Mississippi House Bill HB494

Mississippi 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/6/22
• Refer: 1/6/22
• Failed: 2/1/22

Caption

Exceptional students with significant developmental disabilities and complex communication needs; clarify pathways for receiving educational instruction and training in a UBP.

Impact

The modification to Section 37-23-31 is significant as it ensures that students aged 3 to 21 with complex learning and communication needs can access tailored educational support beyond what is typically available in public schools. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that justification for student placements within these university-based programs must involve collaboration with local school districts through the students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). This collaborative requirement involves local school officials assessing the fit of university programs for students who may not thrive in standard educational settings.

Summary

House Bill 494 amends the Mississippi Code of 1972, specifically Section 37-23-31, to expand educational opportunities for students with significant developmental disabilities and complex communication needs. It authorizes state-supported universities and colleges to provide educational instruction and special educational services to students who are unable to get their educational needs met within their public school’s regular or special education programs. This bill emphasizes the importance of meeting the specific needs of these exceptional students by allowing qualified educators, such as licensed instructors and speech-language pathologists, to lead these specialized programs.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 494 may relate to funding and resource allocation. The bill requires that if the state-supported universities charge an amount that exceeds state and federal allocations per special education student, there must be a collaborative agreement with local school districts. This raises concerns about equitable funding and potential burdens on local districts to support costs beyond what is typically allocated. Critics may also question the enactment of university programs versus strengthening existing public school supports, potentially leading to conversations about the adequacy of special education funding at state and local levels.