Iowa: Administrative Rules Review Committee

Committee chair

Good morning. Welcome to our November AHRQ meeting. Thanks everybody for being here. Jack, will you please call the roll?

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

Senator Warme. Here. Representative Ingalls. Here. Senator Winkler. Here. Senator Bousselot. Here. Senator Dawson. Here. Senator Peterson. Here. Representative Olson. Here. Representative Harris. Here. Representative Meggers. Here. Representative Nielsen. Here. That's 8.

Committee chair

Thank you. Minutes from our last meeting were distributed. Any comments or questions, concerns on those? Seeing none, minutes will stand approved as distributed. Our next meeting, current placeholder December 14th at 10:00 AM. I know of one conflict. Are there other conflicts from members of the committee? We could meet earlier. You can't make the 14th. And could you make the 7th? I can make the 7th. I know we have issues caucus. We'd have to change the time, but okay. Others are okay with either. Okay. All right. We're going to leave our placeholder on the 14th, but we'll check with the other members who aren't here and we will communicate out when our next meeting will be. Okay. Next we have an agenda item on a possible requirement of public hearings. Next up, we have a motion to convene a special meeting on notices of intended action. I believe Representative Olson wants to introduce that.

Rick Olson

Thank you, Chair. At least I want to talk about it. It became clear at our last meeting that there are some departments, some agencies that are not having hearings on their notice of intended action. And as a consequence of that, at some point in time, When those agencies or departments come forward, this committee could, if they wanted to, slow the process down by requiring a hearing after the notice and after the representatives show up in front of us. So rather than doing that, it became abundantly clear, to me at least, that we ought to have hearings on notices of intended action. Thus the reason for putting this on the agenda, which I don't expect to do anything with today other than make everybody aware of it, that it may be on our radar. Understanding, I think it would be unfair since we're asking for a hearing to actually move this forward today without any input from the agencies, the department, the governor, the new governor. Whoever might want to weigh in. But having said that, unless somebody disagrees, it would seem appropriate that those players that want to weigh in should weigh in and should send their responses to this type of a requirement, which could be adopted by way of a rule within this committee, should send their responses, their inquiries, their thoughts, their objections, their suggestions to Jack. And during the next month, basically, before we have the next hearing, and then maybe we will approach the subject at that time. I don't control the ultimate agenda, and I surely understand through my tenure in the Iowa House that I don't have enough votes within my party alone to to have something like this move along. But I think for the good of the public, for the good of all those that think these rules mean something, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a hearing on these rules in advance, hearing on agencies' rules in advance of coming before this committee and trying to pitch what they might want to do. Those are my thoughts.

Committee chair

Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee at this time?

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

Jack? Yes. For folks who don't have my contact information, based on Representative Olson's comment, I will send an email to agency contacts that I have inviting comment to me, and then this committee has an email list of online subscribers. send the same inquiry to them. So, may not catch everyone in the world who's interested, but we'll catch a lot of them to put it on the radar.

Committee chair

Representative Olson.

Rick Olson

Thank you. Jack, could you give some background to the audience and to the committee on how the adoption of the proposed rules— rule would be implemented, where they would find it, should it be implemented, in that we're going to have A lot of things change, I suppose. I know I won't be a member of this committee come January. And just give them a little background, please. All right.

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

I'll make a few comments and then you can let me know if I need to go further. So the committee has rules of procedure that it adopts every GA. Members, you have a copy of that in front of you. The draft has a proposed rule of procedure that would Implement Representative Olson's concept. You also separately have a piece of paper that just has that rule on its own. So those can be amended at any time, doesn't have to wait for the beginning of GA. And from time to time, the committee does, you know, adopt some policy or make some change, put it in the rules of procedure. So that would take a motion and 6 votes to— To amend. A, implement this committee request, and then B, put it in the rules of procedure. How that would probably work outside of the committee is, again, I have an email list of agencies, agency contacts. If this were adopted by the committee at some point, I would let them know. And in terms of actual implementation, you know, each notice of intended action, it has a process it goes through before before it ends up in the bulletin in front of this committee. So we could implement a step internally whereby LSA just doesn't accept notices of intended action without a hearing scheduled. Again, which we would not do until this committee acts on this. But there is sort of an internal mechanism whereby public hearings could be required in this manner, and folks made aware ahead of time so they aren't caught by surprise. Thank you. And again, the backstory on Representative Olson's request is that while hearings on notices of intended action are generally discretionary, agency can choose to have one or not. If they do not schedule one, various agencies can request after the fact that a public hearing be scheduled, and agencies have to comply with that request. One of the various agencies that can request a public hearing is this committee. So my understanding of Representative Olson's concept is just doing that in aggregate ahead of time. So that's sort of the statutory basis of where that would come from. The committee may note you've been seeing more public hearings scheduled than usual recently. That is a result of Executive Order 10, which makes up the bulk of the rulemaking this committee sees. And red tape reviews, as they are called, under Executive Order 10 require 2 public hearings. So that is not a statutory requirement, that is an executive order requirement. So especially for folks who've been around longer, if you're noticing there's a lot more public hearings, that is where that's come from.

