A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | June 18, 2014 | Committee Room | Education

Full MP3 Audio File

00:00 we will have I guess if colonel Rabin here you've not been overdoing those crunches this morning have you I don't do them so I wouldn't know when I feel the need to exercise I lie down until it leaves me colonel well whatever you're doing it's aged you well thank you for being here folks welcome to the education higher education committee meeting this morning thank you for your presence yeah this morning let me see here what we've got a list of pages if you're here please raise your hand and let us know who you are Rachel Figgard from Davidsons senator Tard Meredith Roach from Windale senator Barefoot Mckay Adela from leviton senator Tucker Alex palluck Wilmington senator Rabon Winston Masey from Raleigh senator Jackson Quintin beal from Raleigh senator Blue Justin Perkins from apex senator Barringer and Sophia Politis I thought that was politics for a minute politis p o l i t i s from [??] I had it but it was called Arthur but anyway Sophia Politis from hemsburg is that Germany I'm sure from hemsburg oh Harrissburg that's in North Carolina senator Hartsell thank you ladies for being here and for your service this week and we will move into the agenda today first up I believe is senate bill 761 which is credit for military training senator Rabin committee member there's not a PCS is there then senator Rabin moves adoption to the PCS all in favor aye aye has it and we will proceed to the well colonel senator honored senator it's yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess I could say it's crunch time no first I'd like to thank the staff and help all they have done a great job on this bill of synergizing all that we had during the proceedings of the joint legislative research commission that worked on this issue during the past several months they worked with both the military they brought the military folks in [??] educators in to try to then come up with a way to look at this problem so that we would do the right thing for the military and for civilian work force the bill is good for work force development and it also follows through on the idea that we're a military friendly state we'd like to keep their skills aboard when they get out in essence it enhances the effectiveness of the original bill the original bill was a tad short in terms of having date certain for things to happen the application process was in place there weren't very many applicants and some areas were a lot than others but this the new bill flushes that out a little bit and causes other things to happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator Rabin senator Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes [??] get really close to [??] I agree thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr chair I would like to say this expands the efforts that we started especially with the [??] class and it's an excellent bill and I would like to move for favor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] well a motion on a second and discussion we [??] for the PCS I believe well lets have a motion for the PCS again we have a motion do all in favor aye aye any no's no we got it twice okay now on the bill that was the motion for the PCS on the bill and all in favor aye alright we've got any opposed thank you senator you did an excellent job. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I try. [SPEAKER CHANGES] alright I'm gonna ask my good senator. 05:00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question about the childcare piece, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may, following up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Help me understand what we're doing here. Are we saying that childcare facilities that don't receive public funds through either NC Pre-K or childcare subsidy no longer have to be licensed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff would you, would you take that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, if they are operating a childcare facility for more than six and one half hours a day but they do not receive NC Pre-K or childcare subsidy then you're right, they would not have to be licensed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, sir, following up. That will be a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. What is the public policy rationale to have, to de-license or to not require our childcare facilities to be licensed. Even private schools need to get licensed even if they don't take public money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the concern I have is, is that under our statute as it is now when they're licensed the before and after school programs become problematic and so what this bill is attempting to do is allow the before and after school programs to occur. We also have, do we have anyone from the non-public schools here that can speak to this? I think that they can, with the Chair's indulgence, if, Richard Stevens would you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Richard Stevens, Smith Anderson law firm. I represent the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools. Here's the situation. A lot of independent school, non-public schools, have operated for years programs where the parent drops off the child in the morning when they go to work, pick them up when they get off work. And so they're there longer than six and a half hours. Recently, in the last year or so, the department has been interpreting the law to say, "well if you do it more than six and a half hours of that then for the portion that you are having the child more than six and a half hours you've got to go through the entire licensing process." The purpose here is to allow those non-public schools, and you see it's narrowed to just those, to be able to continue to do what they've been doing, which is to have the child there all day, it's a very family friendly bill, without having to go through the entire licensing process. We're talking the same children in the same building with the same faculty where they've been all day in school so they be before school or after school without going through all the same process that the, some of the department think they should under the current statute. It's clarifying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Family friendly can be interpreted one of two ways, family friendly may make it easier for these schools to operate in the way they may have been operating in the past without being licensed but family friendly could also be insuring that programs meet certain basic standards to ensure the health and well-being of children. What is it about being licensed as a childcare facility that is onerous that these folks want an exemption? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I served in the Senate I had a similar provision involving after hours programs and the YMCA's were coming in and doing programs outside with the same playground equipment that the schools have had for years and the children play on every day came under different rules in the after hours. Same kids, same equipment, same playground, different rules and the General Assembly saw fit three years ago to change that. This is similar to that. These are kids who are in their same school and many of them are already doing this, frankly, a number of schools are in a quandary about what to do with this new interpretation. To go through the licensing process, as you know, is a very separate system. Regulations are about an inch and a half thick. These schools are all non-public schools, which are defined by either those accredited by the state board or accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency or a member of our Association of Independent Schools and receive no state funding. This would not qualify these schools to receive Pre-K money or any of the daycare slot money. It's just doing what they've been doing for, frankly, a number of years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Stevens, thank you Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question over here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to get on the list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, you're on my list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Thank you. I got you. Well I have two questions. One is following up on Mr. Stein's question about the licensed childcare and maybe this would be for Mr. Stevens or Mr. Barringer or the staff, but is there anything that requires this to be connected with the operation of the non

in finance, if we can just add it instead of replace it. I don't know what it would hurt. I mean we got a kazillion over there now anyway, so. [speaker changes] Alright let's let staff work on that and see what we can come up with. Good question. [speaker changes] Thank you. [speaker change] Yea, staff does have a comment on this please. [speaker change] So, the original license plate never received the threshold number of applications to be produced. So, it was never produced for purchase. [speaker changes] That answers the question [speaker changes] Thank you. Sir, we did have a question or comment. [speaker changes] Senator Tillman, I think with all the news media going out, lately, on teachers and pay raises, that we would probably be able to get a lot of support for these licence tags and I would think the news media would pick up on it and let people know that this is a way to support their teachers. [speaker changes] I'm sure the news would observer and would be glad to run a front page on this license tag and show it and ask all the PTAs in this state to support it which we will be doing and will be going around the state to promote this. If you do this right, I think it will be a good vehicle. Number one it's a super P.R. thing to say, I support the teachers, I support education, and I do believe with education in the spotlight, we will have a successful run on that. I sure we'll get, cameras will be all over the place. [laughter] [speaker change] Senator Buffit did you have a question? Staff got it. Senator Robinson? [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chair. Senator Tillman, I just heard staff say something about threshold in order to get it issued. Can you tell me, share with me, what's their bigger threshold. I supported you on this wheel? [laughter] I want to see it work, so what is the necessary threshold? [speaker changes] Staff what was the threshold? [speaker change] In general the threshold is that you have to receive three-hundred applications for production. However, since this is a license plate that has a full color background, another step says you have an additional two-hundred applications before production starts. So five-hundred applications before the plate can be created by DMV. [speaker change] If Senator Rucho and Senator Apodaca and Senator Pate would put one on each of their vehicles we would be half way there. [laughter] I believe we could make that five-hundred threshold. Different question. [change speaker] Do you have any further questions or any motions? Senator Curtis. Alright Senator Curtis does have a motion. This is going to be a motion that's favorable to the PCS, unfavorable to the original bill, with a recommendation to be referred to finance. Very good. All in favor? Aye? [speaker changes] Opposed no? The aye have it and the PCS passes with a recommendation. Thank you very much, Senator Tillman and we have one more bill. I will be handing the chair back to you. [speaker change] We will call the next senator bearing ,its yours. Do we have, I have a motion for the adoption of the PCS. Senator wade moves, second by senator cook. all in favor? aye. opposed. alright it's adopted. [speaker change] May I have the floor sir? [speaker change] It's yours. [speaker change] Thank you. The PCS before you clarifies some of the changes that we need in the disabilities scholarships that were adopted in the last session. There are several points that were implemented to be clarified. All the stake holders have been involved in the drafting and I know of no opposition. There is a second part to this bill as well and it already passed as part of senate bill seven thirty-four, the regulatory reform act. [??] in this actual piece actually was passed unanimously because it was a minute on the floor so the language in this PCS could conform to the language in the reform bill. What hits bill does, as a reminder, it allows parents to who have children in non-public schools, to have them in before and after school programs with their faculty and staff ?? its also been approved by stake holders including the non-public schools and also the office early childhood development with no, opposition to this bill and I urge your support. If there are any questions if staff would like to. [speaker changes] Well,we will, if staff needs to with questions. Senator Barefoot had his hand up first [speaker changes] First I would like to say. Senator Barringer, you have done a great job with this bill, and I sit on the council for exceptional children and they are excited about this bill. So I thank you so much and at the appropriate time I would like to move

