Bills: SB2479, SB2557, SB2861, SB3204, SB3324, SB3325

Keywords: criminal procedure, family violence, dating violence, child abuse, evidence admissibility, reduced sentencing, homelessness, reporting requirements, statewide office, housing solutions, kauhale projects, public oversight, SB2861, Hawaii, Office of Wellness and Resilience, OWR, Department of Human Services, DHS, Kakou Pilot Program, Kakou

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to criminal procedure, homelessness, family resilience, Medicaid-funded services, and school Medicaid reimbursement. On SB 2479 SD2, the Judiciary testified in neutral opposition with concerns that the bill could require imprisonment even for probation-eligible defendants, expand sentence reconsideration in ways that could undermine finality for victims, conflict with existing sentencing statutes, and require additional judicial resources. The Office of the Public Defender supported the bill’s intent but asked for language changes so people serving sentences could raise the new evidence in Rule 40 petitions and so probation would remain available in appropriate felony cases. Written testimony also included opposition from several county prosecutors and police, and support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The chair later deferred SB 2479 SD2, citing unintended consequences and problems with the bill. For SB 2557 SD1, which would require annual reporting by the State Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions, the office said it supported the intent but noted it already produces annual and quarterly reports, that some requested data is already available, and that staffing and cost constraints could make the new reporting burdensome. The State Council on Mental Health supported the measure and suggested narrowing the reporting language to data on individuals with serious mental illness or co-occurring behavioral health conditions, to the extent practicable and in collaboration with relevant agencies. A committee member asked about the availability of point-in-time count data, and the office explained that some figures may not be available every year and may need to be generated through HMIS. Dr. Jack Lewin testified in support, saying the data would be useful for understanding health care costs. The committee passed SB 2557 SD1 with amendments, including a deferral of the effective date. The committee also heard SB 2861 SD2 and SB 3204 SD1, both family resilience pilot program measures. For SB 2861 SD2, the Office of Wellness and Resilience and DHS supported the bill but requested amendments to clarify that the office’s role is planning and advisory, that DHS is a key partner, and that federal compliance safeguards are included. The chair raised concerns about overlap with DHS’s existing Ka Ohana program and asked for language to avoid redundancy while allowing the bill to cover other at-risk children; decision-making was deferred to the next hearing. For SB 3204 SD1, which would create a peer-navigator-based family resilience pilot, the Office of Wellness and Resilience and DHS supported the measure, with the office requesting a two-year pilot period, and both agencies and several advocacy groups submitted support. The committee discussed funding, the proposed five peer navigators, and whether the pilot should be limited to one or two geographic areas; no final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee also heard and supported SB 3324 SD1 on Medicaid home and community-based services, with the Department of Health emphasizing caregiver shortages and the cost-effectiveness of community care, and SB 3325 SD1 HD1 on public school Medicaid reimbursement, where DOE and the Attorney General requested clarifying amendments to reporting language and position titles.

Bills: SB2024, SB896, SB2613, SB494, SB2391, SB2125, SB2614, SB2615, SB3262, SB3325, SB3118

Keywords: charter schools, public-private partnership, school facilities, education funding, community need, education, capital improvement, reporting, transparency, technical expertise, public school land transfer, Department of Education, DOE, land conveyance, fee simple title, tax map key, TMK, Act 307, Session Laws of Hawaii 2022, Act 139

Transcript Highlights:

• this as your IEP development system. this as your IEP development system.
• of IEPs?
• And when we look at IEPs, we look at more pieces of the IEP.
• IEP team in Haverhill.
• an IEP later on.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:54.959> individualized students have IEPs individualized students have IEPs individualized
• continue to get updated um and an IEP continue to get updated um and an IEP may<00:18:55.679>
• When we're talking about IEPs, the IEP team is critical.
• the IEP team is critical um the P IEPs the IEP team is critical um the P team<00:24:29.279> is
• the IEP with the parents.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What are the issues with the IEP for me?
• Charter schools also have IEP plans for their students.
• The IEP does fall on to the charter schools as well.
• Even now, his IEP is not constantly followed.
• We all know that having IEPs is a struggle for parents.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the IEP with the IEP categories<00:09:49.040> is<00:09:49.240> there<00:09:49.680
• districts do use it for their IEP.
• And then does it align to the IEP?
• child and then does it align to the IEP child and then does it align to the IEP but<00:49:19.280
• , but how do you know it's going to be in the IEP when you're writing this at the IEP meeting?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session focused on special education, especially the differentiated aid component and special education aid, which members noted is still often called “catastrophic aid.” The chair said the committee was trying to better understand how special education costs are growing, how districts are delivering services through SAUs or internally, and how reimbursement formulas affect local costs. Members also discussed the need for better data before making decisions on several education funding bills, and Representative Brown was tasked with capturing questions for follow-up information from the department or elsewhere. Testimony from the state special education director, Becky Fad, centered on why student counts in various disability categories have shifted over time. She said the categories themselves have not changed much, but autism has increased because of greater understanding and identification, developmental delay has grown because it applies to children under age 10 who may not yet have a clear diagnosis, and some students previously classified under speech/language or other health impairment are now identified in more specific categories such as autism. She emphasized that the IEP is based on a child’s individual needs, so a change in category would not necessarily change services, though it may help educators support the student differently. Members asked about whether the shifts reflect better diagnostic capability, whether the department should gather more data on the reasons for the changes, and whether autism-spectrum data could be broken down further. Fad said the department does not currently have data on the causes of the shifts or on where students fall within the autism spectrum, but that collecting and analyzing such data is on its list of priorities and a new data manager had recently been hired. She also explained that each child is counted only once on the chart by primary disability, that the IEP or eligibility team determines the primary category based on evaluations, and that any child can be referred for special education by a parent, teacher, or doctor, after which the district must meet within 15 days to decide whether to evaluate. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Decisions about students with IEPs can't be made unilaterally by only two IEP team members.
• Decisions about students with IEPs can't be made unilaterally by only two IEP team members.
• He had a 12-page IEP.
• He had a 12-page IEP.
• Tan is right with an IEP.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum and considered three bills. House Bill 1145 by Representative Shoaf would clarify that public charter schools may participate in the CAP grant program and expand the number of eligible programs under the money-back guarantee workforce education provision from three to six. Supporters said it would broaden access and encourage outcomes-focused training; members asked about fiscal impact and repayment concerns. The bill passed 16-0 and was reported favorably. House Bill 127 by Representative Kendall addressed exceptional student education and workforce credentialing. A strike-all amendment broadened the bill to include all students with disabilities, use the term micro-credential, involve the Department of Education, the Florida Center for Students with Unique Abilities, and OSHA, and add validation by special education staff and an IEP team member. Public testimony included support from Goodwill and others, while one witness raised concerns about IDEA compliance, voluntariness, and funding. Members debated those issues, with supporters emphasizing that the bill was not mandatory and would help transition students into work; the amendment was adopted and the bill then passed 15-0. House Bill 571 by Representative Kendall would expand career planning and work-based learning opportunities for students, require the Articulation Coordinating Committee to evaluate apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs for postsecondary credit, allow more flexible work-based learning, provide career days for students age 16 and up, guarantee transfer of certain credits to the Florida College System, and require annual review of personalized academic and career plans. Several industry and education groups appeared in support, no one spoke in opposition, and the bill passed 15-0 and was reported favorably. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• categories for IEPs. categories for IEPs.