Committee chair

Thank you, Jack. Representative Olson.

Rick Olson

Jack, is there a downside to having to requiring a public hearing on the notice?

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

Historically, agencies have had this discretion. And again, I'm aggregating, you know, 1,000 rulemaking documents or more. But typically, I would say if there is not a public hearing, that is an indication on the agency's part that it probably perceives that rulemaking as noncontroversial and that it is unlikely that people will show up and attend the hearing and have something to say. Again, that's painting with a very broad brush across a lot of documents, a lot of agencies, but the upshot may be some hearings held where— an increase in hearings held where no one shows up, and an agency staffer is just, you know, sitting there doing some other work, waiting for people to show up.

Rick Olson

So if no hearing was required, no hearing was held, Because the thought was the particular rule packet was noncontroversial, and then it became controversial once it hit this committee. What would this committee potentially do, and how does that slow down the process?

Committee chair

Okay. I think we've had a good starting discussion with this. You've heard the request to please provide your feedback. I would add to that, to the members of the committee, since we do have in front of us the full list I'm not aware of any of that. I'm not aware of any such of our rules. If anybody's interested in helping sort of EO-10 our own rules and review whether any of those need changing or cutting, I would certainly entertain that feedback. You can bring that to me, or we can consider whether anything else in our rules needs a review. Okay, Representative.

Committee member

Thank you. I appreciate Representative Olson bringing this up, since I've been one that has griped about it a little bit off and on. Does this committee have— since we're talking about public hearings, does this committee have any leverage to encourage the executive branch to use the same virtual platform across departments? What I see in the public hearing list, some are doing on Teams and Meet and Zoom. And can we make it simpler?

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

The statutory background doesn't mandate any particular format. So they can be in person, or virtual, or both, or use whatever platform they wish. That's the statutory background. The committee does not have any formal power to require them to hold a hearing in a particular format. The committee could urge agencies to try to standardize. I would speculate that's probably top-down from some executive branch IT decision. But yes, if the committee would like me to urge agencies to try to standardize, I could send that communication. I wouldn't wager on how successful that'll be without some study into what the IT picture looks like.

Committee chair

Great. Thank you. And as mentioned, obviously, we have a transition underway in executive branch. So, I don't know, Jack, if that's a I know that's probably a different contact for you, but it would be great to have feedback from current and future governor's office in terms of whether this change would be— what the reaction to that is. Something you can noodle on if that's possible. Let's go ahead and do our fiscal overview with Nathan Moore. Yes, Jack. Okay, miscellaneous business.

Jack (Legislative Services Agency)

Miscellaneous business. Sorry, I know that's a lot of procedural business for the beginning of a meeting. Number one, I want to introduce the new LSA legal staffer, my secondary for the committee, Craig Halstad. He'll be assisting with the functioning of the committee for LSA legal services. And second, I noted this last month, we continue to have issues with the X or Twitter account for this committee. I hear it has been deprecated. Yes. whatever that means, meaning it doesn't work. And it sounds like our prognosis of getting that up and running again is not great. So through various emails this morning, I've disseminated another way to get the live updates through your email. If you are a Twitter user, I suggest transitioning to the email approach because I just— there's only so much I can do to get Twitter and X working again.

Committee chair

Okay, any other miscellaneous business? All right, now please, the fiscal overview.