We’ll hold out for just a moment. Any clarifications from staff needed? Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve read the bill and the write up and I still don’t understand what we’re changing. Does… I know that we moved from a tax credit to a voucher when we... last year, two years ago. Does this allow the voucher to go to different schools? For instance, does it now allow people who home school their children to get the voucher? I just don’t know what the purpose of these changes are, what the effect is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, we also have Representatives of the ARC here as well if they can help with staff. Sorry, I just want to make that clear. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll go to staff first. I know Julia Adams is here but we’ll go to staff first on that one, Senator Stein. That’s a Harvard Law question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What are we doing different here and what are we doing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m happy to walk through all the changes if you’d like me to. On that specific question, students who were being homeschooled were already eligible for the scholarship grant for any related services, though one limitation that was placed on is that parents could not be reimbursed for education the provided themselves, but that grant could be used under the prior, so it does not change that. It could be used for related services that the students were using. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What are related services? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, this is Patsy Pierce from Research. Related services are defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and under Article 9 of our general statutes. We concur with that definition, so you would have to look under IDEA. There is quite a comprehensive list of related services. Related services are used to help a child to access their special education, so it could be anything from adaptations, accommodations, specific transportation, ability to help a child who is blind have mobility training, so there is quite a comprehensive list and we could send you that citation from IDEA if that would be helpful. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we don’t have another hand, I would ask Julia Adams to come to the mic in the back and expand a little bit on why we’re doing what we’re doing to make sure we include the handicapped. Julia, if you would, name and organization. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Tillman. My name is Julia Adams. I am the Assistant Director of Government Relations for the ARC of North Carolina. I am also the lobbyist for the autism society of North Carolina. Senator Stein, thank you very much for your question. We appreciate it. Some of the language was not exactly the same as our previous tax credit, and once it went to a new agency under the state of North Carolina, there was some confusion about the interpretation of related services for parents who had qualified for the grant, and what this bill does is basically put definitions back in that were originally in the tax credit bill that you passed to provide more clarity and more directive to the new agency within our state government that is overseeing these grants so that individuals who apply and receive the grant can actually get the proper reimbursement at the end. In addition, it adds the section dealing with assistive technology. For many students with intellectual development disabilities and disabilities across a wide, broad spectrum, we had not clarified the assistive technology portion of the original two bills. This does it, and it also allows individuals in nonprofit organizations to sit down and assist with clarifying changes as we move forward with the program. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein. Thank you, Julia. Thank you. And stay there in case you’re needed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very helpful explanation. Appreciate that. How does this fit with the general vouchers that we authorized in the budget last year? I know there was about 10 to 11 million of money for the general vouchers. Do these special needs vouchers come out of that 10 million, or is there a separate allotted amount of money for them, or is there not a cap to the amount that goes to this program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want staff to tackle that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like staff to take that please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, this is ?? with the Research Division. It is a separate appropriation in the 2013 budget bill. I’m going to be a little off, but I think it was three and a half million and then four million the second year of the biennium for these scholarships that was appropriated in the 2013 budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question about the childcare piece, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may, following up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Help me understand what we're doing here. Are we saying that childcare facilities that don't receive public funds through either NC Pre-K or childcare subsidy no longer have to be licensed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff would you, would you take that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, if they are operating a childcare facility for more than six and one half hours a day but they do not receive NC Pre-K or childcare subsidy then you're right, they would not have to be licensed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, sir, following up. That will be a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. What is the public policy rationale to have, to de-license or to not require our childcare facilities to be licensed. Even private schools need to get licensed even if they don't take public money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the concern I have is, is that under our statute as it is now when they're licensed the before and after school programs become problematic and so what this bill is attempting to do is allow the before and after school programs to occur. We also have, do we have anyone from the non-public schools here that can speak to this? I think that they can, with the Chair's indulgence, if, Richard Stevens would you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Richard Stevens, Smith Anderson law firm. I represent the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools. Here's the situation. A lot of independent school, non-public schools, have operated for years programs where the parent drops off the child in the morning when they go to work, pick them up when they get off work. And so they're there longer than six and a half hours. Recently, in the last year or so, the department has been interpreting the law to say, "well if you do it more than six and a half hours of that then for the portion that you are having the child more than six and a half hours you've got to go through the entire licensing process." The purpose here is to allow those non-public schools, and you see it's narrowed to just those, to be able to continue to do what they've been doing, which is to have the child there all day, it's a very family friendly bill, without having to go through the entire licensing process. We're talking the same children in the same building with the same faculty where they've been all day in school so they be before school or after school without going through all the same process that the, some of the department think they should under the current statute. It's clarifying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Family friendly can be interpreted one of two ways, family friendly may make it easier for these schools to operate in the way they may have been operating in the past without being licensed but family friendly could also be insuring that programs meet certain basic standards to ensure the health and well-being of children. What is it about being licensed as a childcare facility that is onerous that these folks want an exemption? