Dozens upon dozens of people submitted written or oral testimony on a bill at the Hawaii Legislature that they warned would harm special-needs children.
House Bill 868 would allow for school psychologists, teachers, educational assistants, occupational therapists, school social workers, guidance counselors, speech-language pathologists and audiologists to engage in the practice of behavior analysis in the Department of Education.
The bill says the practice would be conditioned on individuals not using any title or description stating or implying that the individual is a “licensed behavior analyst” or “behavior analyst” without holding a license.
Superintendent of Education Kathryn Matayoshi said the bill “is important to avoid a disruption in services to students with autism spectrum disorder provided by school personnel pursuant to an individualized education program.”
Matayoshi said an exemption for DOE personnel “will ensure that educational professionals are not subject to mandatory licensing outside the scope of their formal educational degrees and training. Additionally, contracted providers extend the Department’s capacity otherwise hampered by vacancies and hard to fill positions to provide behavioral instructional support services in Hawaii’s public schools, including applied behavior analysis.”
But HB 868, which was heard Monday in Roy Takumi’s House Committee on Education, received strong opposition from a number of quarters.
“When the legislature passed the bill last year to license behavior analysts, one of the main reasons was to ensure that this vulnerable population was provided this essential therapy by individuals who were competent and knew exactly what they were doing,” wrote Louis Erteschik of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center. “There seems to be no valid reason to exempt this situation when performed in an educational setting.”
Erteschik continued: “Further, this bill contains so many exceptions and lists so many individuals who would be permitted to practice behavior analysis that it is too overly broad and will certainly inevitably include individuals who are clearly not competent to engage in this practice. It would be far preferable for the DOE to hire or contract with licensed providers to perform this service.”
Lara Bollinger of the Hawaii Association for Behavior Analysis was more blunt:
“How long will we as a state allow some of our most vulnerable keiki to receive subpar education? … Why is DOE so quick to ask for an exemption from something that was intended to protect our keiki? I urge you to oppose HB868 HD1. This bill will do nothing but perpetuate harm for Hawaii’s keiki with special needs.”
Larry Geller, who runs the Disappeared News blog, agreed that the bill was harmful, but for other reasons as well.
“The bill is also an example of the practice of ‘gut and replace,’ which good-government advocates object to each legislative session,” he testified. “Most concerned citizens will have no idea that the language in this proposed HD1 has replaced a bill that many might find reason to have supported. It is important to let committee members know that this is an objectionable practice.”
“Gut and replace” refers to the practice of taking an existing related bill — in this case, one on education — and replacing it with language that often in no way resembles the original legislation.
Proponents of the practice argue that it allows for the consideration of new bills once the introduction deadline has passed.
But opponents say it’s a way to sneak in new drafts with little notice to the public.
Rep. Takumi deferred decision making on HB 868 until Wednesday.