Tom Moore

Thank you, Chair. My name is Nathan Moore, and I'll be providing you with this month's fiscal overview. This month we have 2 agencies that have filed 2 rulemakings with fiscal summaries. The first is from the Department of Health and Human Services. And the rule summary is it increases the maximum rent reimbursement amount for the— excuse me, I should say ARC-0661D, Notice of Intended Action. This increases the maximum rent reimbursement amount for the Elderly and Disabled Rent Reimbursement Program. from $1,000 to $1,500, beginning with claims for reimbursement for property tax paid during calendar year 2026. It eliminates outdated language and codifies the department's practice that electronic applications received after 4:30 p.m. will be counted as having been received on the next business day. The agency reports no fiscal impact beyond that of implementing 2026 Iowa Act Senate File 2472, Division 7. The fiscal note for Senate File 2472 estimates an approximate $300,000 increase in the amount appropriated from the general fund beginning in fiscal year 2027, to which the LSA concurs. Next is from the Iowa Finance Authority. ARC 0693D adopted and filed. This establishes policies and procedures for the Natural Hazard Mitigation Financing Program. The program provides loans for projects that mitigate the impact of natural hazards and is jointly administered by the Iowa Finance Authority and the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The agency reports that this rulemaking has no fiscal impact beyond that of the legislation. It is intended to implement, to which the LSA concurs. The Iowa Finance Authority is permitted to charge fees to cover the operation of the program. This rulemaking is estimated to increase fee revenue deposited into the Natural Hazard Mitigation Revolving Loan Fund by approximately $190,000 in both fiscal year 2027 and fiscal year 2028. The fund received $1.7 million from the Executive Council pursuant to Iowa Code Section 29C.7 in August 2026 and has been awarded $17.4 million in federal funds.

Committee chair

Any questions on the fiscal summary? Senator Peterson.

Janet Petersen

Thank you. Would you yield to a question? What are the fee parameters?

Tom Moore

I'll have Evan join us from the LSA.

Evan Johnson (LSA Fiscal)

Evan Johnson with LSA Fiscal. The fee parameters for ARC 0693D is a 2% one-time fee of the amount of the loan made through the program.

Committee chair

You good? Okay. Thank you. All right. Now we will move to our rules review, department by department, flagging rules that members of the committee or members of the public would like to discuss, beginning with the Human Services Department. Any— yes, Senator Peterson. 0669. Anything else, members of the public? Thank you.

Victoria Daniels (Iowa Department of Health and Human Services)

Good morning. Victoria Daniels with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services here. 0669D is 441 Chapter 107, Certification of Adoption Investigators, and this was an Executive Order 10 review of this chapter. And we didn't have anyone attend the public hearing on the regulatory analysis. We didn't have any public comments on the hearing on the notice of intended action. So this one is in line to become effective on December 1st. But happy to take any questions.

Committee chair

Go ahead. Thank you, Victoria. Would you, just for the public watching, let us know how many inspectors that we have currently that are certified, how many cases, both for children that are in-state and out-of-state.

Victoria Daniels (Iowa Department of Health and Human Services)

Is Stephanie Clark here? Got Stephanie Clark from our Family Well-Being and Protection Division, and she should hopefully be able to help with that answer. As far as numbers of certified adoptions investigators, I would have to get back to you on that number. I do not know the exact number because there's independent certified adoptions investigators and there's certified adoptions investigators with all adoption private agencies across Iowa.

Committee chair

How many adopt— how many private agencies does the state work with to do that?

Victoria Daniels (Iowa Department of Health and Human Services)

It's a number I'd have to get back to you on.

Committee chair

Okay. Maybe a listing of those groups and the numbers for each. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions here?

Victoria Daniels (Iowa Department of Health and Human Services)

Okay. I just wanted to briefly comment on family-centered services, 672D.

Committee chair

There were 5 comments and suggestions that came through in the first round and the department addressed All of those in the notice rules. And then I saw there was, you know, no further public comments. So appreciate you incorporating those updates received from the public.

Victoria Daniels (Iowa Department of Health and Human Services)

Okay.

Committee chair

Next will be Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

Committee member

678. 678.

Committee chair

Anything else for Agriculture and Land Stewardship? Okay.

Colin Tadlock (Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship)

Good morning. Colin Tadlock with IDALS, and I also have Assistant State Veterinarian Dr. Katie Rumsey with me this morning. ARC 0678D updates Chapter 67, which governs animal welfare requirements for commercial establishments regulated by the department.

Committee member

Thank you for that update on that. I know we've got some House members that are interested in this particular piece of the rules. What's the flavor of the comments that you've been receiving that may facilitate some additional change?

