House Education Committee Part 3
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
0:00
Where's our list at, Mark? Mr. Stewart, are you ready to proceed? Yes, I'd like to entertain any more questions we have right now. If we've got any, then I will make some closing remarks. Okay, I think that's appropriate. He's closing with that bill we started a while ago.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
0:33
we're doing this, Mr. Brown, the reason we're doing this, I think it's been a decision made and a number. But I'll let Mr. Stewart
Speaker 10
0:42
tell you that decision. Okay. Mr. Stewart, do you have a question? Yes, sir,
Speaker 13
0:51
Mr. Chairman. I think that's kind of where we left off before we went into session. I wanted to ask, and if you remember, we had a discussion about just kind of reminding everyone
that this would make it a requirement for the Academic Challenge Scholarship, and we had talked before we left about there is no foreign language on the ACT test. So that does not address and connect at all with that requirement. which is fifty percent of the requirement along with a two point five great point average uh... which understand how important foreign language is i'm just not sold on the fact that it should be a part
of a requirement uh... did the other question that that uh... i want to raise is is uh... represent steward uh... do you feel that it is is worthy of of discussion or consideration that There is absolutely no requirement for those individuals who play the lottery and fund these scholarships at all. And should their kids and folks in their community have as much right to the proceeds that they're putting in?
And I would go even further to say that, and then would like to hear your response, that it's a proven fact in most states that the lottery is not played by people in higher income brackets and higher educational levels. Would you agree with that? Yes,
Speaker 15
2:22
possibly. I'm kind of a product. I've never bought a
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
2:30
lottery ticket either. But I'm not a high income, but I have got some education. But the thing is what we're saying is we're making this across the board.
It wouldn't be just for the rich people. It wouldn't be just for the highly educated people. It would be for everybody who is applying for the lottery scholarship across the board, everybody in the traditional high school setting. And that money then that you talked about, the people voted to give this money to the schools or for scholarships, and this is just a request to consider putting in a requirement
for foreign language that we had two years ago, and we have the mechanism in place to do that. The delivery system, the teachers are in place. We have the distance learning capability in all schools. We talked about that one morning in our education caucus. The education department said that we have the ability in all schools to teach foreign language. Right. The problem is if we don't go back to what we were doing, we're going to lose that capability. eventually that's going to erode.
The pipeline of teachers and colleges that are studying, preparing to be foreign language teachers are not going to do it if they don't see a job potential out there. Yes,
Speaker 13
3:54
but now isn't it correct that two years ago we did not have this $100 million influx of cash flow into the scholarship program because we did not have the lottery in place? And also, can you tell me which foreign languages
Speaker 15
4:08
we're talking about? Any foreign language. So it could be German, Russian.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
4:13
It could be Chinese. In the governor's five points of his state policy, one of them says that we will become a force in the global economy. And to do that, you've got to be able to talk to the people over the globe. And hopefully having a requirement there would be an impetus to start the process of learning a foreign language. You know, for our kids that are going into the workforce and working, competing with these other people that are learning three languages where we're only learning one.
Speaker 13
4:47
And final question. And I think Representative Hudson is going to try to help you explain the bill. Well, I tell you what, I will yield. I know other members have questions, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield at this time. Well, we really need to,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
5:05
unless we, well, Mr. If I could at this time,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
5:12
you know, I've talked to some people during the break here, and I think at this time what I'd like to do is refer this bill to interim study so that we can bore down and answer these questions over the next two years and come back with a better product.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
5:29
I think that's an excellent idea. Committee, any of you see any objections to that? Seeing none, we'll withdraw this bill and send it to interim study. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Hobbs. Ms. Hobbs, I believe, and after you, I know you've been very patient most of the time. You've been very patient. So if you would like to go to the end of the table, we'll hear your bill. House Bill 1458, I believe, is what we're looking at. You have someone with you, Ms. Hobbs, to set the table with you. You can just get them down there if you want to.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
6:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, it's not about me, but these people travel from northwest Arkansas to come and testify. I understand, and I appreciate their patience,
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
6:15
too, but I appreciate you trying to take care of them. And I would like to just remind you that we've got 35 minutes. We will take back up in 35 minutes, So just keep that in the back of your mind,
Speaker 34
6:28
because we want to finish today, I assume, unless they won't come back Tuesday. I understand,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
6:33
sir, but unfortunately the entire committee is not here either, but we will do the best we can.
