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.

House | April 16, 2013 | Committee Room | House Education

Full MP3 Audio File

That sounds like this I shall have here this morning and thank you CC never read along and calendar this morning and one of your interactions and commerce are synonymous with making C L's busy working patrol scheduling (SPEAKER CHANGES) M. Daley sounds the same one Reg-K's this morning at 10:00 PM to: sparkling accounting and only sponsored by represents more than emergence as Israeli army and her sponsors representatives, calling to AI sacred job, from tampering can the ms, sponsors represents Dixon poll and am that can turn means but for retaliation for the various county and heard, sponsoring this represents a campaign are counted AS Carolina and we need to be able to make this past week and, through in order for us to accomplish as much as we can, start with a Ariel Steele five AEA , Representative Klein, and has a PCs to SMS and ms and firm representing rumored that the PCs in a four SR, is there an LS and famous am ES, the deal was not properly to four is representing 0.9 people and all and thanks for being built by the way the very brief overview of appeal in the man she read you have for the final and in the week, was actually reflect a couple of reasons that when they define a nasty about gets a certain amount of bytes of two parts in this bill would summarize well before suspension about U.S. and Germany has an MSI AA occasionally and representative of the where this bill stems from is going back 68 months ago, before session started working the superintendent's of army from my district also from other points across the state and the NDS superintendents working group on sponsoring the speakers and citizens working. (SPEAKER CHANGES) It had a much more robust the exploration of various radical reform local control measures that will be other deals very good deals the following this is sort of a very small meal deal solicited part one would save individual education plans, refer to as IP is it seeks to find a way to make them more efficient in terms of the time it takes to fill out in today's world of computerized status that we have a drop down menu selective options and so one cheerleading is an IP said are very laborious process for teachers to fill out confidence in our various limitations disabilities we can do this in a more effective and efficient manner and still keep in contact. Accountable and maybe even more thorough there are multiple examples and only then sold with an export one the second part basically within the confines of Federal law reduces the disadvantaged students reports from two prior 213 year the very simple surgical, chains to two eliminate some redundancy especially as we migrate to more automation with five dollar school and other items that are public schools will be used in terms of the restaurants that being said on this bill has had a few tweaks and I am one of its weeks that we made one section of U.S. City to make the entire more reflective of its content that share I have the commitment of the governments of the former center bombing said that his, and an 8 to 4 in the sprints NMS SS properly to four years representing my cubicle in ??....

very briefly on the Amendment he just changes the title to more accurately reflect parts one and two where as originally we had a little bit more in there so with that I ask, yes. [speaker changes] Representative Glazier? Representative Glazier has moved for an option on the Amendment All those in favor? All opposed? Ayes have it. That's fine go ahead and continue. [speaker changes] I will simply conclude with, I will stand by for questions, but I ask for your support with House Bill 588. Thank you. [speaker changes] Do we have any questions? Representative Lucas. [speaker changes] Madame Chair at the appropriate time I wanted to move in favor of a report to the PCS unfavorable to the original bill as it is amended. [speaker changes] Thank you, Representative Lucas. We have one other person, alright, he decided not he must have been making a motion. So Representatives Lucas motion is before us, oh yes, Representative Lucas? [speaker changes] Yes, we need to roll the Amendment into the PCS, favorable to the PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. [speaker changes] All those present in favor of the motion say "Aye," all opposed, no? Well it passes. Representative Whitmire congratulations on your bill. The next bill we are going to have before us is Representatives Starnes Bill, House Bill 269. This is also a PCS, do I have a motion? Representative Brown makes a motion that House Bill 269 proposed committee substitute be before you. All those in favor, all opposed? Alright, go ahead Representative. [speaker changes] Thank you Madame Chair. Colleagues, we are here today on House Bill 269, Children with Disabilities Scholarship Grants, because our children are not interchange able parts. They all have different needs and children with disabilities have particular long lists of needs. This particular bill will create special education scholarship grans for children with disabilities. In the last session we past House Bill 344 which was tax credits for families with children with disabilities. This is an extension of that. We are repealing that previous tax credit and turning to a scholarship grants for a number of reasons, some of which you will hear from my colleagues today. We have current law for the tax credits, this PCS is going to set up this special education scholarship grant no more than three thousand dollars per semester for reimbursement of tuition and special education expenses. The eligibility is in the bill as you can see if you follow along with me, it's a child with a disability who is under the age of twenty two who meets all of the following requirements. They've got to have an IEP, an Individualized Education Plan. They've got to receive special education or related services on a daily basis. They have not been placed in a non public school or facility by a public agency at public expense. They have not spent any time in enrolled in a post secondary institution as a full time student taking at least 12 academic credit hours. They have not received a high school diploma. And then they meet at least one of the following requirements. They were either enrolled in a North Carolina public school during that previous semester, they received special education or related services through the public school as a preschool child with a disability during the previous semester, they received a scholarship grant or the tax credit through last years program in the previous semester or they are eligible for enrollment in kindergarten or the first grade in a North Carolina public school. So those are the eligibilities and in effect these are the exact same children that our tuition tax credit, that got ninety four votes last session, it's the exact same children that that tax credit applied to as well. If you'll notice there is a fiscal impact, there is going to be no impact for 13-14 and then it will go to approximately 2.2 to 2.5 million for each year from there on. At this point I would like to turn it over to my colleagues. Representative Brandon. [speaker changes] Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you committee members. I raise to support the bill.

