Transcript Highlights:

• It said that you have 40% that are on the IEP. How much of that is gifted?
• Representative Cullen, most of those kids with IEPs are transferred over from other schools.
• They come to us with IEPs; we're not identifying them on our own.
• They will discuss the IEP needs and how we meet those at our school.
• They are meeting the needs of the IEP, but it may look different.

Transcript Highlights:

• and charter schools for students with disabilities who are absent from school as provided in their IEP
• That in the cases where we had students with severe conditions, their IEPs denote that their medical
• But we just wanted to remove That last Tier 4, where we know where they're at, their IEP clearly says
• So, well, those ones will have a different path route, or what will be the difference between an IEP
• They are not IEPs as defined by, again, federal special education law. So it...

Transcript Highlights:

• Disability is generally a student would have to have a 504, an IEP, or an identified disability.
• ><00:15:49.480> a<00:15:49.560> 504 would have to have a 504 would have to have a 504 IEP
• <00:15:53.720> So,<00:15:54.320> But<00:15:54.440> is IEP identified disability
• So, But is IEP identified disability.
• or a 504 on its own is a, you an IEP or a 504 on its own is a, you know,<01:02:15.040> matches

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• What it now does is it requires guidelines to be created by SCHEV that an IEP team may use to develop
• a transition IEP for students entering post-secondary school.
• Council for Higher Education of Virginia or Shev to study the quality and consistency of transition IEPs
• What it now does is it requires guidelines to be created by Shev that an IEP team may use to develop
• a transition IEP for students entering a post-secondary school.

Keywords: Disability Commission, 976, house, all

Summary: The Virginia Disability Commission held its first meeting of the year on June 18, with a quorum present. Members introduced themselves, then unanimously elected Senator Barbara Favola as chair and Delegate Amy Laufer as vice chair. The commission also unanimously approved its electronic meeting policy, which allows limited remote participation and all-virtual meetings under state law. Staff then reviewed a large package of enacted disability-related legislation from the prior session, including measures on disabled veterans’ vehicle fee exemptions, open captioning in movie theaters, guardianship paperwork, service dog team definitions, classroom placement for students with disabilities, transition IEP guidelines, Blue Envelope/Driver Communication Improvement Program training and outreach, deferred disposition and jury service protections, voting rights for people under guardianship, Human Rights Act expansions, a DD waiver eligibility change, and DMAS training authority for autism competencies. Members discussed implementation concerns, especially making the Blue Envelope and driver communication information more visible through DMV and other agencies, and agreed to send a letter and seek a follow-up report. The commission then adopted its interim work plan, with topics including Medicaid waivers and provider rates, DBHDS telehealth training implementation, higher education transition coordination, community-based transitions, criminal justice reform, transportation and parking accessibility, adult-sized changing tables, and school accessibility. Members added or refined several items during discussion, including EVV requirements for in-home caregivers, VDOE participation in transition discussions, seclusion and restraint in schools, insurance coverage for sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension, and a presentation from the Rare Disease Council. Public comment focused heavily on EVV burdens, local government accessibility, and the need for a standardized direct support professional credentialing pathway. The meeting ended with the work plan adopted unanimously and staff noting that future meetings will move to the third floor now that the chair is a senator.

Transcript Highlights:

• federal law, but it lets families know that Kentucky really prioritizes our military children with IEPs
• 57.920> and<00:01:58.240> that<00:01:58.719> we<00:01:59.119> are with IEPs
• and 504 plans and that we are with IEPs and 504 plans and that we are going<00:01:59.520> to,
• <00:02:10.879> or<00:02:11.039> 504<00:02:11.680> plan we're asking that their IEP
• or 504 plan we're asking that their IEP or 504 plan be<00:02:12.239> adopted<00:02:12.959>