Speaker 42
6:39
Well, I hope we've got enough votes, maybe. Would you like for them to introduce themselves first? Yes, please do that. Do we tell who? Jill Schmid.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
7:02
Mark Moore. My name is Greg Brown. I have to push that button. Push the button, please. Greg Brown is my name. You may proceed, Ms. Hobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of you who served on education a couple of years ago may have heard this bill before. This bill is essentially the same one that was presented two years ago.
It's very similar. I asked these people to come join me because they were involved with an interim study that dealt with this bill. But just as a way of an opening, I'd like to remind you that some exceptional public school students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and other lifelong developmental disabilities are educationally hindered by the effects of things that we don't even give a thought to, such as noise, crowds, lights,
bells, changing faces, et cetera. Some of these exceptional children and young people need individual instruction or must learn to function in the home or in a home-like environment before they can build on this learning to function outside the home. An extension education program, which is what House Bill 1458 is, with maximum flexibility for individual circumstances will provide needed educational choices for these exceptional
students and their parents. I would like to emphasize the word choices. I met Jill for the first time right before this committee meeting this morning, and when I talked to her, she told me that before she can leave Northwest Arkansas this morning, she left at about 7 o'clock, she had to tube feed her child. Now, these are things that I don't give a thought to, but yet it's a part of the everyday lives. Our public school systems is a system to address the majority of kids, typical kids, and if
these parents, if their kids had a choice, they would rather go to the school system and be served by it. But in talking to an agency representative a while ago, I said, you know, sometimes the system doesn't work the way it's supposed to. You're going to hear testimony from these people because, like I said, they've been working on this probably for more than two years for the opportunity to be heard and try to get this again but sometimes the system fails and you'll be hearing from people who speak against this that are within the system however
I think it's up to us as lawmakers to
try to make the system work for these exceptional students with that I'll yield to
Speaker 46
9:32
your comments yeah I wanted to thank Debra Hobbs the one she was fighting for to
Speaker 48
9:38
go to lunch was my son So I had to go tube feed him again. But anyway, the truth is you can get an environment that your child can learn successfully in the way the system is set up right now if you win your court case.
And if you don't win your court case, you can't get a system that is set up so that your child can learn. to do this you have to enroll your child in school you have to prove failure that the system doesn't work so you're putting them in there and losing valuable time valuable progress during the time you're trying to battle it out with the schools then you have to obtain a lawyer such as our friend greg brown and then you have to actually take the school to court and you have
to win and in those cases if you have the funds and the time and the energy to do that then you can with the current system you can obtain a an appropriate learning environment for your child they will do homebound eventually if you can go through all those steps the problem is you have to go through all those steps every time your child changes schools so if they change in elementary school you move you go to a different school district it starts all
over again if you move from elementary school to middle school it starts all over again if you move from middle school to junior high it starts all over again the battle is endless and another battle is just that's not what we need so this bill I'll try not to get emotional condenses the process in cases where it's It's obvious that the public school is not the least restrictive environment for these kids. They're not going to be safe, and they're not going to be successful in those learning
environments. And there are cases where it's obvious, it's not anybody's, it's not a guess. So with that in mind, please don't let any of the misinformation, I know you've heard a lot of misinformation about this bill, and don't let any of that that you've heard about this bill keep you from voting yes if we correct that today, if we show you the truth about the bill today. Greg Brown is a litigation lawyer, and he has IDEA experience, and he prepared the interim
study that was adopted by the Education Committee, and he's going to briefly review the adopted results that was adopted by this Education Committee. Let me thank the chair and the committee for allowing
Speaker 53
12:15
me the time. Closer. Can you hear me? Halk into the mic. Is that better? Let me thank the chair and the committee for giving me the opportunity to come here and discuss these issues with you again. Some of you may have heard back in the fall when this committee met in Fayetteville, Arkansas,
at the University of Arkansas campus at the library that I gave a brief presentation there. Because I've already given this presentation once, I'm going to keep my comments very short and succinct today because most of you have heard this. But I would like to very briefly recap the four legal questions that were referred to interim study and the responses to those legal questions. The first question that was presented in the interim study was whether or not this bill violates IDEA
in that the question was, does it violate IDEA's requirement to educate these children in the least restrictive environment possible? Approximately 30 years ago, we educated students with disabilities by segregation. We took these students and we placed them in a room by themselves, and they weren't allowed to participate in the same activities that students without disabilities were allowed to participate in. I think we've seen the error in those ways, and IDEA has gone a long way in correcting that problem.