I am a sponsor of the bill because last year we did a similar bill, but I talked to representative stam and others to let them know that, most of the people that I needed to be able to have access to this scholarship, was not actually eligible, due to the fact that they did not actually pay income taxes. This eliminates that problem and those people that we really targeted and that we got 94 votes last year on, the ones that aided the most actually now will be able to benefit from this. I had one parent that called me, one that I really wanted to be able to have it, because her kid has special needs and he was in the public schools and it was clearly just not working out, and she was so excited about the bill being passed, and I had to tell her the bad news, that she did not qualify, and I can imagine that there are probably thousands of other families just like that, who are under the poverty lines and really looking for choice, looking for somewhere where they can have an adequate education for their children. I would like to say also that this is not saying that public schools do not adequately serve some children with special needs, but this is a bill about choice, and if the parent, especially a parent with special needs children, no one pays more attention to those children more than those parents, if those parents decide, if they make the decision, that they want to be able to have their children educated in the institution of their choice and I think that it is incumbent upon this body to create the opportunity and access for them to do so, thank you and I urge you to support the bill [Speaker Changes] Thank you, madam chairman, members of the committee, I just want to say briefly, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to be one of the sponsors of this good bill. There’s not so many pieces of legislation where we can truly say it’s a win, win, win situation, but this is. It’s a win for the public schools, it saves them money, it’s a win for the taxpayers of North Carolina, because it saves them money, but more important than anyone else it’s a win for the child, the child with a disability in this case, because that child and that child’s family can make the decision that best suits him or her, and that’s really what it’s all about, we’re here to serve the citizens of North Carolina, and we’re here to make sure that they have the opportunity to get the best services that they need, and that’s exactly what this bill does, so it is a privilege to be a part of a win, win, win bill. I had the opportunity the privilege if you will to be one of the sponsors of the tax credit bill that passed in the last session, and I will tell you, that of all the bills that I had the opportunity to be part of, bills that I think were good bills that became laws, I don’t think that I got any more personal satisfaction of any one of having families, parents, hardworking families from all over the state of North Carolina that contacted me personally to thank me for that bill, just to be able to see the lives change one life at a time of a disabled child that was able to access the services that their family felt like they best needed, so members I would urge your support of this good bill, it is a privilege for me to be on it and I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to do so. [Speaker Changes] Do you want to speak first representative stone? [Speaker Changes] Very briefly [Speaker Changes] Okay [Speaker Changes] I’m here to answer questions both technical and not and I just had this one thing, like Representative Jones, for passing this bill, I received love letters from parents who used it. I also received hate letters for parents who did not qualify saying “why not? Why because I’m too poor did I not qualify?” we have to rectify this. Thank you, all of us to be glad to answer questions [Speaker Changes] Thank you, before I go any further I did want to explain the format, and that is, we will have our legislators ask the questions they wish to ask, I have some one here for DPI that would like to speak and I have five other people in the audience that would like to speak, but before I do that even, I did miss someone very special or a group that’s very special here today. We have the representatives of the student government association of the community colleges, if you will stand please, let us welcome you [Applause] Thank you, we expect you to soon be sitting in our seats, alright, let me give you the list of the people I have to speak in case I have missed your name

Fisher, Graham, Gill, Presnell, Adams, Speciale, and Whitmire, and Luebke. Alright, Representative Fisher. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madame Chairman. I think I have a bogus mic. I'm going to ask this really loudly. Can you give me some examples of how the award is being used or will be used? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. A paradigm example, a matter of fact the case that brought this to the attention of the Assembly. The Petrooks in Mecklenburg actually testified a couple of years ago. Their child was of average intelligence but had a disability wherein he could not learn if there was any noise or distraction. So Charlotte-Mecklenburg hired a aid to go around with him, and I'm estimating about $30,000 a year with benefits, to go into regular classes. He still couldn't learn. With this bill, he's able to go to a private school that costs $9,000 a year. This covers $6,000 so his parents are able to pay 3, but not 9, and he's in a class with four kids and learning tremendously. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher, does that answer your question? Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, madame Chair. As someone who's been in the trenches and fought the battles and worked for parents and worked in IEP meetings and had several conversations similar to what Representative Stan has talked about, we know we have children who are in our public schools that the IEP has not been effective for those children. And we just talked about the IEP. An IEP, obviously, is put together by a multidisciplinary group that's been reasonably calculated put in force to allow that child to have benefit in his special education program, in his education overall. Public schools do a great job. I was privileged to have worked 31 years in the public school system. I do know there are children in our public schools who are receiving special education services that may benefit from a different type class setting. I think this bill gives that parent an opportunity as an IEP team member for their child to explore those alternatives and options for that special education and education program. I like the bill because it does give the parent an option to persue other alternatives for their child. That's why I support the bill. The parent, as an IEP team member, they can disagree with the IEP team. This opportunity allows that parent an option to look at a different classroom setting. Of course, coming from a rural county, we don't have a lot of private schools in our county. In the urban settings, parents have many more options. Saying that, I do support this opportunity for a parent to have this option and I will support the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Graham. Representative Gill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning and thank you Miss Chairman. I just wanted to ask a couple of things. I notice that you're saying $3,000 per semester per eligible child and that's a total of $6,000 a year. I guess I'm wondering what is going to happen to the parent who cannot afford to pay the difference between the cost of the non-public school and the amount of scholarship that is available. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are two answers. First of all, that parent could not have afforded it anyway. This bill doesn't solve all problems. It just gets them $6,000 a year closer to a solution. But, the second answer is this: there are many schools, practically all private schools are non-profits and if you get close enough

To what you need, they'll provide scholarships of their own. And I have actually written commitments from the supervisors of some of the major organizations to encourage their schools to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I noticed that when we were in the appropriation, education appropriation subcommittee, they talked about the ADM that are being provided to schools, and they list them as three different categories: mild, moderate, severe. I think the mild, I think the state allocation is about $2,000, and the moderate is 5,000 and the severe is 10,000. I'm wondering, the monies that are going to be used for scholarship purposes, are they coming out of that ADM for the students with disability funds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would attempt a brief explanation and then ask staff to finish it. My explanation, my understanding is that the federal money comes, sort of lags 27 months behind, so that you don't actually lose it to start with, but of course understand that if the school loses the, if the money is spent, so is the expense. Those expense is lost as well. Madam chair, can I ask staff to further explain that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Stam. Okay. Go ahead, Nordstrom. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi, Chris Nordstrom from Fiscal Research staff. The current formula for children with disabilities is they receive the, we call the normal base ADM amount, but they also receive the additional amount of $3,709 per student, up to 12.5% of that LEA's population. So this, if those students are reduced from the roles of that LEA, then they would also lose that $3,709 per student. Assuming that LEA is under that cap. If they're over the cap, then there would be no, no reduction to their total disabilities allotment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Gill, was that. Was she satisfied, Representative Gill? Were you satisfied with your? Okay. Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I just wondered, approximately how many disabled children is this going to benefit in a year time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's in the fiscal memo, but Chris Nordstrom would have the answer at the tip of his tongue, Madam chair. Probably. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris, Chris Nordstrom, can you answer that for her? Representative Presnell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one moment here. Can I get back to you in one second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, we'll, we'll hold that. I'll go back to her. Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay well, on page four of the fiscal memo. Anyway, we'll come back to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair. I guess I have the same concern that Representative Gill raised, and that was the question I was going to ask. I have a concern about those parents who would not be able to ?? those $3,000, and I think when you're talking about the poorest of folk, $3,000 is an awful lot of money for them to come up with, so I have a concern about that, but I, let me just ask you about the sections of the bill that were repealed. Section one and section two, and let me make sure that I'm clear about it. What was in section one addressed children who were moderate to severe, is that correct, Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The statute being repealed has exactly the same criteria as regards to the disability of the child as the new bill. And there were, it did not, it was not based on moderate or severe, but the criteria in, the same criteria as in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is being repealed is the tax credit. The Senate is allergic to tax credits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, follow up, madam chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So it's not a tax deduction now, that's what's been repealed. It's a refundable credit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma'am, it's not a credit at all. It was a non-refundable tax credit as passed by the House last session.