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 0:02 Bills for Consideration: 26RS HB 383: 1:03 26RS HB 469: 6:32 26RS HB 586: 14:46 26RS HB 621: 19:58 Adjournment: 28:32, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Education met and first considered House Bill 383, which concerns military-connected students with IEPs and 504 plans. The sponsor explained that the bill, as amended by a committee substitute and then a committee amendment, is intended to emphasize Kentucky’s priority for military children and to have their existing or new plans adopted within 30 days of arrival to the greatest extent possible, while documenting cases where that is not possible. Members spoke in support, including references to military families who would benefit. The committee adopted the substitute and amendment and then passed HB 383 favorably to the House floor with the committee substitute attached. The committee next heard House Bill 469, which would require school board candidates to undergo a background check and can test before appearing on the ballot. The sponsor said the bill was prompted by concerns about school board access to children and school buildings, and that the cost would be paid by the candidate. Members asked about the criteria for disqualification and the open records exemption; the sponsor said the background check would use existing pass-fail criteria and the records exemption would protect candidates from embarrassment if they failed. The committee passed HB 469 favorably with the committee substitute attached. House Bill 586 was then considered, clarifying that sunscreen is not a medication in schools. The sponsor and a student advocate testified that some districts treat sunscreen as an over-the-counter medication, limiting student use without a provider order, and argued the bill would help prevent sunburn and skin cancer by allowing students to use sunscreen more freely. Members praised the advocacy and asked about the medication issue; the sponsor said the concern came from dermatology stakeholders. The committee passed HB 586 favorably to the House floor. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 621, which would move special education caseload and class-size limits from regulation into statute. The sponsor said the bill responds to proposed Department of Education changes that worried special education teachers, would slightly increase class-size maximums when a paraprofessional is present, and would not affect waiver procedures, preschool caseloads, or speech-language pathologist caseloads. Members asked about the rationale and supporting data for the limits; the sponsor said there are no federal guidelines and the bill was meant to preserve current regulatory numbers. The committee passed HB 621 favorably to the House floor, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• IEP meetings are continuous.
• an IEP, so certainly a student's IEP an IEP, so certainly a student's IEP does<01:26:44.960>
• Um IEP meetings are graduation.
• during the school year, another IEP during the school year, another IEP meeting<01:26:55.199>
• > meeting<01:27:35.360> to would trigger another IEP meeting to would trigger another IEP

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• team is going to develop an IEP that would be implemented however the IEP team feels is appropriate
• Um, that the parent would consent to that IEP.
• team is going to develop an IEP that would be implemented however the IEP team feels is appropriate
• team is going to develop an IEP that would be implemented however the IEP team feels is appropriate
• team is going to develop an IEP that would be implemented however the IEP team feels is appropriate

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 69, including a germane amendment about local school boards’ acceptance or rejection of gifts and donations and a non-germane amendment creating a virtual early childhood readiness family engagement program for preschool children not yet in kindergarten. Rep. Cordelli said the early literacy proposal was a modified version of an earlier kindergarten readiness bill, would rely on gifts and donations rather than state appropriations, and would include reporting requirements. Members questioned the shift from a broader technology program to an online-only model, the lack of detailed evaluation metrics, how long children would use the program, and whether it was appropriate for very young children. Cordelli said the change was intended to avoid government dependence and still allow the program to be offered next school year. Several members raised concerns about the gift-acceptance language on the underlying bill, including whether school boards would need to vote on small donations, whether gifts could be handled in blocks or at regular meetings, and how anonymous donations would work under right-to-know laws. Rep. Han noted that some gift discussions might belong in non-public session under RSA 91-A, while Rep. Cornell said acceptance or rejection of gifts could be handled at regular meetings and suggested a dollar threshold could be added later. The New Hampshire School Boards Association said it was not taking a position but wanted clearer guardrails, policy guidance, and clarification on timing, anonymity, and public-meeting requirements. Supporters of the early childhood program, including Waterford.org, said the proposal would provide an evidence-based, adaptive online literacy program with family engagement for four- and five-year-olds, and that it could help close early learning gaps. Waterford said it could work collaboratively with school districts and IEP teams, and that it would provide devices and internet access for families who need them. Committee members pressed on how the program would interact with existing special education services and whether districts could use it as part of an IEP; the response was that it would be supplementary and not an approved special education service. No votes were taken during the hearing; the chair indicated the committee would later executive the bills and try to get reports filed promptly.