IDEA, the least restrictive environment requirement, was enacted to be used as a shield to protect these students from that sort of oppressive behavior, and it's done a good job of doing that. But to use the least restrictive environment requirement as a sword to deny these students the benefits that they need and to deny them the ability to take part in these activities would be to use the least restrictive environment requirement in a
way that it was never intended to be used and it would thwart the purpose of IDEA itself both state law and federal law already allow for alternative placement outside of a regular classroom if the students disabilities are so severe that it just doesn't make sense to educate that student in a school and it goes without saying that in probably every school district in the state of Arkansas there are a small number of students whose disabilities are so
severe that attending a public school or even a private school is just not possible this bill is designed to assist those students for those students who who simply cannot attend a public school because of the severity of their disability the least restrictive environment for those students is in fact education in the home and for some it's education in a carefully controlled clinical environment the second question that was presented in the interim
study was is observation in a regular classroom required before a school can develop an IEP or an individualized education program? The answer to that question is no. There are a number of factors and a number of data sources which are to be used or which may be used in determining whether or not a student is in fact disabled and if so, determining that student's IEP. And classroom observation is one of the factors that may be used.
If, however, we as a state say that we have to use one, or in other words, if we were to say we cannot render, we cannot give these services to a student without classroom observation, that would actually violate IDEA because IDEA is very clear that Section 1414 of IDEA states that we can't use any single measure in determining whether or not a student qualifies. The schools are free to use any number of the list provided, but they can't use a single one.
So we could not deny services to a child simply because that child is incapable of being observed in a classroom. Recently, the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals have both stated that, and probably most interestingly, the Board of Education in the city of New York, New York City, has been ordered to provide these services to inmates at Rikers Island. where classroom observation simply is not possible so the answer to question number two is no we we are not required to observe a student in a classroom
context before we can determine that child's IEP the third which is a much quicker answer is does this bill violate the team composition for developing IEPs the individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that when we develop an IEP for a student we should have a parent a teacher a special education instructor and the school administrator this bill does the same thing and in fact in order for a student to comply with this bill in order for a
student to qualify under this bill that student would first have to have in place an IEP which complies with a pr with an already existing statute which is section 6-41-217 that student would already have to have a qualifying IEP in place before that student would become a qualifying student and for that reason it is not possible for the IEP team which which is stated in this house bill to violate IDEA and the fourth and final question which probably was the
most important question, but it's probably the easiest to answer, is does this bill jeopardize federal funding? Do we need to be concerned that we would lose federal funding if we enact this bill? And the answer, which I believe was adopted in the interim study, is no. In fact, we might need to be concerned about losing federal funding if we don't enact this bill. IDEA requires that we have a global strategy which is in place to assess and take care of the
needs of all of our students with disabilities and I mean all of those students not just the students who are capable of attending a public school. We are required to have a flexible strategy for dealing with these students and to meet the unique needs of every student with disabilities in our state. This is exactly the type of bill which I believe is not only allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act but it may very well be required by the Act and with that to to discuss the fiscal impacts of this issue I believe
Speaker 64
19:22
Mark Moore is here to answer those questions thank you could you assist me Jill hold the chart where everybody can see it thank you I noted today this morning we spent quite a while talking about rounding errors. Well, here's the fiscal impact study from this thing. And this time, because we ran this bill in 2009, that's why there was an interim study, and every question that was in dispute in the interim study, it turned out in our favor. In other words, our claims turned out to be the ones. So I guess I'm saying we want to do
pass. Please vote for the people who've been giving you the right information. And now, last time, the impact study said a cost of zero to the state. This time, they come and say $85 million a year. I'll read the statement. This estimate reflects the current opinion of Arkansas Department of Education. During the previous session, an identical bill received a fiscal impact estimate of zero dollars from DOE. Now, friends, if that doesn't raise your eyebrows, they're probably stapled to your forehead.
Now, where are they getting the money? How are they getting the cost so high? I'll tell you, there's two things. There's three things, actually. One is they're double counting costs. Two, they're using dynamic assumptions, whereas every fiscal impact study, probably in your legislative careers, has been made with static, unchanging rules. This one was done with worst-case dynamic rules, and not only that, they are not counting the benefits, the financial benefits from the bill, just the cost. Let me show you what I mean.