What this bill does is create a scholarship grant that's operated through the SEAA, the state education assistance authority which has been around for decades, mainly handling or only handling college loans, and they'll get a 2% administrative fee for this, but there are no tax credits, tax deduction, tax exemptions in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more question madame Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So as I read it, so how do they acquire the $3000, the $6000 dollars then? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The parents acquire it by submitting receipts to the SEAA for tuition actually paid and or educational and other related expenses, and that is a defined term under the code of federal regulations, it goes for many pages as to what those expenses are. They present their receipts to the SEAA and the SEAA can adopt rules of how to do that, and that's why they get 2% for administration, is to give them the opportunity to make sure the money was actually spent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair, just one more quick... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, one more follow up, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So getting back to the child whose parents don't have the $3000, they qualify for the $6000, what happens then? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the example I gave to Representative Fisher was only an example. If they can find the educaiton they want for $6000 then they owe nothing extra. If it's $20,000 they'll either come up with $14,000 or nothing. But whatever it is they're $6000 closer to being able to afford it than without the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do want to remind this bill does go to finance and I believe appropriations so maybe we can have a little time in there. Was that satisfactory, did you get your questions answered? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it wasn't quite satisfactory but I'll yield at this point, thank you madame Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale [??]. I'm going to get that name right before the two years... [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's [??], but my questions have been answered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madame Chair. Question for Representative [??] and I think you got an answer. On line 16 where it requires an individual educaiton plan some discussion about whether or not that IEP requires special ed related services on a daily basis or a non-daily basis. And could you just talk to that please briefly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, if you look at line 16 and 17 on page one of the PCS, they have to have an IEP and receive the services on a daily basis, but the IEP does not have to require that it be on a daily basis and there's several reasons for this. First of all that's existing law in the existing tax credit situation, that's not a change. Secondly if you required that, that the IEP do that then that can become incredibly expensive for your LEA's if the kid decides not to go to a private school. Understand it's the public school that is the gate keeper for this, the IEP is obtained at the public school not at a private school, and it even has to be renewed once every three years at state expense, not at LEA expense. So number one it would be potentially it could be too expensive for the local, but secondly you may well have a situation, let's take speech pathology for example where the IEP, the multidisciplinary team says, okay, this kid needs speech pathology and we've got a teacher who will go around once a week and help him, that's what we've got. But the parent sees that it really helps and so the parent says I want to get speech pathology every day of the week and the my kid will really do well. That's what we want, we want parents to be able to make that decision. They have to provide the services in order to be reimbursed but we don't want that to have to be required in the IEP. Madame Chair it turns out I have an amendment for a typo. So whenever you want to take care of it [??]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's just go ahead and take care of it if you want to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam has...

-amendment. All people have a copy, or do we-? Okay. I will let the staff explain it and if that's not sufficient, we'll wait. Okay, Representative Stam. And we'll have Cara McGraw (??). [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment would be page 1, line 7. That citation 105-160.311 should be 105-160.3(b)(11), so it would insert the subsection-b citation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have someone? Representative Pittman moves that we- in favor of the amendment. All those in favor? Opposed? The amendment passes. Now, our next speaker is- I mean, our next representative is Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is for the senior sponsor of the bill, Representative Stam. Well, in terms of seniority and probably who really wrote it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We all wrote it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have seven grandchildren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, and this may be for staff if not for you, the bill on page 1 and 2 references what the bill's summary on page 1 nicely characterizes as scholarship grant eligibility, and I think that's very helpful. My first question is, what about school eligibility? In other words, what characteristics have to be- programs have to be at the school in order for the parent to enrol her or his child in this school? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, they have to meet the requirement, so on page 1, lines 32 to 34 of non-public rules, and then they have to- and this is between them and SEAA. They have to actually pay for the services. Now, they don't have to get all the services at that non-public school, so for example, the student could go to XYZ private school, pay $3000 tuition, and then get special needs services like a psychologist once a day for the other money. So that's the answer to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am, absolutely. So, I can go to- I can send my child to- my son is 34, so I wouldn't send him to school- but I could send my child to XYZ academy which has absolutely not a single program or employee who can deal with disabilities, I can nonetheless be eligible for this grant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you also paid for and received the defined special educational and related services defined in federal law every day, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I follow up, Madam Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, my son is at XYZ academy, no services are provided by staff, there's no program at the school, but I spent $3000 a semester on a psychologist who is a private psychologist. Does that make me eligible for the grant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you receive that on a daily basis, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke is recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, members of the committee and the public out there, do you see what we have here? We have a bill in which a parent can receive $3000 a semester and this is really nothing to do with schools. This is a $3000 grant for the parent to use where she or he wants. I guess the student could be home-schooled. It just seems to me- first of all, I just find that extraordinary that the school doesn't have to have any plan with respect to the disability of the child, number one. And number two, why are we taking this money away from the public schools? I mean, this is a "cheap one". I'm saying that in quotation marks. It's 3.4 million. I think you had one yesterday, Representative Stam, that's near 90 million, if I got that right, but I think my larger question in why I can't support this bill, besides the first thing that a school has no obligations to have a disability program, is that you are taking this money away from the public schools. 90%, as I understand it, 92% of the children in this state-

I again ran out of time on a previous transcription. The rest of the transcription is listen below and the file name is 20130417-senate-redistricting.05.00.6ddf8594fb2a5e256abf8808cabb487a.HJI HKC. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, I wondered that at the beginning. The purpose is two-fold. Number one, voters now get developed for two people, two school board members, instead of one, so they can be assured they will be voting for a school board member representing their child's school. That's number one. Number two, voter turnout has been abysmal in these school board races. I just read you the numbers. Basically a million votes county-wide for county commissioner race and less than 50,000 for a school board race county-wide. So they're the two reasons. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Why couldn't we just change the date of the election cycle, if that was the goal, rather than changing the districts themselves. And if the districts are going to be changed, why don't we give that control to the school board itself so they can hold appropriate hearings, receive public comment, and come up with districts that they feel are appropriate for Wake County, the way we would typically do it in any other of the other hundred counties in this state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Basically, Senator McKissick- Here is the transcription for this HIT: [SPEAKER CHANGES] -attend public schools, and the governor's budget actually hurts public schools by taking away teaching assistants. You are on your way here to underfudning public schools and I just think it's wrong to be on this campaign against the traditional public schools, so, members, I'm not supporting this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hate to say that I do agree with at least one thing Representative Luebke said in his remarks. This bill is indeed extraordinary, and it is extraordinary in that the focus here, folks, is on the child. It's not on the institution. It's not on who is providing the services. The focus is on the child and the fact that the needed services are provided. As opposed to some of the other things that he said as far as where the money is going, what we are actually doing here is allowing the family of this child to make the choice to put their disabled child in a situation that best helps his or her needs while going to school and getting an education. As Representative Stam said, if that means actually going outside the school setting to be able to obtain the help that they need, then so be it. We want to focus on the child here, not on the institution. We're not taking money away from the public schools in the sense that we are defudning public schools. What we are doing is, when money follows the child, it is going towards their education. But as has been pointed out already, in most cases, it costs more for the public school to educate this disabled child, so in the long run we're actually saving the money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, m'am. A couple of questions, one to Representative Jordan. You indicated in your remarks that you said that this was not going to cost any money for the 2013-14 school year and I'm looking at the explanation here that says that 3.6 million is incorporated ?? for the 2013-14 fiscal year. Am I not seeing ?? correctly or what? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, are you looking at page one of the fiscal notes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir, I'm looking at page three of the explanation, bill explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. On the fiscal note- does everyone have a copy of the fiscal note? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, we do not have a copy of the fiscal note. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The impact to 2013-14 is zero we have on our fiscal note. You're referring to page three of the description, Representative Michaux? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, we have the current tax credit in place that is offsetting that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, would you like me to come back to you? I'm having staff go get the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. I got another question about something Representative Stam said, which sometimes is muddled. Representative Stam, you said in order to get this grant, that tuiton actually paid should be shown and that it would be based on that. Tell me how you get a poor kid in a private school with tuition paid and then that's going to help that person get that $3,000 grant or whatever grant you got there. Now, what you said was that you were shown that tuition actually paid by the receipts and whatnot, which means that that child would go to that school and whatnot and have to pay before they get in, and then, once they show that, then they would be about to refund that money. Did you mean to say that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it depends on the policy of that school. The answer is yes. Not every school will do that, but certainly the schools that want to receive these students will do it. As I've said, I've talked to the heads of Catholic schools and the ?? School Association and the Independent School Association, which covers most of the private schools and they're perfectly happy to work with parents if they know the money is coming. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, one more follow up. We'll come back to you too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? I'm just trying to figure out a kid gets into that school having to get into that school and then being reimbursed or whatever or given a grant after they show the receipt that tuition's been paid. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux- [SPEAKER CHANGES] And you say that-

