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 REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33-LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23, as the work draft. 8:09:48 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD [HB 111 was set aside and discussed again later during the meeting.] HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED  8:31:16 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD returned to 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, Presented a PowerPoint titled "HB 111 - Deaf & Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights" [hard copy included in the committee packet],on behalf of Representative Allard, prime sponsor. 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 their available resources. She added that currently, there is nothing that says the school districts must provide the information about resources available to the students, adding that the bill would ensure that each district is providing the same resources and making sure that students and parents are aware. She further noted that the school for the deaf is currently in admininstrative code, but not 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 it [the bill] would not force every child who is deaf or hard of hearing in the state to go to school in Anchorage. Instead, it would provide the services for those who want to stay with family and want to be taught in the school they are already enrolled in. 8:36:47 AM MS. CAUSER gave the sectional analysis for HB 111, 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 fee of $6,000 for legal fees to implement the necessary regulation changes. 8:39:08 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD welcomed invited testimony. 8:39:16 AM The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:39 a.m. 8:39:52 AM ANDREA SAMUEL, representing self, testified in support of HB 111. She said one of her children uses cochlear implants to listen and talk, and informed the committee of her background as a practicing speech and language pathologist for ten years at the time of her daughter's birth. Her job, she said, was to help individuals with communication disorders regain their ability to access language, but with all the tools she had, educating a deaf or hard of hearing child was not one of them. She said there is not currently a universal means of screening [for hearing loss], and there are families who are faced with communication decisions that may look different than parents whose child's hearing loss was detected at birth. These families need unbiased counseling and need to "make the final call" as to what they want for their child, therefore, the right professionals need to be available. She reiterated her support for HB 111 and all things recognized within the bill. 8:45:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked Ms. Samuel whether her pediatrician helped diagnose the [hearing] problem with her child. MS. SAMUEL replied that in 2008, newborn hearing screening [Early Hearing Detection and Intervention] was mandated in Alaska so hospitals would have hearing screeners in place, which is how she found out about her child's hearing. She added that she had to go out of state due to lack of resources. 8:48:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether Ms. Samuel financed her child's care through personal finances, insurance, or other means. MS. SAMUEL replied, "All of the above." REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his understanding that in the bill, hearing problems might not be detected until the child enters the school system. He expresses his concern about the lateness of that detection. MS. SAMUEL concurred; however, she noted that most children are getting their hearing assessed at birth so the parents would be aware. She said there is also the possibility of later onset hearing loss which would not be caught right away. 8:52:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed his interest in Ms. Samuel's background in education and experience in her school district. He asked how the bill would help the relationship, or barriers, to her child's education. MS. SAMUEL replied that she was lucky to live in the Anchorage School District, which is fairly well resourced. She said what she would like to see is more awareness among teachers and administrators in supporting a child 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 REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Samuel for her thoughts on whether more statutory mandates are needed for districts in the state to be able to provide the resources she had been discussing. MS. SAMUEL replied yes because often times what she had seen, she said, is that school districts "kick the can down the road" when they are faced with a task they are not well resourced for. She opined that the bill would correct many issues facing the treatment and education of hearing-impaired students and their parents. 8:58:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Samuel whether the bill in its current form would do what she hoped. MS. SAMUEL replied that the bill would provide the structure that will result in a function. She added that the bill would make clear to the school districts that all options must be presented for helping deaf and hard of hearing students. 9:00:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated that the bill would have a $6,000 fiscal note for the Department of Education & Early Development (DEED), and she asked Ms. Samuel for her thoughts on districts needing the resources. She drew attention to the Special Education Service Agency (SESA) and asked Ms. Samuel whether she had any insights into the agency. MS. SAMUEL offered her perception about how much funding would be attached to the bill when there is $6000 available. She acknowledged the state's current deficit, but that is an important part of passing a bill. She added that there is also money that comes from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that serves special education (SPED) children. Regardless of how much money the state has, she opined, the proposed legislation is the right thing to do, and needs to be in place. 9:03:58 AM MS. CAUSER drew attention to page 2, line 3-7 of the bill, and reiterated that the parent gets to choose the method of communication that they determine to be most appropriate for their child. 