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I served in the Senate I had a similar provision involving after hours programs and the YMCA's were coming in and doing programs outside with the same playground equipment that the schools have had for years and the children play on every day came under different rules in the after hours. Same kids, same equipment, same playground, different rules and the General Assembly saw fit three years ago to change that. This is similar to that. These are kids who are in their same school and many of them are already doing this, frankly, a number of schools are in a quandary about what to do with this new interpretation. To go through the licensing process, as you know, is a very separate system. Regulations are about an inch and a half thick. These schools are all non-public schools, which are defined by either those accredited by the state board or accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency or a member of our Association of Independent Schools and receive no state funding. This would not qualify these schools to receive Pre-K money or any of the daycare slot money. It's just doing what they've been doing for, frankly, a number of years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Stevens, thank you Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question over here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to get on the list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, you're on my list. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Thank you. I got you. Well I have two questions. One is following up on Mr. Stein's question about the licensed childcare and maybe this would be for Mr. Stevens or Mr. Barringer or the staff, but is there anything that requires this to be connected with the operation of the non

Non-public school or could they just at some other time when the non-public school is not operating just basically operate a childcare facility without it being licensed? Is there anything that says it has to be the same students in the school or while the school is operating or how would this, is there any rule that can relate it to this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let a staff member have a crack at it to start with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, so non-public schools who operate childcare facilities in general for more than 6.5 hours per day, they have to be accredited by national or regional accrediting agencies that have early childhood standards and they have to be licensed in general, but for this particular bill if this was passed it would exempt those non-public schools who don't offer NC Pre-K classes or who don't accept childcare subsidy from being licensed, but otherwise non-public schools who do operate a childcare facility for more than 6.5 hours a day, they would still have to be licensed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this is something that I just don't understand. So is this something that the non-public school is doing in addition to the schooling, to it's schooling function already? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Senator, that's correct. Many non-public schools who operate a childcare facility, they offer wrap around, or after school care, other kinds of activities beyond the school day. A school day is usually defined as 6.5 hours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, and one more follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, so what is now, is now they allowed to operate these programs within that 6.5 hour window, and if they go over that window they get a license? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct, except for the ones who would be exempt now if this bill passes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have one more question in a different area, Mr, Chair. But I'm open, I'm interested in your help. You were going to make a comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to tell you we're separating, we've got two different things going on. You've got your school going on, which is accredited, all right, both nationally and regionally in most cases, you've got a before and after school program, same facility, same people there, same people that are already licensed are doing a before and after school program. We're just exempting them from those regulations if they don't have any of the state funded programs, like basically the preschool, you know the ??. That's two different things there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So I have one other question on the other end, and this is I guess in sections maybe 1 and 2 or something, we're changing eligibility and it looks like I was asking staff to review what we're changing, but I see in particular I have a concern that there's no need for IEP and there's no need for daily special ed services. Can somebody explain why that's the case, and then what else are we changing in terms of eligibility for the scholarship? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll let staff take that because it's very technical, but I think we can get you comfortable with that. Staff would you help with that because we actually made, I looked closely at that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The eligibility criteria are changed in the following ways: you do notice on line 20 where it strikes out requires an individualized educational plan and replaces that with is a child with a disability. The concern that was raised in implementation over the first year is that students once they go into a non-public school setting no longer receive an IEP. An IEP is only done in a public school setting, instead they receive something called a services plan and that's provided for under IDEA. In terms of initial evaluation for a child who's never been in a public school setting, they also would never receive an IEP, because that's done in the public school. They receive, and if there's anyone from DPI who wants to explain this in more detail, something called a deck, and there's different levels of the deck that go through that are the evaluation process that determine if the child is a child with a disability under Federal and State laws. So this was changed because there were concerns because these students as they leave the school system and are reevaluated over the years would never actually have something called an IEP, but they would have appropriate documentation to show they are a child with a disability. The next change where it says receives special education and related services on a daily basis, if you go over to the next page, page 2, to the new definition of how scholarships is defined, it's