[0:00:00.0] You have talked all these schools but we don’t have any assurance well that’s gonna happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, Representative Shaw that’s no different than the current law where you have apply a year later for a tax credit. Your argument and the argument of Representative Luke is with the existing law not this bill I’m with this because at least this bill will cover the poor children. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I didn’t vote for this because… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let’s go to the Chair here, Representative Mitchell will get back with you as soon as we have the Adam will let you speak again. Let me go through the list again to make sure I have everybody that’s Lucas, McManus, Warren, Shepard, Cleveland and Collins. And then for speaking at second time I have Glazier, Gram and Mitchell. Oh, I’m very sorry put Glazier after Warren, alright, Representative Lucas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair, question initially for Representative Stam, Representative Stam I believe on line 16 of the bill that indicates that an IP is required for each child to be eligible for this program, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second question… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you concede that if an IP has been developed by school officials, psychologists, social workers, teachers and the parents that this IP is sufficient enough to serve that child’s needs that they determine, professionally that this will suit the child’s needs? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Representative Lucas I have spoken to way too many parents here in Wake County and Wake County does a great job on special aid kids, I have spoken to way too many parents who said, “This IP does not work for my child.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand what's another question, is that only from the parent’s prospective not psychologist, not social workers, not teachers? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s right parents and the child, right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, you need to follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do need to follow up not with Representative Stam but with Representative Adam perhaps Representative Brandon and perhaps Representative Jones. I heard Representative Brandon mentioned that students or parents who pay no taxes whatsoever are eligible for this bill then I heard Representative Jones say that they are hard working parents and I’m trying to determine where you find hard working parents who pay no taxes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We are talking about income taxes Representative Lucas and I do pay taxes that I pay taxes everyday and when they go by food and drinks and all of the things that they do to help to stayed up which is a lot of our arguments with the people who say that these hard working people don’t pay taxes, they actually do pay taxes. But we are actually talking about the income tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, let’s say…Okay, for comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I’m from the conservative prospective and many of you may not believe that and sometimes I get confused what's conservative and what's liberal here? Now, we are going to allow students who have a sufficient program provided for the educational needs and we are going to allow these parents who decide that, “Oh, I don’t wrote that.” Simply because they decided that they don’t want this but they want the chair pick and get something new. They gonna have ice cream rather than the potatoes that they need and I have a problem with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, it was fine, you are right, this is a very progressive issue and it is very progressive to think that the parent and stakeholder would actually know what is actually needed for their child and because they go to bed with them every night, they spend more time than any educator does, and if you can name one parent who does not know what's best for their child. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can get it but this is a progressive policy, yes it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative, Representative McManus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mic on…Mic. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that going? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s better. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It just get really close, I had an appointment… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This question's for staff. Chris? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Chris Nordstrom, fiscal research. Yes, LEAs receive a flat amount per student up to the 12.5% cap. The system that was described earlier was an alternative in a 2010 report from a consultant of something for the fiscal- for the general assembly to possibly consider but is not current policy. Current policy is the flat amount up to the 12.5% cap. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want to speak on the bill? You're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? the child and if that's what this is still about, but if we were really concerned about serving the child and the child was truly not getting its needs met in the public school system, then would ?? get ?? funding? I feel like this is serving the parent by reducing their cost, we're still leaving a lot of people who would not be able to afford to put their child in private services, particular private EC type services which tend to be more expensive than regular private services. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that you are absolutely 100% correct, and I would love to have a bill that would do that. I do think that if we- you know, sometimes we get here and we play these games but if we had a bill that gave full funding to poor folks, everybody would be up in arms talking about how much money we're taking out of public schools. So but now that we don't have it people say it doesn't go far enough, so we can go back and forth with that, but I've certainly would support any bill that would give poor parents the 100% funding. And I hope that if that happens that we won't hear from the usual crowd that it takes money out of public schools and would support that bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. McMannis? Yes. Rep. Warren, and then Rep. Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. Rep. Stam, if I could ask you a question, when it was brought up just a second ago that if a child has an IEP, wouldn't that be adequate, but wouldn't an IEP at a public school be based on the school's ability to address those needs specific to the resources that the school has available, which may not be comparable to a specialized school. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the problem, Rep. Warren, and IEP is a collaborative document, but it has to be done within the rational resources of that system. And often times, it's just not adequate for every child. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Additionally, earlier there was a concern that if the grant or scholarship was around $6000 but the tuition of the school is maybe 20- $8200 or $9000, where would that $3000 come from? You said that you would talk to three different branches of private schools. Don't most of them offer some type of scholarship program themselves that reduces it? I know for a fact when I first got elected here, I had to take advantage of that because of the reduction of our incomes at home, and the school that we had for our daughters was flexible. So they do have, you find that they do have payment plans, and scholarships that they offer that reduces that for folks in need. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Many but not all have those policies and funds. And it'll be much more achievable with this bill than without it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I like the bill and I like what you're trying to do, and I haven't seen any bill come out of the general assembly that's absolutely perfect and addresses every individual scenario that could possibly conceivably come up, but I think what your bill does is widen the door and increase the opportunity for a lot of folks, and Madam Chair, if no one's offered, at the appropriate time I'd like to be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Rep. Glazier for the first time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chair. I've got 2 questions and then a comment, brief questions. I'm on the funding issue, Rep. Stam, is there a cap on the number of students which scholarships are available? And then in that sense, how do we arrive at the figure for the next academic year? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The cap is the amount of the appropriation, which is in the bill in section 5a. So if they run out of money,