9:04:38 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD added that deaf and hard of hearing children should be provided with the same opportunities as hearing children. If students choose not to attend a specialized school for the deaf and hard of hearing, they can 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 students and SPED would fall underneath the base student allocation (BSA) and be a part of the formula increase. 9:05:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reinforced her support for the bill. She highlighted page 3, line 3, and asked whether the statement "must provide residential services" would generate an additional fiscal note, and whether it had been addressed. MS. CAUSER believed it was addressed in the fiscal note, but offered to follow up with the committee. 9:06:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern about the language starting on page 3, line 9, "if a school district determines that placement at the program is appropriate", and asked whether parent should replace the term school district. 9:07:52 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her belief that it 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 bill] was not going above what is already in federal law. She reiterated that the bill would make things specific so that school districts are more informed of what to do with kids who are deaf and hard of hearing. 9:09:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed the school districts funding through IDEA, and shared her belief that many children who are deaf do not receive the "intensive times 13" funding, due to the intense criteria, including the need of an aide present at all times. She offered her understanding that districts would struggle to meet the need, and opined that more fiscal monies should be with the bill. MS. SAMUEL acknowledged the shortage of individual aides in the districts. She explained that some children do not need one-on- one aides; however, they need other supports, such as environmental supports. 9:11:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified that the funding that comes with a full-time aide is needed in many cases. MS. SAMUEL likened kids to bonds, indicating that an early investment is going to make a difference. The bill would give children the access they need to learn, she said. 9:12:19 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD related that she worked with Ms. Samuel on the bill and she was an intricate part. She opined that no cost was too high to establish education for all children, and believed 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, and provided a summary of his role in the council, and noted his position as vice chair for the Deaf Education Board. He explained that 17 other states have passed similar legislation, known as the deaf children's bill of rights [Bill of Rights for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children]. He alluded to a number of reasons, as laid out in the presentation by Ms. Causer, to support the bill. He emphasized that the key idea was parent and family choice. The bill, he said, would ensure that all families of deaf and hard of hearing children understand all the resources available to them. The aspirational aspect of the bill, he said, is that in Alaska, deaf and hard of hearing children would be treated as equals and receive the support they need to fulfill their full potential. 9:18:42 AM MR. SAVILLE wished to address questions from the committee, but first pointed out that the statewide school for deaf and hard of hearing is located in Anchorage, Alaska, and funded through both the Anchorage School District and partially through the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). He briefly explained how housing works for rural children. He noted that he also works with SESA, as Representative Story had touched on earlier in the hearing. 9:21:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX pointed out that some services provided through the Anchorage School District meet some of the needs; however, he asked for clarification on how much need is not being met. MR. SAVILLE replied that he could not provide an answer currently. He reiterated that the funding is not only through the Anchorage School District. 9:22:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether there is enough funding being provided, and whether a larger fiscal note is needed. In reference to the gaps in services mentioned by Representative Prax, she asked for more clarification from Mr. Saville. MR. SAVILLE stated that there are staffing shortages everywhere, and anything that can be done to promote recruitment is welcomed; however, he said he was not comfortable answering the specific question on the needs of children not being met. He offered to gather information and provide it to the committee at a later date. 9:25:07 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD reported that the number of deaf and hard of hearing children in Alaska was 149, adding that few people know American Sign Language (ASL). She pointed out that in the bill, a parent would be allowed to go into a child's classroom and interpret. 9:25:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE shared with the committee that he had read through the Guidance for Special Education Personnel [found on DEED's website] and found a section on teachers with students who are visually impaired or deaf, who have the primary responsibility for planning educational programs. He highlighted page 2, line 7 of the bill, which referenced delivering services to deaf children. He shared his understanding that the provision would codify a requirement that was not being met into regulation. He asked how the state is doing for the 149 deaf or hard of hearing individuals. 9:28:06 AM MR. SAVILLE responded that he did not think the language in Section 2 was any different. He asked Representative Ruffridge to repeat his question. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that he was seeking clarity on where Alaska stands in serving the 149 deaf and hard of hearing students, and whether having a special school specifically for the deaf and hard of hearing children would fall outside what [educators] are already asked to do, which is educate kids in the environment in which they live. MR. SAVILLE believed that having the school is good because it allows families to make the choice about what is best for their children. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how the state was doing in terms of following the guidance for special education personnel, for example. MR. SAVILLE replied that he would look into specifics and get back to the committee at a later date. 9:32:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether the 149 [deaf and hard of hearing students] fell under the intensive needs portion of the [Foundation Funding Formula] fully, partially, or not at all. MR. SAVILLE replied that he did not have an answer to the intensive needs portion formula, noting that DEED may better speak to that question. 9:33:46 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Mr. Saville whether he believed that passing the proposed legislation could encourage schools to be more willing to provide education to children who are deaf or hard of hearing. MR. SAVILLE shared his belief that statutes carried more weight. CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether Mr. Enoch could respond to Representative McKay's inquiry. 9:35:07 AM DONALD ENOCH, Education Administrator, Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), explained that it is a district responsibility to submit whether they want the child's individualized education plan (IEP) to be reviewed for intensive funding. He added that students with hearing and visual impairments that require specialized instruction are exempted from the seven criteria that most intensive needs students follow. He added that a full-time aide would be waived. He confirmed that students considered deaf would still qualify for the intensive funding under the category of "deafness." 9:36:33 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD thanked Mr. Enoch for his helpful input, especially in regard to funding. 9:37:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the IEP "carries a lot of weight" and people are responsive to it; nonetheless, she said there was more to do. 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 opined that assessments should be taken care of through the Department of Health (DOH) for checkups and detection to discover potential problems earlier. 9:39:21 AM MR. SAVILLE agreed that there may be children missed between birth and pre-school and encouraged a legislative solution to that problem. He opined that including that language in the bill could only have positive results. 9:40:20 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD related a personal anecdote about her daughter's hearing issue, explaining that the discovery was made by a school nurse. She stated that she does not doubt there are still kids struggling with hearing loss, and emphasized the importance of addressing it as early as possible. 9:41:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Enoch to describe Child Find. MR. ENOCH explained that Child Find is a federal requirement that all school districts must participate in; however, not all districts participate the same way. Larger districts may participate on a monthly basis, and smaller districts on an as- needed basis. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what ages were covered through Child Find, and whether hearing loss in a child would be detected in a Child Find screening. MR. ENOCH replied the ages for SPED services are typically 3 to 5 and could reach up to age 22. 9:43:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE offered his understanding that in order for an IEP to qualify for intensive needs funding, a child would need to require full time services of an interpreter. He referred to Ms. Samuel's testimony about the technology that allowed children to have their education given in multiple language formats and do not always require an interpreter. He asked whether there is a concern that individuals who don't need one-on-one time, but still qualify as deaf or hard of hearing, would not qualify for intensive needs funding. MR. ENOCH responded that when intensive review files are being done for students who require an interpreter at any point during the day, that student would qualify for intensive funding. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE sought to confirm that a student who required an interpreter only one day of the week would still qualify for the intensive needs funding. MR. ENOCH replied that the intensive funding reviews provide a foundation for how the files are reviewed, and intensive reviews have gone through many changes including regulatory changes. In all circumstances, he said, and 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. REPRESENTATIVE 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 in their practices, the student would qualify, he said. REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE focused on the 149 children identified as deaf or hard of hearing in state and asked Mr. Enoch whether he could give 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 had done any auditing or conducted any studies to get 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 Mr. Enoch whether he had received any complaints or indications from parents that school districts may be aware of a need for services but are not providing said services under the current system. MR. ENOCH confirmed that he had received a number of complaints from parents 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 commented on the general sense of the complaints, and asked what DEED does as follow up procedures to complaints. MR. ENOCH explained that in the event of a compliant, 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. Before testifying, she clarified that under Part C of IDEA there are Child Find and early intervention services. 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 to do so. 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 ascertained that no one else wished to testify and announced that she would leave public testimony open on HB 111. 9:56:13 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited questions and comments from committee members. 9:56:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that he would like to check with the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District to get an idea of what's going on from the boroughs perspective. He opined that [the legislature] was rushing this proposal and needed to hear more from DOH regarding well checks. He added that the legislature should go slow and deliberate with the bill. 9:58:25 AM MS. CAUSER echoed Mr. Savilles sentiments about statutes holding more weight. 9:58:48 AM CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 111 was held over.