These are their numbers. Here's the numbers of kids in each group, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, and seizure disorder. This is how much they think each group will cost. Here's the grand total. Now, what they're assuming is that every child in this group uses all the money. Well, guess what, folks? If they're already in school, if they're already receiving services, we're always spending that money. It is incorrect accounting to say, oh, we're spending it on them in school, they're in this program, they're not in school anymore,
and we're spending it on them again, but we're going to count the money twice. Now, you know, this goes well beyond the rounding error you all talked about today. They are assuming every single child with this condition in the state will be in this program, and they are assuming that they're going to spend the money on them in school, and then they're going to spend the money on them again in this program, which is flat wrong. Right. And, you know, they're not counting any of the benefits. Like Jill just said, somebody's got to sue the school to get the services they need
every time their child changes schools. Well, that costs money. You know, we spend a lot of time talking about transportation costs today. Well, how much does it take to come pick up a kid with cerebral palsy and in those special vans that hauls the wheelchair in instead of letting them do it at home for a couple of years until they get up to speed. And yes, these parents want their children to be normal. That's their goal. But sometimes you can't take fourth graders and schedule them against a high school football team and expect them to get better. They're just going to get frustrated and discouraged,
and that's what happens to these kids when their environment is overwhelming. But our sponsor has already said, look, first of all, very few people with epilepsy, almost all of them, can go to school. Fine. So we'll just deduct this category from the cost. We'll agree to an amendment to take them off the bill. They didn't want it. But the point is, these 4,000, let's just take the autism kids. These 4,000 kids, most of them are in school. Next one, please.
Nationwide, and that's the issue here. How many of those 4,000 kids are already in school, so when they say it's going to cost you an extra bit of money, they're double counting. Nationwide, about 25% of the kids with autism are out of school and 75% are in school. And I suspect that's going to be the very same, very similar in Arkansas. So in other words, next one, please. If you want a realistic, dynamic estimate,
which under a static estimate, the cost would be zero. But if you want me to be honest with you and give you an honest, dynamic estimate of how much the cost part of this bill would be, the benefits would be over here, but the cost part, you take, of the 4,000 kids with autism in this state, you take the 1,000 that are not currently receiving services. Assume every single one of them signed up on this program the day it started and stayed with the program the whole time. what is the maximum potential cost
of this program $4,000 times 25% is $1,000 new serves $1,000 new serves if you give them $10,000 each and the budget I just showed you from the state only assumes $6,700 so in other words our figures we're saying this is the maximum cost we're allowing more than they were The total potential cost is $10 million, but you've got to subtract out the benefits.
What if some of these kids make something of themselves instead of having to have care for life? That's a savings to the state. What happens if instead of the special bus coming to their house and picking them up every day, they spend a few years, they hire staff to get along with them well in their own home where they don't feel threatened? That's saving. What about missing out on all these lawsuits? What about, because what this bill does is it takes the 20% of your special ed kids that are the most expensive to educate and the most potential for lawsuits, and it educates them for the average cost of the average special ed student.
Now, that is a potential savings, and that is a great relief for if you're a superintendent and you have a situation you can't handle and the parent is getting litigious and the lawyer is getting mad. This is a perfect way to say, look, okay, you want this program, you want this from us, you want that from us. How about here's your account, let's see what you can do. And then that might satisfy them. So the conclusion is these children need this help.
Now, two years ago, what stopped us, I really believe, was misinformation about legal questions. In other words, they just threw a bunch of stuff up there to scare you all out of voting for this bill and giving it a due pass. And so we had an interim study on it. We won every question on the interim study. And now they've got some scary budget numbers. But, friends, they were right the first time. The cost is zero if you use static scoring like every other bill in your career. And even if we use dynamic scoring, worst-case scenario, right, it's $10 million.
And you know what? Those are kids we are not now serving. So if we're serving 1,000 extra kids, then, yeah, it costs a little more because you're serving kids that right now are not part of the system and are out there just potential lawsuits and potential lifelong rules of the state. Any questions, please?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
26:53
Committee, any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. I think we have some people signed up to speak.
First, we'll go to the audience and speak against this bill. Mr. Tom Hicks, I believe, has signed up, ADE. Just remind everyone, we've got about 15 minutes to play with here. Identify yourself
Speaker 34
27:21
with the record, please, and then you may proceed. Thank you,
Speaker 73
27:26
sir. I'm Tom Hicks, the coordinator of special ed with the Arkansas Department of Education.