they run out. That's a good estimate based upon the last two years what staff thinks will be adequate. But, even though there is that appropriation, that's not the cost because it is offset by the repeal of the tax credit. So therefore the fiscal memo which you are getting shows no cost in thirteen fourteen and about two and a half million in subsequent years. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up on that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So just I'm clear and I know this goes to finance and maybe all this can get worked out there. But, if you end up with a thousand more kids than you expect applying for this, you are stuck with the appropriation amount, does that mean it's first come first serve or does that mean that overall the scholarship amount gets reduced per person. I'm just curious what you do if there's more. Or does the bill address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I forget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the other bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does mister Nordstrom what we put- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe there's prioirity to those who recieve the tax credit the prior year otherwise they're provided on a first come first serve basis or the order which the applications are recieved. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry that's lines six through eight of page two. Sorry I forgot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. My last question, madam chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is a couple lines right down from that. And I just want to be sure I understand. So if I'm home schooling my child, I do have to provide documentation that I've put in place special education related services that I then essentially get reimbursed for. Am I correct that I can't just get a three thousand dollar check for having home schooled my kid and saying I'm specially educating them. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. The home school gets no reimbursement for tuition or for being in the home school. Only for actual therapeutic services as defined. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then my final comment. This has been an issue that most of you have been here long, like representative Johnson and representative Stam know that I've been involved in a long time and tried to figure out how to handle what I agree with representative Brandon is not the best easy services for a lot of kids, in my view, particularly for high school, I think they do a better job in elementary and middle school. And I did not vote for the bill last year because of my concern of where it's going to go and how uncapped it is and because it involves every potential kid who has a disability. I had sponsored a bill with representative Stam a few years prior and representative Lucas that was tied in to the more serious disabilities. I still think that at some point we're going to need to do that to control the cap and the money. I think the public schools are fully capable of serving most special needs kids particular those who are A D D or A D H D. They are less capable of serving those who are cerebal palsy, who are autistic, in some cases, more severely. I mean there are real issues and because, and this is going to surprise my colleagues, but because as I am sitting here, I did vote against the bill last year but this bill is a fix to what is already in law to create some capacity to get to some of the more need students who are poor. Because I view that is all it is doing, with my reservations about the first bill and my reservations about the need to put in a cap on the most serious concerns, I'm going to vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I answered my own questions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam ask that I remind everyone that it goes to finance and I'm not sure if it goes to appropriations, we'll check. Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question has been answered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First time representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to raise a comment, madam chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Never ceases to amaze me the arguments I hear around here in committees and on the floor. One of the arguments I usually hear is that the public schools don't- are at a disadvantage financially because they have to take everyone that comes and that they have to educate people who have special needs that require extra expenditures and that the private schools and other schools can cherry pick and can take the best students. And therefore the public schools are at a financial disadvantage that way. Now I'm hearing, now that we're trying to take some of these children who are more expensive to educate and take them into another setting, I'm hearing that somehow is taking money away from the public schools. I don't know how you get on both sides of that argument. But it looks like to me financially, the more successful this

The program is. The more we're doing financially for the public schools. So I certainly support this bill as a supporter of our public school system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Collins. Representative Bail, I believe your first time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes. I just wanted to say, this is sort of a turn from what I'm accustom to. Cause usually in the schools that I'm familiar with. The private would always would send their special needs children to the public schools for help because we had the psychologist ability where they did not have. And every time we'd receive money we had to offer it. ?? So I was just wondering. Private school were gonna have all these special person's all of a sudden. [SPEAKER CHANGES] More and more will. And with this bill even more and more and more will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, would you like to speak before Michaux addresses this. Fiscal note? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam chair. I am one of those who believe in public education and the fact that a larger majority of our children are gonna be there. And we must educate them but I just have some problems. I'm still wondering how, you know, we're talking about poor children. Children live in poverty because of their parents live in poverty. And so I have to be concerned about the parents who I know just cannot afford this. So whether we would agree that it takes funding from the public schools I can guarantee you that its going to create some flight from public schools and I think that's what this bill is designed to do. But I think that in spite of all of that, we have got to have some guarantees that if these are the children that we wanna help, there must be an opportunity for them to take advantage of this and if there's no money. If their parents don't have it, they will not get this opportunity and we just need to be clear about that and honest within ourselves about it. It's not going to happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I respond to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mrs chair. Representative Adams, I totally agree with you 100%. But I would disagree with the fact that it's not gonna happen. Because most of the time, and students in ?? County where we both serve. I've talked to a number of them and they both agree that they would use the scholarship program to offset most of the cost and that they would guarantee those spots. I think that the case that's least likely to happen is someone not being accepted because they cant afford the additional 2, 3 thousand dollars. I think that's the exception and not necessarily the rule. Because I think at the end of the day, without even what we have right here right now. And if anybody, if a parents come here. You have to remember that people are in this business to educate. No one's in the business. I mean we have all types of accusations. Why we do things. But a person that is in school and they run a school, they're in the business because they care about kids. Most of them. They care about kids and they want to educate them. And most, and we talk about the parents and what that can do. Most parents, you can always find one or two parents that could, might wanna do something crazy. But 99% of the parents are not gonna send their kids to a school that's not gonna address their needs. If they're out there looking for solutions, it would be mind boggling to me that you would go and spend extra money to a school that does not address the needs. To me it's almost a false argument. It's just a hypothetical that might happen 0.5 percent of the time. But 99.5 percent of the time, the parents will choose a school that best suits their needs. And schools that are in the business of educating folks. Will work with people to make sure that they can educate those folks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Brawley. Representative Michaux, I have representative Hall. Would you like to defer to him before we go to.. in case he might forget during our period out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll defer to representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative. First, members, do you have your fiscal analysis. Do you have that? okay, representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you madam chair. I'm still going back to the explanation of the bill as it was sent out by staff which indicates that 3.6 million dollars is appropriate...

