and parents may become dissatisfied and bring charges against any/all of the agencies involved. CHAIR KELLER pointed out that the concept of an education is held under the constitution. 9:00:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that a number of changes have recently been made to the North Star facility. She asked for an updated overview from the contractor, as well as ASD. 9:02:14 AM MS. ALSOP reviewed the situation beginning in September, and the beginning of the school year. An immediate increase in allocated time allowed for additional teaching staff, and the hiring of an administrator to oversee the special schools department was completed. Committee members visited in the succeeding two months and during that time several issues were apparent, some in the area of high priority needs, which included: absence of computer equipment for accessing on-line education; clear transitions between the neighborhood schools, the treatment facility, and re-entry to school; oversight by the administrator was not clear and apparent; transcripts were not, and are still not, being aligned; and other lingering high priority leads. She said that although the district has put forth a good faith effort, to try to meet these needs, it is still not possible for students to [matriculate] forward, as expressed in the previous testimony, and continued: It is our belief, she stated, that if we are allowed to be able to integrate mental health with education, we can provide a system that will help that child be able to move forward and go back into their neighborhood residential school and be on the same track with their like peers. We also, do belief that we have the ability to be able to provide a much clearer transitional process. 9:05:32 AM MR. GRAFF reported on the improvements, paraphrasing from a prepared statement [subsequently made part of the committee packet], which read [original punctuation provided]: In order to support students in psychiatric treatment and provide educational services at NSBHS in Anchorage, ongoing conversations with the local Educational Director and the Vice President of Specialty Education of United Health Services of Delaware, Inc., have occurred and resulted in the following improvements; 1. Updated registration process with current ASD enrollment packet; 2. Enhanced communication with parents of students in psychiatric treatment at enrollment including personal calls by the transitional counselor to ensure appropriate course placement, IEP goals are addressed, and accurate contact information is shared; 3. Facilitated communication with parent or guardian and the receiving school to discuss transition plans upon student discharge; 4. Scheduled weekly meeting between ASD Counselor and NSBHS clinicians; 5. Purchased and installed technology upgrades by ASK for NSBHS facility: 92 new computers; ten radio controllers; complete reinstallation of an Anchorage School District wireless network; 6. Increased staffing: a. Sue Doherty was recently named as Principal of Special Schools upon the death of Jerry Koetje in December. Ms. Doherty has thirty years of special education experience as a resource teacher, transition specialist, department chair, supervisor of special education, and an administrator. Most recently, she served as an assistant principal at a comprehensive high school transitioning students from residential treatment facilities back to their neighborhood school programs. b. Transition Counselor position increased from .5 FTE (half time) to 1.0 FTE (full time). c. Teacher positions increased from 6 FTE to 10 FTE. 7. Created Special Schools Office in ASD Education Center as home base for ASD Special Schools Principal and non-teaching staff; 8. Scheduled and conducted monthly staff meeting with Special Schools personnel; 9. Conducted daily site visits to NSBHS by the principal, counselor or special education department chair; 10. Increased communications between ASD Special Schools Principal and the hospital staff; 11. Established weekly meeting between the NSBHS Education Director and ASD Special Schools Principal; 12. Affirmed all teachers are "Highly Qualified" in relevant core areas of instruction; 13. Increased instructional day for acute care students from a half-day to full day program at the request of the NSBHS Director; 14. Established regular progress meetings with NSBHS staff Mike Lyons and Evelyn Alsup, and ASD staff Mike Henry, Executive Director of Secondary Education and Sue Doherty, Special Schools Principal; 15. Scheduled quarterly progress meetings with NSBHS staff Mike Lyons and Evelyn Alsup, and ASD staff Mike Graham, Chief Academic Officer, Linda Carlson, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Support, Mike Henry, Executive Director, Secondary Education and Sue Doherty, Special Schools Principal; 16. Addressed reported staff shortages experienced by North Star Behavioral Health System that result in relocation of classrooms and increased class sizes, without prior notice and on any given day, by remaining flexible and committed to serving our students. In addition, ASD has responded to a list of priority areas in need provided by NSBHS in December of 2015. Because we are committed to serving all students and enhancing our services through communication and collaboration with community providers, we have accommodated every request made by North Star Behavioral Health System through United Health Services