• Now it's kids identified with IEPs.
• determined by the IEP team. determined by the IEP team.
• these specialists but they have an IEP these specialists but they have an IEP team<00:57:15.359>
• they feel that this child need an IEP. they feel that this child need an IEP.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission to study special education costs under SB 57 met for its second meeting, with members introducing themselves and reviewing background materials on New Hampshire special education identification rates, NAEP results, and a Wall Street Journal article about the rise in autism diagnoses. The chair explained that the commission is examining special education aid formulas, including how New Hampshire’s current catastrophic aid threshold works and how changes to that threshold might affect school districts, but noted that the needed data on how many students would shift into the aid system at lower thresholds is not yet available. The main testimony came from Henry Litman of HHS on Medicaid reimbursement in schools. He explained that school-based Medicaid funding is tied to health-related services, not all special education services, and that federal rules are changing in state fiscal year 2027. Under the new approach, schools will move away from an in-kind methodology to a certified public expenditure model that may also allow recovery of some overhead costs, such as support staff time. He said the state won a federal grant to help build the new system, hired a vendor, and is setting up training and a help center for districts. Members asked about why Medicaid claims have declined and whether districts are leaving money on the table. Litman said claims are down about 25% from pre-pandemic levels, with declines tied to federal and state rule changes, documentation requirements, provider qualification rules, and the end of temporary pandemic flexibilities. He said some districts adapted better than others depending on local medical-provider access and administrative capacity. He also said the new federal legislation does not directly affect schools, while New Hampshire’s return to pre-pandemic eligibility rules has reduced enrollment somewhat. No votes were taken, and the discussion ended with agreement that the commission needs better data to determine how much special education spending is truly Medicaid-eligible and whether additional legislation is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, they don't get an IEP.
• So, they don't get an IEP.
• So, they don't get an IEP.
• , and the IEP says trips.
• , and the IEP says trips.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission to study the cost of special education met, confirmed a quorum, introduced members and guests, and approved the minutes from the October 29 meeting. Members noted the commission’s mandate under Senate Bill 57 and emphasized the need to focus on recommendations and findings by July 1, 2026. The chair also distributed additional handouts, including materials related to the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program and administrative rules tied to differentiated aid and disability determinations. The main discussion centered on how students qualify for differentiated aid under the EFA program. Matt Sutherton of the Children’s Scholarship Fund explained that the organization, which contracts with the state to administer EFAs, accepts either school-district/IEP documentation or a medical certification of disability (MCD) from a licensed medical professional. Members questioned how this process relates to the state’s special education rules and whether the school-district examiner standards in ED 107/1107.04 apply to EFAs. Sutherton said the MCD form, created with the department, requires the medical professional to sign that they are qualified to make the determination and to identify the disability. Several members expressed concern that the EFA process is less rigorous than the school-district IEP process and may be inflating disability counts. One member argued that the administrative rules cited are primarily for school districts, not EFAs, and said the Department of Education may not know how many of the roughly 890 EFA students receiving differentiated aid came through school-district documentation versus the MCD pathway. Another member said the EFA system appears more generous than the school system and raised concerns about oversight, auditing, and whether the program’s data are accurate. Sutherton said the organization reviews signed documentation, credentials, and diagnosis information, and may request additional records to help adjudicate expenses. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the prior minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a students which have IEPs.
• When you have your IEP meeting locally in your local school district, and we have an IEP meeting right
• Cost cannot be discussed in an IEP.
• <00:54:08.319> for<00:54:08.640> other IEPs at people to get an IEP for other IEPs
• <00:58:01.839> could for certain services in IEPs could for certain services in IEPs could