The SEAA for 2013 fiscal year and this amount refers to this bill, but in more particular. After looking at the fiscal note, I still have a problem. On page 2 of the fiscal note, right at the top it says, the scholarship grant may only be used for the reimbursement of tuition and special education fund and related services. Now, what that tells me is that you're going to have to pay some money up front and then you will be reimbursed up to a particular point for those special services and that tuition of what it is going to cost to go to that school and I say that that is going to cut a whole lot of people out to start with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Micheaux. That is an important point, however I would look at the reverse. If we were standing here and we were advancing three thousand dollars per semester before any services had been provided, I think we would have other concerns from folks, potentially yourself as well. The issue here that we have discussed throughout today is that schools will work with folks on tuition if they know that money is coming from the state. It's not just hoping that the parent has the credit worthiness to pay for it later on. They know that something is coming. They will advance that, they will work with the families to get those students in and so I think that that's probably the best way to handle this kind of situation as opposed to granting three thousand dollars outright at the beginning of the semester. At least this way we know tuition and services have been provided for the benefit of that student. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Champ, May I- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I know you make a good argument for the bill. My argument is saying to you that you hope some schools will do this. Nobody- I don't know any school that has given you a guarantee that they would do this, number one. Number two is that you were only talking three thousand dollars a semester, which is six thousand dollars a year. If that child has a school in their area that provides those special needs. And that tuition is twenty thousand dollars a year and I take issue with representative Sam, somebody who is going to do it for nine thousand. But, even at fifteen thousand dollars a year, or fourteen thousand dollars a year, you don't have any guarantee that even the six thousand dollars is not going to pay that full tuition, nor for the special program. I don't know anybody who is going to go out on a limb for that, which means that you are cutting out a whole lot of people other than those who have the means of which to afford this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ma'am. I'll share just very briefly. I believe that Representative Micheaux, your argument is with the underlying bill as opposed to the improvements that we have made- and this is the marginal analysis- we are saying that the families that can not afford now afford it, if they are given an additional three thousand dollars a semester or six thousand dollars a year, they can then decide for themselves if they have the budget and can provide for their child to do that. I think that's wonderful. Is it a one-size-fits-all? No. Our children are not interchangeable parts. We cannot have a one size fits all bill that will fit every single situation. The ones on the margin who can take advantage of this and get better services for their children are the ones who will benefit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Jordan. I have Representative Hall and then Representative Speciale and then we're going to hear the speakers from the audience. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you madam Chair. And I have a couple of questions, if I could, for any of the bill sponsors. The initial bill requirement that's being reduced from two semesters to one semester in 2016-Is there a reason why we decided to have a lesser qualification period? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, the bill said if they can get- Remember the public school is the gate keeper by providing the IEP. If they can do it in that first semester, why not? Curiously I spoke to a public school teacher a week ago who has several IEP students in their class and never even got the IEP until two months into the semester. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up: so this was intended just for them to get the IEP, not to see if the IEP works as it is applied through the public school where the child is getting services. This is just to give the public school time to help them develop an IEP.

Go and get the private services. [Speaker Changes] No, Representative Hall. If that was the only purpose we could require them to get the IEP from the public school without even actually attending the school. We actually thought about that, but no they have to attend it and see how it works for at least a semester. [Speaker Changes] Follow up, Madam chair? [Speaker Changes] Yes [Speaker Changes] The priority procedure that you have in place. Is there a reason why priority is not being given to children who have somehow a greater need or some other factor beyond giving priority just to folks who have previously received a grant? [Speaker Changes] Representative Hall, the main purpose of this bill is to put the children who need it the most whose parents need it the most financially into the pot. Under underlying law if you defeat this bill the children whose parents only pay sales tax, property tax, and 18 other kinds of taxes will still be non-qualified. If you want to propose a different bill to improve their situation even more I’d be glad to look at it. [Speaker Changes] Follow up? [Speaker Changes] One more, yes. [Speaker Changes] But again the sole priority that’s articulated here says they previously were in the program. Is that correct? Is that the intent? [Speaker Changes] That is a priority. That priority is an existing law. It will be there whether you vote for this bill or against the bill. The idea there is that you don’t want to disrupt the education of children and move them from school to school to school from year to year unnecessarily, but that’s not an argument for or against the bill because that’s an existing law. [Speaker Changes] Final follow up Madam chair and then a comment. [Speaker Changes] Yes, you want to make both of those together. You’re on your fourth follow up and I have people in the audience. [Speaker Changes] Ok, well I’ll just make my comment then and skip the follow up question Madam chair for sake of time. [Speaker Changes] Thank You [Speaker Changes] I am concerned about the bill about how the priority is set about the time that families would get the IEP and in fact have time to see if the IEP works if they’re interested in doing what’s in the best interest of the child. And finally I’m concerned about the financing this seems to set up. It is an improvement over the previous bill and I don’t think because we’re doing a bill now we can’t try to improve it as much as we can. And understand, Representative Stam, I’m saying that existing bill is the baseline, but there is no limit on the upside of what we could do if we could agree on it. So, regarding the financing for parents where we’re saying they’re going to be reimbursed, I am concerned that everyone keeps saying that the schools in good faith will work with the parents and I hope that we’re not setting up a situation where parents in essence become, because of a modified IEP requirement, that parents become sought after and recruited to bring their children to a school that they can’t afford so then somehow financing is arranged through some other third party of service and the parents end up being on the hook for the money that’s supposed to be reimbursed because they signed for the loan. And what happens down the road with that, we’ve seen those abuses and problems in education financing before and specifically with traditional private schools in the State of North Carolina as well it has become a problem now. So, I am concerned about that, I hope as we go forward we can put some guarantees in the bill to insure not just the best interests of the children are served if they decide to go to one of these institutions, but on this issue of having to be reimbursed that they have an opportunity to get financing without becoming victims themselves. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Representative Hall. I appreciate the fact. Let me explain to you that we have a transportation meeting in this meeting which does not allow us to go all the way to 12 o’clock so we’re moving along a little further. We’d like to get to Holloway’s one more bill out of the committee. And Representative Speciale this is you’re second time speaking if you’ll be brief so we can hear from the audience. OK, now we’ll hear from those who have asked to speak. I’ll start with Karen Dequet, Parent’s for Education Freedom, and then Christopher Hall if you’ll get in line please. [Speaker Changes] Good morning Madam Chair and distinguished members. I’m Karen Dequet. On behalf of Parent’s Educational Freedom and the parents we work with across