Transcript Highlights:

• But one of the great benefits is that you can actually bill through IEPs for mental health services in
• I can also billing through their IEP.
• <00:20:15.280> But<00:20:15.520> one<00:20:15.760> of IEPs, not just mental
• But one of IEPs, not just mental health.
• process and you know, I'm I'm the IEP process and you know, I'm I'm just<01:16:49.840> curious

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• you tell me the connection between how this will be applied and how, dependent if a student has an IEP
• you tell me the connection between how this will be applied and how, dependent if a student has an IEP
• So if a student has an IEP with specific requirements, like the sensory room that you just mentioned,
• It doesn't necessarily have to be an IEP, but it's some type of others in the situation. Mr.
• And there are criteria to say the appropriateness of the implementation of an IEP team or an IEP plan

Bills: HB111, HB103, HB60, HB108, HB120, HB145, HB154, HB164, HB291, HJR6, HR1, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB38, HB47, HB63, HB64, HB127, HB165, HB184, HB200, HM20, HM51

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• health professional to the IEP team. health professional to the IEP team.
• However, parents are always able to invite who they want to an IEP meeting.
• However, parents are always able to invite who they want to an IEP meeting.
• However, parents are always able to invite who they want to an IEP meeting.
• Parents are always able to invite who they want to an IEP meeting.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group met for its final meeting on January 28 and first approved the prior meeting minutes after correcting two roll-call vote errors involving Miss Woodward. The chair then gave an extended recap of the history of seclusion policy, including the pre-2023 emergency-only framework, the 2023 ban on seclusion for children birth through grade 3, the 2025 introduction of SF 1830 to restore prior law, and the compromise amendment that allowed limited seclusion in grades 1 through 3 with added safeguards. The chair also reviewed the working group’s timeline, noting it had met from August 2025 through January 2026 and was required to submit findings by January 30, 2026. The main substantive discussion focused on the chair’s proposed timeline for eliminating seclusion and an alternative proposal from Mace. Several members criticized a Minnesota Department of Education letter that opposed parts of the working group’s recommendations, arguing it mischaracterized district practices, questioned informed consent and mental health professional provisions, and did not reflect the realities faced by schools. Members supporting the current use of seclusion said districts already use MTSS, PBIS, Ukeru, and other interventions, but still need seclusion in limited emergency situations. They also said the department’s comments felt inflammatory or unsupportive. On the timeline issue, Mace proposed allowing limited seclusion for students in grades 1 through 12 receiving certain special education services until July 1, 2036, with data collection on outcomes and related interventions. Some members supported a “runway” toward elimination, saying it would allow time to build alternatives and avoid an abrupt ban, while others said they could not support including grades 1 through 3 in any extended timeline and preferred elimination sooner. Members also questioned whether MDE currently collects enough data on law enforcement interventions and related outcomes. The meeting ended with continued discussion of the timeline proposal, but no final vote or report approval was recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The big one you heard yesterday in regard to special education is the statewide IEP, and you all funded
• a statewide IEP um.
• department and with LFC as we started to think more about the infrastructure needed for a statewide IEP
• , it made a lot of sense just to have a statewide student information system that that IEP could be a
• You did fund the statewide IEP and then this last year, um, when we, when I mentioned that system of

Transcript Highlights:

• student record profile joining IEP student record profile joining IEP meetings<01:22:53.920>
• Those assessments are things that the IEP teams are required to consider and determine whether or not
• The choice of an IEP team is to provide Braille or to provide an assessment.
• assessment or an evaluation to the IEP assessment or an evaluation to the IEP team<01:43:46.920>
• team is to provide Braille or of an IEP team is to provide Braille or to<01:43:59.040> provide