Now change to say students would receive special education on a daily basis. I'm sorry, it's line 20 on page 2. So funds awarded by the authority to students to be used to receive special education on a daily basis while attending either a non-public school or north carolina public school for which payment of tuition is required. This was another thing as they began implementing it. Related services because they are sometimes those bridge type things are frequently not provided on a daily basis, perhaps twice a week or something. But special education is what qualifies you under the federal law and so it was special on a daily basis was what it was changed to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] And thank you for your question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seeing one other hand, two other hands, Senator Robinson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mr. chairman. Senator Bryant question then brought up another question for me. I don't see anywhere in here where it says that that other eligibility criteria form is required. Is that in here where it says that that evaluation has to be done and has to be documented, senator ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll take that and then staff can follow up if we need more detail. I actually worked on the p.c.s yesterday and if you look on the first page on line 13 it says disability as defined in gs115c10632. If you go to that statue it actually talks about either an i.e.p or I don't have my notes here but I'll refer to staff but that whole process, the federal process, of applying a child for disability because I was concerned about that as well because having been a foster parent all those years I recognize that there are many children with disabilities but we want to make sure the right children are getting the right benefits. So if staff if you will read further clarification I will yield to staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson of the s.e.a.a as part of it's rule making authority because the eligibility criteria that are set out on page one does require the child to demonstrate they are a child with a disability, does require them to provide the appropriate documentation. There is another change on page five to help facilitate this to ensure because those deck forms and i.e.ps and service plans are provided by the local education agencies, the l.e.a.'s. To parents it's their responsibilities under i.d.a to do those. So there is a new revision to require the state board as part of it's monitoring duties for i.d.a to ensure that those leas are conducting evacuations for parents who believe there child may be a child with a disability within a timely manner so that they could vilify if the chose to and then secondly because they do have to re qualify every three years to ascertain wether they still qualify that they would have too provide those re evaluations {SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, thank you. One follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, Senator Barringer are you indicating to me that you are going to do amendment to make that clear in here or what are you saying ? Because here it says conduct evaluation requested by a child parent or guardians and than some cases, I don't think that we can always count on parents to, even if a child has a regular disability in a school system. Often times it's the councilors and the teachers that recognize that something here isn't as it should be and then to get that evaluation done to get the e.i.p exedra done so additional services and so in cases of other children who are in non public setting I think we owe them the same concern that if a parent can't recognize that, that they're is something that says that we should have that done or some language to make sure parent or who ever understands that we ought to make sure that that evaluation documentation is in place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, may I ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I didn't indicate that I planned to amend. What I said was, that I actually added section 2 of that statue to make it clear that we are following those guide lines for disability that we're making sure that these funds are used for children with disabilities. I will refer to staff but I don't think it's necessary to amend this bill. I think that we've covered the water front and I know with the stake holders that they have the same concerns and I think that this bill goes about as far as it can to protect those children with disabilities. If you have a specific question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any institution should worth there souls is going to consult with parents and you're going to do that and you're going to let parents know that's needed. I don't think we need that though if you wanna try a floor amendment.

Senator Robinson, you’re welcome, too. Senator Jenkins had a motion. No comment, okay. Staff? ?? Let’s have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson, one thing that, it’s not covered in this bill because it is separate, but it is covered under federal law. There’s a process already in statute both under federal law and state called Child Fund that actually does require LEAs on an annual basis to reach out to non-public schools and other settings to identify children with disabilities and to work with those locations; so, it’s not part of this program, but it already exists under law that there is a mechanism for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jenkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to a favorable report of the proposed committee substitute. I assume it’s, what it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. We've got the PCS already included and that’s your motion. Do I have a burning question back there? Senator Raven, your hands been, I don’t know, what’s up or, is it up? I’ll take ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it was. I've got ?? ??. I've got three quick questions to Senator Barringer. Does the bill the way it’s written now improve the quality of life of the children for which it’s aimed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does it make it, the kid, the children less safe? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Not in any way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do the parents make input into the decision process? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Every step of the way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Hearing and seeing no other hands we have a motion from Senator Jenkins. All in favor aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And now that it’s passed we’d like to say thank you. Thank you for your difficult questions because this is important, important legislation. I appreciate it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No other business. The committee is adjourned. Thank you, all of you.