To state. I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HV269, the children with disability scholarship grant. Similar to the initial tax credit for children with disabilities we are happy to see that this measure already has strong bipartisan support. And while the original program was a great start unfortunately as several of yuo have mentioned, several low income and working class families could not take advantage of this program due to the refundability issue. Every child deserves access to the school that best works for them. The scholarship grants under house bill 269 will provide access for all children with disabilities to attend the school that best fits their unique and individual needs. It is certainly a step in the right direction and I thank you for your leadership on this measure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Christopher Hill and then Donald Bryson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Chair, thank you committee. My name is Chris Hill, I'm with the North Carolina Justice Center. We oppose house bill 269. It's a voucher program that will drain much needed resources out of our public schools. The program is capped at $3 million dollars and there are about 190,000 exceptional children in North Carolina. If every eligible child received the maximum amount of the voucher per year only 500 students would be served. If that money however was provided to LEA's and our LEA's it's likely that they can already help more exceptional children and it actually does take the money from the LEA. The department of public instruction must adjust allotments based on the amount of students that receive the grant, so the bill takes money directly from the public school budgets of an LEA. This voucher will only serve people who can afford to send their children to private school already. Low income parents will not be helped by this voucher program since $6000 is not enough money to send an exceptional child to any school worth attending and it's likely that any parents who can use this grant probbaly don't need it. $6000 dollars is not enough money to educate students with severe disabilities. The bill requires to say that it's not realistically available for students with all disabilities because private schools can choose their students and may refuse to admit students with severe disabilities. I would just like to say that there was a mention of it's a win, win, win because we save money. The general assembly has the constitutional mandate to provide from taxation or otherwise a general uniform system of free public schools. It does not have a mandate to provide money to private schools, particularly private schools we don't know are going to take these children. And so I would say that the issue is not with giving vouchers, the issue is making sure that this body lives up to its constitutional mandate to provide funding for public schools and also that it can provide a sound basic education for all children. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Donald Bryson, American for Prosperity. Next will be Tammy Fitzchair [SP]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madame Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much for considering this bill and thank you for the opportunity to speak. we support house bill 269, we think this is a great bill. The tax credit is already in place but we think that this is an improvement on that bill. If anybody who was here a couple years ago remembers the tax credit received overwhelming bipartisan support. This is an improvement on the tax credit actually and makes it more accessible for poor families to get the educaiton for the children that they want. So we urge you to support the bill. Opponents to this bill will say that this will create flight from the public school system and children are just going to leave. There are underlying problems with that argument. The first assumes that every child with a disability their parents think that they're getting a terrible education and they will all flee the public school system. And that assumes that the public school system is giving a bad education. That's probbaly not the case. I think if you believe that about the public school system then you probbaly have a bad opinion about the public school system in the first place. The second argument is that in states like Florida, there are eight other states that have similar programs, Florida has the most expansive and the largest, there's not even a cap on the amount of the scholarship down there. Of the children that are eligible for that scholarship, less than 4% of the parents are taking it. That means that the parents that really really need better education for the their children are taking it and everybody else is generally okay with the education their receiving in the public school system. That's what's going to happen in North Carolina. Yes, there is a public, there is a constitutional mandate for the general assembly to provide good sound public education here for the children of North Carolina but the first thing that the constitution says about education in the state constitution is that educaiton should forever be encouraged. You should encourage better educaiton for all children. This bill makes it more accessible.

For more children with disabilities. A vote against this bill, is a vote against allowing more access for poor families for access to better education for the children. We urge you to support the bill. Thank you for your time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Brisson. Tammy Fitzgerald with North Carolina Values Coalition and Julie Adams Arc of North Carolina [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, I urge you to support House Bill 269. We believe this is a fair and just use of tax payer funds because it gives parents more choices. It puts control back in the hands of the parents, and it removes the state created barrier of success to children with disabilities. We believe that it allows opportunity and hope for children who don't presently have that and we urge you to support the bill. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Julie Adams, Julia Adams. I got the last name right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just gonna stand her and be quiet. Thank you Madam Chairwoman and bill sponsors, committee members. My name is Julia Adams. I am the assistant director of government relations for the ARC of North Carolina. We are a non-profit organization built on members whose children with disabilities we serve. We serve them both within the public school system and within the private school system currently. This bill in its original format that was passed in the previous general assembly was brought to us by a concerned parent. That parent was very active with their pubic school, had their child enrolled in a public school. Their child had multiple diagnoses including Autism, intellectual disabilities, and mental disabilities. And after working very diligently with the public school system they just simply realized they cannot have everything they really needed for their child, and their child's academic future was put at risk, and they chose a very difficult decision to enroll their child in a private school and to seek their own services outside of the public school system. The original bill assisted that family and we support this current bill especially with the changes that have been made that will allow access more readily for students who are in our low income economic brackets and we encourage all of you to support and vote for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. If anyone was present and did not get an opportunity to speak, if you'll just have your comments written, we'll add them to the ??. Representative Warren, we're ready for your motion. Would you like for me to give it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No I, I think I've got my hands around this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've had plenty of time to think about it. I'd like to make a motion for favorable report to the proposed committee substitute as an amendment unfavorable to the original with the referral to finance and quite possibly appropriation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rolled into a proposed committee. Not quite long enough. OK the motion is before us, Representative Warren's motion is before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calls for the Aye's and No's Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a moment. Jackson Stancil will call the roll. Committee Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Adams [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wait just a minute, I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure everyone knew this was going to finance and possibly appropriations. Go ahead Jackson, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ok, Adams [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Arp [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bell [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brandon [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brown [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bryan [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bumgardner [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Carney [SPEAKER CHANGES] No [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cleveland [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Collins [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cotham, Daughtry, Dixon [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dockham [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Elmore [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fisher [SPEAKER CHANGES] No [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gill [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Glazier [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Charles Graham [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] George Grahah, Hall [SPEAKER CHANGES] No [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hardister [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Horn [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Iler [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye

Jeter, Jones, Jordan, Lambeth, Lucas, Luebke, Malone, Martin, Michaux, Pittman, Presnell, Riddell, Ross, Saine, Schaffer, Shepard, Speciale, Stam, Tine, Tolson, Torbett, Turner, Warren, ??, Whitmore, Wilkins, Dobson, and McManus. Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill passes tewnty-five to ten we refer to finance. Our next bill is house bill 719 represented to Holloway, Glazier, Blackwell, and ??. We have a proposed committee substitute, do I have a motion? Motion from representative Warren. Which I have the proposed committee's substitute before us all those in favor say I all opposed no. The proposed committee substitute for house bill 719 is before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Madam chair, members of the committee this is house bill 719 this is the house version of the education reform and I was going to try to go over the entire bill but I'm going to let representative Glazier go over the remaining parts and I'm going to cover the two heaviest lifts in the bill in an all out him, he to go over those parts in more detail if he'd like but I'll let him cover the remainder of the bill. What this bill does and the two heavy lifts and before I start with that I do want to say that I'm very proud to bring this bill to you in the bipartisan format. A lot of work has been put on into this bill and also I wanted to say that again a reference to first two parts are two heavy lifts it's two things that this legislature has talked about for a number of years and that is performance pay, merit pay, alternative pay, it has many names whatever you want to call it and career status routine reform and it achieves both of these, these two ideas. And I'll start off first with the career status, and what the bill how it changes teacher's career status and what the bill does is it follows the Colorado model, it creates rather than have the concept of ??, which is our current law is permanent and once you achieve it after four years being in the same school system you've got it for the life of your career. This bill creates the concept of probationary, non-probationary. All the teachers that today have ?? under this plan would start out with a non-probationary status. They would not have to earn it they would keep their career status, if you will, by starting out as non-probationary. But for those teachers who currently have ?? how this bill changes the game for them is they have the ability to lose their non-probationary status and how they would lose that they would lose it by one, having an observation that was negative and they would have one year to fix it and in one year if they do not fix it they can then be kicked down to probationary status. However once being kicked down to probationary status they can be removed or...