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > to IEP, but the IEP says you're going to IEP, but the IEP says you're going to send<00:59:28.160
• Did you look at specific IEPs? >> We have not looked at specific IEPs.
• The transportation costs have to directly relate to the IEP as written in the IEP.
• > IEP.
• They would just be obligated to fulfill the IEP. And what's in the IEP?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would gifted students still receive an IEP?
• So they would still have their IEP. I hear what you're saying about IEPs.
• I hear what you're saying about IEPs.
• and having the IEP template.
• They'll continue with their gifted IEPs.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Some have IEPs, some don't. Some have IEPs, some don't.
• about managing the IEP, but the child doesn't have an IEP?
• IEP. It was it it it it just turns into IEP.
• <01:59:58.320> IEPs.
• IEP IEPs. IEP IEPs.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission on the costing of special education met to review several documents and updates, including draft materials on residential placements, an LBA dispute resolution report, prior minutes, rate-setting rules, and a letter involving Senator Hassan. The minutes from March 16 were approved by motion, second, and one abstention. Members also received an update that the LBA special education performance audit is still pending; the report is expected to be very large, NHED and the Board of Education must review and comment before release, and it likely will not be available until late summer or early fall. The separate EFA audit was also noted as still unreleased, and members said they may return later to issues involving EFA costing and differentiated aid. A major focus was HB 1099, which would create a committee to study the cost and liability of providing educational services to students placed in residential facilities. The chair explained that the House version had passed unanimously and the bill was headed to a committee of conference. Members discussed a proposed amendment to add the phrase “including but not limited to” so the study would cover not only court-ordered or treatment-related placements but also other residential placements, including those tied to school district decisions. Some members said this was a substantial expansion, while others said it would simply give the committee broader latitude. Jason Stock of the Winnisquam Regional School Board described how the issue arose during budget work at Winnisquam, where the district was trying to determine who should pay for educational services for students living at Spaulding Youth Center in Northfield. He said the district had 10 students attending Winnisquam, including three foster students and seven students connected to Spaulding, and that Spaulding-specific invoicing for 2024-2025 totaled $141,417.05 for eight students. Members also discussed rising private placement tuition costs and the difficulty of determining residency and fiscal responsibility for students placed in residential settings. Department counsel explained that under RSA 193:27 and 193:28, children placed in a home for children may attend the local district school, and that special education cost responsibility depends on whether the student is identified as disabled and on the nature of the placement. Spaulding representatives had not yet presented by the end of the excerpt, and the committee was still working through the residency and funding questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• attended their student's IEP meetings.
• So So IEP meetings and transition timelines we did ask you know do you attend your students IEP and it
• We wanted to ask: what are some barriers to attending the IEP meeting?
• We had, 'I don't understand what an IEP is' at 11%.
• The new IEP does showcase that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Employment Subcommittee of the Permit Commission on Status of Persons with Disabilities met on April 27 and approved the prior meeting minutes before hearing a presentation from the Lawrence Partnership for Transition to Employment (LPTE). Presenters from UMass Boston’s Institute for Community Inclusion, the Arc of Greater Haverhill-Newburyport, Northeast, and Lawrence Public Schools described LPTE as a five-year grant focused on improving transition outcomes for youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Lawrence through community partnerships, work groups, and family engagement. A major focus was a family survey designed to better understand barriers to transition planning and IEP participation. Presenters said the survey response rate increased sharply after Lawrence Public Schools helped distribute it, rising from about a dozen responses to more than 200. Survey findings showed common barriers such as scheduling conflicts, language access, childcare, transportation, and limited understanding of IEPs and transition planning. The data also suggested that many families expect college or employment outcomes for their children, but fewer reported access to pre-employment training, indicating a communication gap rather than a lack of services. Lawrence school staff explained that the district has a five-person transition team, bilingual resources, workshops, and a developing online transition hub, and that they are using the survey results to improve visibility and access to existing supports. Committee members discussed the need to start transition planning earlier, expand real-world work experiences, improve outreach to Latino families, and better connect students with college, trade, and employment pathways. Several members suggested partnerships with summer youth employment, volunteer programs, and college or alumni panels. The presenters said the grant ends in September, but the resource hub will continue through the Arc and they are exploring ways to sustain the consortium model. The meeting ended with thanks to the presenters, an update that committee members would meet with Seed on Massachusetts as a model employer, and notice that the next meeting would feature the Office of Veteran Affairs before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• page, my comments about the IEP page, my comments about the IEP advocates.<00:19:39.919> Um,<
• put on an IEP. put on an IEP.
• >> Not an IEP.
• >> It's anything that's in the IEP. It can only be the items that are in the IEP.
• <01:05:32.240> goals episode of treatment in the IEP goals episode of treatment in the IEP