Courtney Ford
Unverified
27:31
My name is Courtney Ford. I'm the attorney with the special education unit of
Speaker 76
27:37
the Department of Education. Tom Kimbrell, commissioner of education, and these are our special ed experts. You
Speaker 66
27:42
may proceed. Just a couple of things in the very
Speaker 79
27:48
beginning. The question about the fiscal impact statement for the bill last time, I've been with the Department of Education for almost 40 years. I was aware of that bill. We were never asked to prepare a physical impact statement for that last bill.
I do not know why it was zero, but our department was never – we were never asked to prepare one is what I'm saying. I know nothing about that. The question that we have with this particular bill is the special education unit is given the responsibility to enforce the IDEA, which is Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We have the oversight. We have the administration of that program.
This is a program with specific outlines as to how the funds are to be allocated and how they are to be followed through. There are disability categories which are allowed. Autism in this particular bill is the only one of those categories which is actually allowed under the present IDEA categories. In this respect, they can be served under other categories. They may be served under the health impaired.
The cerebral palsy children may be served under the health impaired or the orthopedically impaired. But specifically, the only one in IDEA is the one called autism. The real questions which we have at this point, first of all, I'm a little concerned about the relationship of having to sue the school to move from one location from one placement to another. That should not be happening.
If a child has an IEP, that IEP is supposed to follow the child. Now, if there's a problem with that, we have a mechanism to work through that. But it is not necessary to have to go to legal means to move a child from one local placement to another. That's the reason we have IEP, so we can go from one school district to another, from one state to another, because that's child's individual education program. So that should not be a problem. If it is, I wish someone had brought it to my attention because I think we got to handle
it much easier than going into some litigation for that particular issue. Another thing that I'm concerned with is that in IDEA, there is no provision for funds to be made to anyone as a private citizen. You cannot make payments to parents for treatment under IDEA. That's one of those issues that, you know, is not in our purview to make that decision
because that is not allowable expenditure under IDEA. The LRE issue is one that has been brought up before. The obligation for us is to see that the child is educated as much to the maximum extent possible with his regular peers, non-disabled peers. When a child is removed in any degree of that continuum, it presents a problem as far as the LRE is concerned. Certainly there's always that possibility for home instruction, for hospitalization
instruction, for residential institutions, but it's for extremely, extremely difficult cases as they've talked about. I don't know that the situations with students with epilepsy, students with these other categories we're talking about here would fall into that category as far as a home study without being classified as a severely, severely disabled child. The IEP is the heart and soul of IDEA.
It only applies to IDEA. If a child is not considered an IDEA child, then the IEP would not become into effect because that only applies to that program. To be diagnosed, to be served under IDEA, it's a total team disciplinary action. It takes the doctor, certainly is a part of it for those kids, but it takes a team of other experts. The IEP team itself has to be a teacher of that child, and for a child not to be in school
and have an IEP prepared for them, I think we've become a bit problematic here. Courtney, our attorney, can give you some examples as far as rights under IDEA and perhaps some of those others, too. Courtney. Mr. Wrenn, you
Speaker 85
32:48
have a question? I'm going to order, Mr. Chairman. It'll be fine, Mr. Wrenn. The audience needs to respect both sides for and against and does not need to be speaking while we have testimony.
Speaker 87
32:59
Okay. Ms. Hutchison. I have a question. You're recognized.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
33:14
Thank you for coming. I see you now. You mentioned that if the child is in such a severe situation that there is possibilities for home teaching. But then earlier you said that money can't go to private personnel for parents.
So how do you arrange it when there is a situation for home instruction? The school is responsible for that.
Speaker 73
33:42
Do they go to the home then? They can go to the home. There are all kinds of technological things. You can Skype from the district into the home. There are other kinds of distance learnings that can be done. So, yes, that can be
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
33:57
done through the home setting. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carnine, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Residential also is available if the circumstances so warranted.