of Delaware, Inc. The Anchorage School District enjoys strong partnerships with Providence Hospital, Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Alaska Child and Family, Volunteers of America and Office of Children Services to name a few. Through cooperative engagement with clinical care providers, we have continued to increase our educational services and supports for our children with the most complex mental health and behavioral needs. Anchorage School District is providing a supportive educational program for students with acute challenges. ASD disagrees with the premise that a treatment center is able to provide more effective educational services to a student than a school district can provide. School districts are in the best position to provide high quality public educational services. Given all that has been accomplished in providing comparable general and special educational services to students in psychiatric treatment, we believe this bill is unnecessary legislation and could negatively impact the school district's ability to support our special needs students. As noted during the meeting, the bill raises concerns about accountability under IDEA, a highly litigious area, opening the door for future conflicts. HB 102 has been compared to the charter school laws. Charter schools are public schools. They are not private treatment centers. HB 102 abrogates the local control of school boards to determine the need for educational programs and circumvents school board authority and discretion for approving or denying a charter school contract. HB 1202 removes all discretion from school boards because it requires a school district to execute a contract so long as the contract meets the requirements of the law. HB 102 has far-reaching implications for districts across Alaska. ASD has consistently expressed concerns about HB 102. The Anchorage School District cannot support HB 102 because districts will not maintain control over the quality of education delivered, there is potential for conflict over accountability under IDEA a highly litigious area, and the bill strips local school boards of the authority to determine what educational programs are needed in their districts. For decades ASD has met the general education and special education needs of Alaskan students in need of residential psychiatric treatment and intends to continue doing so. We appreciate the opportunity to share these accomplishments and express our concerns relative to HB 102. 9:09:51 AM CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony. 9:09:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered Conceptual Amendment 1, labeled 29-LS0519\S.1, Glover, 3/15/16, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to school districts;" Page 2, line 20, following "(a)": Insert "A school district may enter into a contract to provide payments to a residential psychiatric treatment center that provides an educational program for a student admitted to the center. If a school district and a residential psychiatric treatment center are unable to agree on a proposed contract on or before April 1 immediately preceding the first school year for which the residential psychiatric treatment center is seeking funding, the school board where a student who is admitted to the center is enrolled shall enter into a contract with the center as provided in (b) of this section. (b)" Page 2, line 7: Delete "(b)" Insert "(c)" Page 2, line 26: Delete "(b)" Insert "(c)" Page 3, line 6: Delete "(b)(21)" Insert "(c)(21)" Page 4, line 14: Delete "(a)" Insert "(b)" Page 4, line 23: Delete "(c)" Insert "(d)" Page 4, line 24: Delete "(a)" Insert "(b)" Page 4, line 27: Delete "(d)" Insert "(e)" Page 4, line 30: Delete "(e)" Insert "(f)" Delete "(a)" Insert "(b)" Page 5, line 7: Delete "(f)" Insert "(g)" Page 5, line 12: Delete "(g)" Insert "(h)" Page 5, line 15: Delete "AS 14.30.800" Insert "AS 14.30.800(f) - (g)" Page 5, line 17: Delete "AS 14.30.800(b)" Insert "AS 14.30.800(c)" CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion. 9:10:58 AM JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 is offered on request of Legislative Legal Services due to concerns regarding potential constitutional conflicts by setting different standards for school districts which had entered into a contract prior to January 1, of a given school year. 9:13:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed concern for schools that have working contracts in place with a treatment center. Without a provision for them to continue the relationship, it will cause a disruption in services in order to recreate a working system. CHAIR KELLER removed his objection. Without further objection Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:14:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ clarified the intent of the amendment, and asked for comment from the contracting agency. 9:16:30 AM MS. ALSOP stated support for the amendment as adopted. 9:17:03 AM CHAIR KELLER REPRESENTATIVE offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1, to wit: page 1, line 8: following "contract" insert "with the provision in (c)" [No objection was voiced and the motion was treated as withdrawn.] 9:18:13 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:18 a.m. to 9:21 a.m. 9:21:24 AM CHAIR KELLER moved to rescind action on the adoption of Amendment 1. Without objection Amendment 1 was withdrawn. CHAIR KELLER announced HB 102 as held.