Special Education Hearing.  There has been a lot of discussion around the special education issue both in terms of funding shortfalls and paperwork and procedural burdens early this legislative session.  Improving the special education formula is on almost every--if not all--platforms of the major education lobbying group.  The growing amount of revenue being diverted from districts' general funds to pay for special education costs that exceed their special education formula revenue has indeed reached a level that is untenable.

As important as correcting the funding issue is (and it will receive extensive attention during the 2019 Legislative Session), special education procedures that add hours of paperwork for special education teachers and special education administrators to perform took center stage at today's Senate E-12 Finance and Policy Committee.  Over the summer, the Senate held a series of committee meetings that looked at special education procedures in hopes of easing some of the regulatory burden faced by school districts while ensuring that the rights of special education students are not eroded in the process.

The New Ulm school district, led by Superintendent Jeff Bertrang and Special Services Coordinator Irina Soboleva, took a long look at procedures they believe add to teachers' paperwork burden but add little to the education product delivered to students qualifying to special education.  The results of New Ulm's work found its way into a series of bills that the Senate E-12 Finance and Policy Committee heard today.

The first bill up was SF 749, a bill authored by Senator Gary Dahms, that would eliminate the requirement that school districts must offer parents a conciliation conference prior to a dispute resolution conference.

Next up was SF 482, Senator Eric Pratt's bill that would allow, but not require, districts to state or district assessments related to the student's educational needs.

Senator Paul Anderson's SF 244 was up next.  Like SF 749, SF 244 alters the conciliation conference process.

Fourth in the queue was SF 640, authored by Senator Paul Utke.  Currently, a transition plan for special education student must be developed by the time the student enters the ninth grade.  This goes beyond Federal law, which only requires that the plan be developed by the time the student turns 16.

Senator Dahms returned to the stand with SF 717, a bill that would allow districts to perform a functional behavioral assessment without having to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the student.

The day closed with Senator Greg Clausen presenting SF 159, a bill that would eliminate the requirement that all individualized learning plans contain short-term objectives.  Short-term objectives would still be required for students taking alternative assessments.

As is the case with all discussions regarding special education policy, diverging opinions--sometimes strong opinions--were expressed by the different sides of the debate.  Parent and advocacy groups spoke against the changes, arguing that the proposals would erode provisions that protect the rights of special education students.  On the other hand, proponents of the changes point out that the paperwork burden on teachers and the current conciliation and dispute resolution employed is crippling districts and causing a teacher shortage.  Having followed discussions like this for the past thirty years, I can say emphatically that no new ground was covered and we remain stuck in a system in drastic need of sensible change.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with the bills that came forward today, they need to be looked upon as an honest effort to alter the current paradigm.  We may or may not see progress this year, but it was healthy to see a public discussion of the challenges being faced by school districts.

I'm Lagging on Bill Intros.  I haven't been keeping up, but rest assured I will be posting some very key bill introductions in tomorrow's update.  Stay tuned.