001Good morning everyone. Today is Friday, April the 24th, 2026. This is the second of two uh public hearings regarding proposed rule revisions around 19 TAC chapter 89, specifically sections 1050, 1055, and 1096. Uh my name is Derek Hollingsworth. I'm your host today. Uh we do have some people signed up to provide public testimony. Um so um here in just a moment um I'll call you according to the uh the um the the order you entered the room. Um there are two people that just came in. Uh Ms. Litzinger, are you interested in providing public testimony today? I believe I will just listen. I might tell you later that I will talk. Thank you. Very well. And Ms. Carlton, are you interested in providing public testimony today? Uh at this time, no, but I will let
002you know if I do. All right, thank you very much. All right, so I have some perfunctory remarks I have to make. Speakers will be called to speak by their uh by the order that they signed in. Please clearly state and spell your full name. If you are representing an organization, please clearly state the name of the organization that you're representing. You will have 3 minutes to speak. The timer will start after you've started uh stated your name and if applicable the name of the organization that you're representing. A 30-second warning will be given at the end of the 3 minutes. You'll be given a signal to stop. Once the stop signal is given, you may complete your sentence and then you must stop. Speakers are encouraged to include a written copy of their prepared
003testimony. And written testimony may be emailed to [email protected]. TEA staff will not be responding to your comments today, nor will a TEA staff ask or answer any questions. So, we'll get the timer. Our first speaker today will be Steven Aleman. And Mr. Aleman, you can start whenever you're ready, sir. Good morning. My name is Steven Aleman, that's s t e v e n. Last name is spelled a l e m a n. This morning I'm here on behalf of Disability Rights Texas. I'm here to comment on the pending rule making involving several TEA regulations on special education. Disability Rights Texas will be submitting more comprehensive written remarks by the deadline for public comment. But today I'm going to make just three comments on proposed changes to section 89.1096, which involves private schools and students with
004disabilities. Our first comment with regard to proposed changes to 89.1096 is that we oppose the removal of the dual enrollment option for children with disabilities ages three and four. We believe that this rule has been long standing, has long served the benefit and benefited students with disabilities in that young age category, and there is no justification to remove this option at this point. Um Our second comment is with regard to changes involving IEPs developed for students who want to take advantage of education savings accounts program approved last legislative session. Our two comments with regard to those changes to implement Senate Bill 2 are one that we believe that those regulations should be actually in a separate free standing regulatory provision not added and integrated into section 89 1096. We believe that causes some confusion with
005regard to students who may be going to private schools because there's a dispute of faith and other obligations that schools have with regard to children with disabilities in private schools. We prefer the Senate Bill 2 IEP provisions to be in a separate free standing regulatory provision. As to the substance of those provisions, we believe it's very important that a parental notice requirement be added to the regulation with regard to the Senate Bill 2 IEPs. That is that these regulations because they do not fully contain all requirements for an IEP, parents will provided notice that these do not make an or constitute an offer of faith to those families and to that student. It's important that parents understand what is a real IEP and what is a Senate Bill 2 IEP. And notice should be included
006that those types of IEPs are not an offer of faith on behalf of the school district for a parent to consider whether or not not they want to return or remain in public education. Again, we'll be submitting written comments and incorporating these remarks and others with regard to this pending rulemaking. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. Thank you very much, Mr. Allemand. Appreciate it. Next is Mr. Michael Clark. All right. My name is Michael Clark, m i c h a e l, c l a r k e, and I'm with The Arc of Texas. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rulemaking relating to the implementation of HB 2, SB 2, and SB 568. My name is Michael Clark, and I'm the deputy director of
007public policy and advocacy with The Arc of Texas. We appreciate the efforts of TEA in the proposed rules to implement the reforms passed by the legislature during the 89th legislative session to support students with disabilities and their families. With that, I'd also I'd also like to share some feedback and recommendations to help ensure these changes are implemented in a way that is clear for families and continues to promote strong outcomes for students. I'd like to begin by addressing some concerns we have regarding the proposed removal of language that allows certain young children with disabilities ages 3 to 4 to participate in dual enrollment at both the public and private school. For this group of students, dual enrollment can serve as an can serve as an important bridge that allows them to learn and grow alongside
008their non-disabled peers in a community setting while continuing to receive the specialized support they need to thrive from their local public school. We are concerned that removing this option could limit opportunities for young students with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive environment, and ask that the agency keep this option available for these children. Additionally, we have concerns about the proposed changes to section 89.1096. This section currently addresses the provision of students the the of services for students who are who are parentally placed in a private school or in private schools or facilities, particularly when there is dispute over the provision of a free appropriate public education or faith. The proposed inclusion of new language in the section relating to Texas education freedom accounts uh TEFA IEPs risk conflating distinct processes and requirements, specifically
009those governing a standard IEP and those associated with an IEP developed for the purpose of participation in the TEFA program. We suggest placing TEFA-related provisions in a new and separate part of the administrative code to maintain clarity and clearly distinguish between these separate processes. Lastly, we request adding a parental notice requirement for families of students who develop a TEFA IEP after being found eligible to receive special education services. It is important that families clearly understand that an IEP developed solely to determine eligibility for an education savings account is a funding tool, not a legal offer of a free appropriate public education. Without such transparency, families may inadvertently waive their child's rights and procedural safeguards under federal law without realizing that private schools are not legally obligated to provide the services outlined in the TEFA IEP.
010Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. All right. Ms. Litzinger, are you interested in providing public testimony? Yes, thank you. My name is Linda Litzinger. I'm with Texas Parent to Parent. We're a statewide nonprofit serving children with every type of disability, and we thank you for offering this opportunity today. We will be sending in um detailed comments, but they will all be similar to what The Arc of Texas and Disability Rights Texas just said that parents need informed consent about what kind of education they're entering into with their child and more transparency. And so, we need separate language and we need um separate words as as well as as well as separate code. And [snorts] so, I thank you very much. All right. Thank
011you very much, ma'am. Ms. Carlton, are you interested in providing public testimony today? No, I'm not. Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Little, you came in right after we had started. Are you interested in providing public testimony today? No. No, thank you. All right. So, at this time, um no one else is uh has arrived to provide public testimony. Thank you very much uh everyone for your attendance today. Um this concludes today's public hearing.