If the school system decides to allow them to continue on they can be restored to non-probationary status after 2 solid years of good observations. That's what changes the model for teachers who currently have tenure. Again, they would start out as non-probationary but they, under this plan, would have the ability to lose it. This establishes a performance model: you perform, you stay non-probationary. You don't perform, you could become probationary. All teachers who are currently striving to get their career status and it takes 4 years, your first 4 years, you have probationary status. What this bill does is if you are year 2 of your teaching career then you start out in year 2 toward achieving non-probationary status. We are not resetting the clock on anyone and if you're year 3 then you're year 3. So it allows people to continue with their natural progression under the current model that we have set up with career status today. Again this bill still requires a person that takes 4 years to get to that non-probationary without penalizing those who already started teaching and striving toward that. The second heavy lift that this bill achieves is it actually comes up with a way to truly get to an alternative a merit-payer performance payed plan. We're setting up a commission that the Speaker and the Pro Tem of the Senate would each appoint 9 members from each chamber that includes all the stake holders from the education community. From attending conferences and listen to other states and seeing some of the things the mistakes that they've made with performance pay. It's a tough concept, it's a tough plan to implement and I think the most important thing is to have buy-in from all the stake holders. This bill achieves that by putting together this commission to say "Bring us a plan, bring us a plan that we can all agree to, that the state can agree to, that all the education stake-holders can agree to, and let's move forward with something that we all can put our name to." And this bill does that. In my opinion this is the first real initiative or first real step to move us towards some type of alternative pay in the state. And again, the commission is designed and including all education community so that we have buy-in which I think is very important. There are 8 parts to the bill. I covered the first 2 but for the sake of time and have questions and we have 3 others who want to speak, I'm going to turn it over to Representative Glazier and let him cover the remainder of the bill and he can touch on anything else that I've already covered as well if he chooses. Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Madam Chair and Representative Holloway and Representative Holloway I think has summarized the key portions of the bill. I call your attention to page 2 of the bill to the 10 items the task force has the cover which are on compensation from base compensation all the way through effective teaching compensation systems and so it's a pretty comprehensive look at the issue of pay. I will tell you the PCS also responded to a number of concerns with regard to how the career status evaluation process would work and tries to tie it into the model that's being developed through DPI equally weighting all of the standards and you'll see the changes that are made there. For the remainder of the bill just to briefly point out part 3 increases professional development credits 7.5 to 10 and includes competencies relating to digital learning and innovating and alternative methods of teaching. Section 4 or part 4 of the bill is what we passed already on the House floor. It is a modification of the A-F standards of that what we're hoping at least do a little bit a better job of that issue than what came out of the Senate last year. You'll see part 5 includes school improvement team and school improvement plans to make sure that those are actually strengthened and followed and parental input is truly what it's supposed to be. This language tracks what we've already passed in the school safety bill so it's in both places. Part 6 of the bill is an academic credit. This is an exciting project out of Rhode Island to create digital capacity for extended learning options that students take in clerkships and internships and summer jobs and this gives DPI a year to put that together and it is really assisting students and getting credit for real-time experiences and also therefore accelerating their pace through high school in rigorous and relevant courses. Part 7 was requested by a number of different agencies, DPI and our public school

?? and it deals with the issue of medical care and basically says if you are a member of a medical team at a school, you actually have to have training so you know what you’re doing because we don’t have that in the current law. That’s the core of the bill. I’ll turn it over to Representative Hall and Representative Blackwell and be glad to answer any questions, but what I will say is I think that this is one of the best looks at the major issues in a real way that will strengthen public education, not harm public education and will get teachers that we need, teachers who are performing and recruit and retain teachers without hurting the profession. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall and Representative Blackwell, either of you want to speak? We have an amendment here. Representative Glazier has an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is really more technical than anything, but the first two parts eliminate the term beyond the school term and makes sure we’re very clear that when an employee doesn’t meet that second year of their time that they’re trying to come back into the system after losing their career status, that they will be an at will be employee, hireable and fireable at will at that point, so that’s really clarifying that. The second part of the amendment is simply adding the words ‘local school board policy’ so that our whistleblower protection includes, not only where there’s a violation of law, but also of policy. I know of no oppositions to these changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do I hear a motion or a discussion? Representative Horn and Iler move for a favorable report on the adoption of the amendment. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed. The amendment will be rolled into the bill. Do we have anyone that wants to speak on the bill? Representative Bell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to move for a favorable report at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any questions? Then I guess this is an appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Madam Chair I move for a favorable report of the proposed Committee Substitute, unfavorable to the original… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rolled amendment and to the... [SPEAKER CHANGES] proposed.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With a favorable report to a new Committee Substitute and unfavorable to the original. You’ve heard the motion by Representative Bell. All in those favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The bill passes. Congratulations, gentleman. Representative Whitmire, House Bill 587. We’re going to hear his bill to ten minutes till since we have to clear the room for another committee meeting. If we do not continue, we will continue at our next meeting. Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will try to be as efficient with your time as possible. House Bill 587, also like thank my primary sponsors here with me. Representative Holloway, Glazier, and Blackwell. The objective of 587 is to exempt our occupation course of study students from mandatory ACT testing. Very briefly, the occupational course of study… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a moment, Representative Whitmire, I’m sorry, in my speed, I forgot to get a motion to have this proposed committee substitute me and Representative Jeter so moved, all those in favor. It’s before us, I’m sorry. Now you may continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Anyway, the occupational course of study, to give you an idea of what it is. If you look at our population and you look at it from term of cognitive ability, we certainly have a broad scope of intellectual capability. The occupational course of study looks, and is defined, to serve the students that have an IQ that is between 55 and 70. That is a mental disability, a term often we don’t use as mildly retarded, but that’s what this occupational curriculum serves. To put that into more perspective, 2.75

five percent of our population. Only 2.75 percent of our population has an IQ of 70 or less. With that, the average person is plus or minus 100. A person is considered gifted if they have an IQ of 130 or higher and these students, they do not need to have a requirement to take a college entrance exam. And with that, the occupational course of study, it's objective is not college prep, but it's life skills. It's objective is and also includes 900 hours of hands on time for these students, a very limited number of students I will say. But it prepares them to be able to be a contributing citizen in our society. You have on your desk, two real life examples. Both of these students, these children, have found a way to succeed albeit maybe to some tasks that are considered menial, but if you look through here, the occupational course of study has a very genuine purpose and with that, I will simply say that as far as support and opposition to the bill-- [speaker changes] Madame Chair. [speaker changes] Representative Collins [speaker changes] I'd like to be recognized for a motion at the appropriate time. [speaker changes] I have one listed representative ??. Do we have any objection to -- There's been a motion made for favorable report and that motion was -- [speaker changes] I'd like to make a motion for favorable report on the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 587. Not sure about serial referral. [speaker changes] There is no referral and the motion has been made by Representative Collins. All those in favor. All opposed. The bill passes. Congratulations Representative Whitmire. [speaker changes] Thank you. [speaker changes] With no business left, and four minutes left, we'll adjourn.