Yes, sir. But it is still a responsibility to the school. Yes, sir. That's part of the continuum. In other words, you may have a child which actually may need residential treatment away from the East School District, and that is also. That is correct, sir. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Ms.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
34:21
Courtney, did you have anything else you want to add? Well, as far as the fiscal
Speaker 100
34:25
impact statement, I believe there was some question as to where those numbers came from. I would like to offer some information on that. You may, and I think I just saw Richard Wilson walk in the door.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
34:36
He may want to participate, but, of course, you may be smarter than he
Speaker 100
34:42
is. I don't know, so we'll just go and see. Well, I would like to first say that the $10,000, $10,086 amount, that came directly from the bill. The bill on page 3 and extending on to page 4 states that the extension education program account shall be made up of the per student foundation funding, which is $6,023, plus an amount equal to the per student alternative learning environment categorical funding, $4,063.
Add those together, you get the $10,086 used in our fiscal impact. We did a prevalence estimate on the number of students that would be eligible under this bill. Without knowing how many students out there have CP or seizure disorders or pervasive development disorders, it's hard to, I mean, we can say how many are currently identified, but we cannot track or even begin to estimate without just going off studies and prevalence data
how many students that would, in fact, be. So that is what we did. We took the approximate number of students that would be eligible. We multiplied it by the $10,086, and that is how we came up with the numbers in the fiscal impact statement, which for the first year would be over $83 million. Now, I believe there was also some question about double counting. Now, schools receive funding based on average daily membership. Average daily membership is calculated based on prior year ADM.
So for the first year that this bill would be implemented, would go into effect, the school districts would be receiving money based on the kids who were in their district the prior year. So for year one, you're paying the districts for those kids, and you're paying out the $10,000 for those kids to the providers and the therapies that they would be receiving. Now, the second year, the cost estimate would go down probably about 50% to 60%, and we also have done estimates on that. You're looking at about a $41 million impact in cost after that.
So the only double paying would be that first year where you're paying the district for the prior year enrollment and the students eligible
Speaker 100
37:15
also like to point out, as far as the conflicting areas of IDEA, as Tom pointed out, there's the eligibility criteria,
which under IDEA is a comprehensive evaluation. you have to have a disability that has to cause you to need special education and those related services. Under the bill, it's strictly the diagnosis by a physician or a psychologist of those four listed disabilities, which in and of themselves would not entitle you to education or services under IDEA. As far as the LRE placement, again, as Tom said, And we, as a state agency, are charged with ensuring that IDEA is upheld,
and part of IDEA says you do not separate children unless it is absolutely necessary. It's been stated that homebound is an option, residential treatment is an option. IDEA lays out numerous options for children based on their specific needs and not strictly based on preference. The IEP team is to be the people who make that decision, And under IDEA, that team is to be made up of the parents, a special ed teacher, a regular ed teacher,
someone representing the district, and any others who have knowledge or special expertise of the child's disability. Under the bill, it says an IEP is to be drafted by a teacher for compensation and a specialist. So, again, you're limiting the people that have influence on the development of that plan. Ms.
Courtney Ford
Unverified
38:44
Ford. Yes, I'm sorry. I hate to interrupt you, and I hate to say what I'm going
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
38:48
to say, but this committee cannot be in session when the House is in session. Can I make just one last point, and then
Speaker 100
38:57
I will wrap it up? I just want to say also that any rights and entitlements and protections
that parents and students have under IEDA, they would be giving up. And so all the complaint process, the due process hearings that we administer through our office, they would not be entitled to that, and they would be left solely with lawsuits, litigation. Okay. Committee, I
Speaker 102
39:16
– Ms. Clemmer. Are we – could we vote? Yes, if you'll make a motion. But that may not
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
39:26
be what the bill's sponsor wants. I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask a question. We have two
Speaker 4
39:31
options. We can vote or we can come back.
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
39:36
Okay. Committee, we talked about meeting tomorrow evening. We're not going to do that. But you need to know, anybody that's got a bill in this committee, we'll try to meet three times Tuesday. We'll meet regular time. We'll meet in the middle afternoon, and we'll meet up on adjournment. And, Ms. Hobbs, you know, I know your people have come a long way, and I'm very sorry for that. But we're not coming back today. We cannot come back today in this meeting.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
40:05
So does that mean we'll continue it next week?
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
40:07
If you want to continue this bill Tuesday. Okay. Yes. If she has a special order business. We're not going to give her a special order. We'll give her first. And we're going to limit it, probably. Meeting adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 10
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 42
Speaker 46
Speaker 48
Speaker 53
Speaker 64
Speaker 73
Courtney Ford
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 66
Speaker 79
Speaker 85
Speaker 87
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 60
Speaker 102
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 4