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 627, which concerns Department of Education school safety funding and staffing. DOE said the bill would restore two positions and related funding that had been removed from the governor’s budget: a targeted violence prevention and threat assessment program manager and a security technology manager. DOE described ongoing work on school vulnerability assessments, fire suppression measures, security camera research, panic buttons, and active shooter prevention training. Testifiers from DOE, the Department of Law Enforcement, fire services, HSTA, and an individual witness all supported the bill, with the individual citing a past school shooting experience as a reason to increase school resource officers and safety measures. Members asked about the positions’ duties, how the request differed from existing security funding, and the status of active shooter training; DOE said it would provide more information on training statistics. The committee then took up HB 249, relating to Executive Office on Early Learning family child interaction learning programs. The Early Learning Board, EOEL, Commit to Kids, Early Childhood Action Strategies, Partners in Development Foundation, and others testified in support. EOEL said it currently spends about $800,000 annually on FCI program contracts and supports expanding state funding for FCIL programs, including infant and early childhood mental health, if the appropriation covers the broader scope. Testifiers emphasized that FCIL programs are trauma-informed, evidence-based, and help families and children, with one provider sharing a long-term example of a parent and child benefiting from the program. Members asked how many programs are supported, whether FCIL exists on all islands, and whether the request was in the governor’s budget; EOEL said the expansion was requested by the office but not included in the governor’s budget. HB 429, concerning pre-K expansion, drew broad support from the Lieutenant Governor, EOEL, HSTA, and community groups. Supporters said the Ready Keiki initiative has already opened more than 50 classrooms and would add another 50 over the next two years, including Hawaiian immersion classrooms. EOEL said it currently administers 72 public pre-K classrooms across 74 campuses and that the bill’s funding was included in the governor’s budget request. Testimony stressed kindergarten readiness, affordability for working families, equity across islands, and inclusion classrooms. Members asked about national quality benchmarks, with EOEL stating Hawaii meets 10 of 10 benchmarks and that only five states had done so at the time referenced. The Lieutenant Governor also described construction and delivery efforts, including refurbishing existing classrooms, modular options, possible use of state buildings, and even collaboration with libraries to expand child care access. Finally, the committee heard HB 439 on J-1 teacher licensure. DOE supported the bill, while the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board opposed it, arguing licensure standards are not place-based and should remain rigorous and uniform for all educators. The Attorney General’s office offered technical comments, including replacing “educators” with “teacher” and clarifying the bill’s language on issuance and renewal conditions. Several organizations and individuals testified in support, including school, cultural, business, and educator groups. One witness, a teacher from the Philippines, said J-1 educators are highly qualified and described the rigor of teacher preparation in the Philippines. No votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• no longer have an IEP.
• no longer have an IEP.
• for his IEP.
• behavior support plan for his IEP. behavior support plan for his IEP.
• The IEP team, including the bruising.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:16:53.199> the with IEPs are mainstreamed, the with IEPs are mainstreamed, the committee
• <01:25:01.600> and they they're happening and the IEP and they they're happening and the IEP
• <01:29:05.280> or students that don't have their IEPs or students that don't have their IEPs
• That's not that's not how IEPs<01:29:21.760> work.
• But I heard that theus IEPs work.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These students are not currently having an IEP.
• These students are not currently having an IEP.
• These students are not currently having an IEP.
• um the number of trends that we of IEPs um the number of trends that we faren<01:21:12.760> is
• 13% of total students have been identified with an IEP for the most recent year of 2024.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Education Finance Committee met on January 21 with a quorum present for the first meeting of the 2025 biennium. The co-chairs described the temporary power-sharing arrangement in the tied Senate, introduced committee staff and pages, and had members briefly introduce themselves and share what subject they would teach. After the introductions, the committee moved to a presentation from State Demographer Susan Brower. Brower reviewed Minnesota’s school-age population trends and projections, noting that the state had just under 1 million children ages 5 to 17 in 2023 and that, for the first time, the older adult population exceeded the school-age population. She said the school-age population is concentrated in the Twin Cities metro and other regional centers, and projected an overall decline of about 5% over the next 15 to 20 years, driven mainly by declining birth rates and long-running net outmigration of young adults. She also explained that growth is expected in some areas, especially along the I-94 corridor north of the metro, while northern regions are projected to see the largest declines. She clarified for members that her figures measure resident children, not school enrollment, and that boundary changes are not reflected in the district-level data. The presentation also covered demographic change among students. Brower said about 35% of Minnesota children ages 5 to 17 are children of color, with growing multiracial populations and increasing linguistic diversity. She reported that about 20% of school-age children have at least one foreign-born parent, and about 18% of enrolled students speak a language other than English at home, with Spanish, Somali, and Hmong the largest home languages. She also discussed child poverty, saying Minnesota’s rate is just under 10%, below the national rate of about 15%, and that poverty is concentrated in Minneapolis-St. Paul, some first-ring suburbs, and parts of northern Minnesota, including districts with larger Native populations. Members asked questions about whether the projections accounted for migration and whether open enrollment affected the figures; Brower said the data reflect where children live, not where they attend school, and that the projections are based on recent migration and birth patterns, with future changes more likely to come from international immigration than from domestic migration.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to take a paper copy of an IEP and enter all that information in.
• Sometimes these IEPs take a long time to move from one district to another, and this is a way that it
• The IEP.
• Provide high quality IEP training.
• We see consistently in our monitoring, IEPs are not completed correctly.