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• IEPs, which are sometimes the bane of teachers' existence.
• It improves our transparency with families and what's in the IEP.
• A statewide IEP platform will help address mobility issues we face in New Mexico and...
• I have sought ...IEP.
• We do hold an IEP using the forms and the specifics to New Mexico, but we hold an IEP to ensure that

Bills: HB30, HB120, HJR1, SB210, SB306

Keywords: teacher residency, Teacher Residency Act, public schools, teacher preparation, educator pipeline, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, student teachers, apprenticeship, co-teaching, mentor teachers, residency stipend, teacher salary, level one teacher, charter schools, school districts, New Mexico education, teacher workforce, principal stipend, cohort model

Transcript Highlights:

• now, IEPs with students that have IEP now, IEPs is<00:29:01.279> at<00:29:01.520> the<
• at the IEPs. at the IEPs. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay.
• with an IEP the the district the IEP with an IEP the the district the IEP team<01:12:37.360>
• any IEP meeting.
• focus on students and their IEPs. focus on students and their IEPs.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the November 21, 2025 minutes, making several clerical corrections before adopting them as amended. The edits included adding the date, correcting a misspelled name, clarifying references to a scholarship fund representative’s title, removing an incorrect “DOE” reference, and fixing a few wording errors. The minutes were approved with one abstention from members who were absent. The bulk of the meeting focused on organizing the commission’s work under SB 57 and identifying which special education cost issues should be prioritized for research and reporting. Members discussed a long list of topics, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, increases in referrals since school closures, interventions before referral, costs of non-medically necessary services in IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal and state requirements, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, dispute resolution, Medicaid and insurance use, graduation rates, and adult learning participation. Several members emphasized the need to combine or narrow topics and to gather better data before the report due July 1, 2026. Representative Ames highlighted HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid payments when state appropriations fall short, and explained that the Education Funding Committee recommended interim study. He argued that local districts are bearing too much of the cost and that the state and federal governments should provide more support. Other members raised concerns about rising special education identification rates, possible overidentification, school climate and mental health factors, bullying, staffing, speech therapy access, and residential placements. One member cautioned that DOE website numbers may be inflated or at least difficult to interpret because of how students are counted. Department of Education staff then explained how special education data and costs are monitored. They said student counts are tied to IEPs and SASIDs in the state system, districts are checked through both desk audits and on-site monitoring, and billed services are compared against IEP requirements. They also described IDEA funding, noting that most DOE special education staffing is federally funded, with a large share of federal money flowing through to local education agencies and the remainder supporting administration, monitoring, and training initiatives. Members discussed whether more staff and more robust oversight would improve accuracy and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• not be in their IEP. seclusion and it not be in their IEP.
• <00:24:23.919> and is used for a student with an IEP and is used for a student with an IEP
• that it's not currently in their IEP. that it's not currently in their IEP.
• in their IEP, the IEP team must meet to consider the use and talk about blah blah blah.
• in my child's IEP. in my child's IEP. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the prior meeting minutes and then spent most of the meeting discussing draft recommendations and a Senate amendment, 007-7, related to seclusion in schools. The chair explained the history of the issue, including Minnesota’s 2023 ban on seclusion from birth through grade 3, and described 007-7 as a compromise developed with stakeholders that would extend the ban through grade 6 unless strict conditions are met. Those conditions include explicit written informed consent from all parents or guardians in their primary language, oral translation of safeguards, showing the seclusion room before consent, mandatory follow-up IEP meetings after repeated use, outreach and education for families, and data reporting on use of seclusion. The chair also said the amendment would prevent judges or other officials from ordering seclusion over a parent’s objection. Members then reviewed the draft recommendations line by line. They agreed to revise language to add “and fund” after “mandate” in the first section, and discussed changing references from “level three and level four” to “level three and higher,” though several members ultimately preferred keeping the focus on school settings and not expanding into medical or correctional settings. They also discussed replacing the word “subjected” with more neutral language such as “experience” or “whose IEP includes seclusion.” Another issue was whether the recommendations should distinguish between students whose IEP already includes seclusion and students who experience seclusion in an emergency but do not have it in their IEP; members suggested splitting that into separate recommendations and possibly adding a new item for the latter situation. A final discussion focused on whether the working group should recommend a mandated alternative-to-seclusion program and whether such a mandate should be tied to funding. School district representatives said many districts already use programs such as CPI, but others, especially outstate districts, charter schools, hospitals, and residential settings, may face significant costs if required to adopt new programs like Ukeru. Members generally agreed that if the legislature is asked to require implementation of new alternatives, funding should accompany the mandate. The chair also noted that existing law already requires an IEP team meeting after restrictive procedures are used twice in 30 days, and encouraged members to compare that with the 007-7 language before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's IEP. Yes, those are IEP. That's what I'm after.