Transcript Highlights:

• curve all of a sudden spike go really high because that's where the other 30,000 kids are that have IEPs
• curve all of a sudden spike go really high because that's where the other 30,000 kids are that have IEPs
• curve all of a sudden spike go really high because that's where the other 30,000 kids are that have IEPs
• curve all of a sudden spike go really high because that's where the other 30,000 kids are that have IEPs
• curve all of a sudden spike go really high because that's where the other 30,000 kids are that have IEPs

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• requires that until age 25, students with disabilities receive individualized education plans, or IEPs
• We would expect to see a similar number of students receiving IEPs in DYS as we see in the HOCs and DOC
• However, in DYS, one in two students is on an IEP. What we find in the HOCs and DOC is shocking.
• In the HOCs, fewer than 1 in 10 18- to 21-year-olds are receiving IEP support.
• bill would clarify the processes and legal obligations that ensure the HOCs and DOC are providing the IEP

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security heard testimony on several bills affecting correctional facilities, disability access, public health, youth education, parole, and vehicle noise. Early testimony focused on H. 2736/S. 1762, “Matt’s Law,” which would permanently ban free weights in medium- and maximum-security correctional facilities and require exercise equipment to be secured. The bill was supported by the Tidman family, Rep. Wells, and the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, who described the assault on Corrections Officer Matthew Tidman and argued the measure would prevent similar attacks. Committee members expressed sympathy and asked whether the Department of Correction could make the change administratively; witnesses said free weights had already been removed but that codifying the policy in law was needed. The committee also heard S. 1753 on synthetic drugs in correctional facilities, which would make possession, distribution, and use of Class C synthetic substances in prisons and jails a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence. Senator O’Connor and MCOFU said synthetic drugs like K2 are being smuggled in through mail and are causing violence and medical emergencies among inmates and staff. H. 4123, filed by Rep. Donahue and Chair Vargas, would require correctional facilities to offer two doses of naloxone to people upon direct release; Donahue cited overdose risk after incarceration and her personal loss of a son to overdose. Sheriff Donna Buckley also testified in support of a commission to study sentencing jurisdiction and whether more people should be sentenced to county houses of correction rather than DOC facilities. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to S. 1733, “An Act Building a More Accessible Massachusetts,” which would expand the Architectural Access Board’s authority over older buildings, workplace areas, and adaptable housing units. Chris Ho, disability advocates, and people with disabilities testified that the bill would help close gaps in accessibility for employment and housing, reduce long waits for accessible units, and support aging in place and independent living. The committee also heard S. 1721 on educational rights for incarcerated youth, with Avery Farmer arguing that 18- to 21-year-olds in DOC and houses of correction should receive the same educational services and disability supports as youth in DYS custody. Additional testimony supported S. 1716 regulating illegal exhaust systems, with one witness citing public health harms from vehicle noise and another opposing the bill as overbroad and harmful to classic car owners. Finally, Claire Massington testified for H. 2694 on equitable access to parole, calling for a more transparent, best-practices-based parole system with a revised board composition and a presumption of parole unless the board shows otherwise. The hearing ended with the chair adjourning the meeting due to a roll call in the House and Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• mean, two of them have sat in front of the Senate and served as a page, and I have experience with IEPs
• I have seen with my eyes that school administrators are really big fans of IEPs.
• but it details a list of all the SAUs and how many students, what percentage of students are issued IEPs
• is that some administrators have gotten to be very good at coming up with reasons to keep kids on IEPs
• with reasons to keep kids on IEPs with reasons to keep kids on IEPs because<00:29:39.679> they're

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :18:19.960> their have the authority to be given their have the authority to be given their IEPs
• parent<00:18:21.919> and<00:18:22.840> school<00:18:23.320> Personnel IEPs
• without parent and school Personnel IEPs without parent and school Personnel giving<00:18:24.159>
• <00:18:57.640> I parent with a child that needs an IEP I parent with a child that needs an
• IEP I would<00:18:57.960> hope<00:18:58.280> as<00:18:58.440> the<00:18:58.799>

Keywords: 1183, house