• It's IEP. Yes, those are IEP. That's what I'm after.
• It's IEP. Yes, those are IEP. That's what I'm after.
• It's IEP. Yes, those are IEP. That's what I'm after.
• Are are IEP teams properly >> The IEP team.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the May 18, 2026 minutes and then focused on how SB 57’s special education cost study should inform HB 1099, which creates a separate study committee on residential placements and related education costs. Members discussed sending the commission’s minutes and findings to that new committee, noting the short timeline for its work and the need to be specific about unresolved issues so the new group does not duplicate the same questions. A major topic was the cost and responsibility for students placed at Spalding and similar residential programs, especially transportation and whether costs are paid through the Department of Education’s episode-of-treatment (EOT) fund, local districts, DHS, or Medicaid. Staff explained that for students with disabilities, EOT funds cover special education and transportation costs tied to the placement, while students without disabilities are handled through DHS care-management and best-interest meetings. Members raised concerns about whether some students at Spalding are receiving no schooling, whether transportation costs are substantial, and whether Medicaid reimbursement could offset some expenses. The commission also discussed confusion over district responsibility when students placed in residential programs attend school in another district, using Winnisquam as an example. Several members said the receiving district was not notified that DHHS-approved programs could bring in additional students and costs, and they suggested DHHS or its care-management entity should notify both the district of residence and the receiving district when a program is approved. The group agreed this notification issue, along with transportation funding, privacy concerns in Medicaid-to-schools billing, and the distinction between special education placements, EOT placements, and other voluntary residential placements, should be passed to the HB 1099 study committee for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:28:58.559> now,<00:28:59.039> IEPs with students that have IEP now, IEPs with students
• say, "No, there's only three in the IEP. say, "No, there's only three in the IEP.
• is to implement the IEP that they bring. is to implement the IEP that they bring.
• any IEP meeting.
• where are we between IEP and behavior? where are we between IEP and behavior?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to review and amend the minutes from its previous meeting, correcting the date, several spelling and wording errors, and clarifying references to a scholarship fund and a member’s title. The minutes were then approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair then turned to the commission’s work plan under SB 57, emphasizing the need to prioritize the statutory topics and identify which issues require additional research, documentation, and possible spreadsheets. Members discussed a broad range of special education cost drivers and policy questions, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, whether referrals increased after COVID school closures, intervention processes before referral, the cost of services required under IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal law, state law, and DOE rules, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, district sharing of resources, dispute resolution, graduation rates, and adult learning outcomes. Several members raised concerns that school environments, mental health, bullying, and possible overidentification may be contributing to rising special education numbers and costs, while others cautioned that some reported district percentages may be inflated or unclear because of how the data are counted. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid when state appropriations are insufficient and require the governor to draw a warrant to cover shortfalls. Representative Ames explained that the bill had been recommended for interim study because the commission is already examining special education costing, and he highlighted the gap between FY24 special education costs of about $977.1 million and state aid of $33.9 million for catastrophic aid, $67.4 million for differentiated aid, and $50.8 million in federal IDEA funds, leaving local districts to cover about $825.1 million. He argued the commission should ultimately make clear that both the federal government and the state should contribute more. The Department of Education, through Melissa White, answered questions about data and oversight. She said special education counts come from IEPs entered into the state system using SASIDs, that DOE monitors districts through both desk audits and on-site visits, and that billing is checked against the services listed in each student’s IEP. She also said DOE’s special education work is largely federally funded, with roughly $56.7 million received through IDEA this year and about $49.1 million flowing through to LEAs, while the department retains a small amount for administration and statewide support activities. Members also discussed how adequacy calculations use special education counts from the state system and how those figures are reported.