Committee chair

Any other questions or comments on this one? Thank you. Next is Chief Information Officer. Members of the committee, members of the public. Okay. Corrections Department. Moving to page 3. Public Safety Department. Senator Peterson. 0646, Public Safety. Any others in Public Safety? Okay. Thank you.

Josie Weigler (Iowa Department of Public Safety)

Good morning. Josie Weigler with the Department of Public Safety. ARC 0646 proposes to rescind Chapter 157 and adopt a new chapter in lieu thereof pursuant to Executive Order 10. The chapter outlines the approved devices and methods to take a specimen of a person's breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug concentration. Additionally, we did make one change that was made to clarify the levels used in the table are for drugs detected within the urine only and not the blood. No comments were received on either the regulatory analysis or the notice of intended action, nor did we get anyone at the public hearings.

Committee chair

This question is kind of a side question From a request I had from an Iowan asking what happens to an Iowan's license identification when they have a test like this if they fail?

Josie Weigler (Iowa Department of Public Safety)

I do not know. I would have to get back to you on that. Okay.

Committee chair

Yeah. And the reason I bring it up, it came under an issue of someone's license being taken from them and needing it to be able to vote. So I was just curious if we know what happens when somebody has their license— maybe Senator Dawson might answer. Yeah.

Dan Dawson

Typically, they get— if the license was taken back entirely, they get a non-ID card. So without showing my license here, it would be a different color. It would say non-driver's ID. So they'd still have a license— well, an ID, just not a license to drive.

Committee chair

It— thank you for that. It did become a problem because in Polk County, you have to schedule— you have to schedule an appointment to go get a non-driver's license identification. And unfortunately, there weren't any available openings prior to the election. So something for lawmakers and maybe public safety to keep in mind that Senator Winkler.

Cindy Winckler

Thank you. So, additional conversation, and actually, would Senator Dawson yield?

Dan Dawson

Absolutely.

Cindy Winckler

This is why I come to AHRQ. The replacement that is issued, is it a picture ID? Yes. Okay. Because as far as election rules, that would be required, you know, a replacement without a picture on it still wouldn't meet the standard of being able to vote. So thank you very much.

Dan Dawson

And I— trust me, there's a lot of facets of law enforcement I'm not an expert on, but it's all the same central repository, whether it be a student driver, a 17-year-old, Whether it's a 16-year-old driver, CDL, or a non-ID, those all go into the same place at the state right now, but does come back. Any other questions? I would need to find an expert on there.

Dan Dawson

That's just my cheap knowledge.

Committee chair

Okay. Thank you, Senator Dawson, for offering your input there. And any other questions on this one? Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the historical division. Members of the committee? Members of the public? Economic Development Authority? Anyone wish to speak on those rules? Environmental Protection Commission? Members of the public. Okay, moving on to page 4. Okay, for Natural Resource Commission, 696 has been requested.

Committee chair

Anything else in this section? Okay, thank you.

Chris Enslinger (Iowa Department of Natural Resources)

Good morning. I'm Chris Enslinger with the DNR. 696 is the— for the final adopted and filed rule, apologize, for Chapter 96, which governs small game hunting by residents and nonresidents in the state. The adopted changes would limit nonresident small game hunters to 2 7-day periods. And it would provide a residents-only period for pheasant hunting on public lands for the first week of the season. season, and rabbit, squirrel, and grouse hunters on the 3rd week of October through the 3rd week of November. With that, I'll take any questions.

Committee member

So, you had more public comments on this one rule than I think we've had on public comments on all rules across whole state government this year. Yes. What— can you break down what they were opposed to, those 75 that were opposed?

Chris Enslinger (Iowa Department of Natural Resources)

So, the vast majority, and really the reason that this package was initiated, there's a lot of residents or non-residents that live right across the border that spend a lot of time coming over to Iowa for day trips to hunt. And so, I think I heard from most of them over the course of this period. And so, they're obviously frustrated that they don't have just free rein of the whole season anymore. And that was the point, was this rule is aimed at helping provide more temporal parity across our public lands so that, you know, yeah, come and enjoy it for 2 weeks, let somebody else enjoy it for a couple weeks, and then somebody else can come enjoy it for a couple weeks. And so that's what this was aimed at. And so it's a change, and there was frustration. Our residents are very much in favor of it. There's also a big chunk of the state that this really won't impact at all because there isn't that much hunting pressure. And so that Yeah, like I said, I think I heard from a large majority of those folks.

Committee member

What's the difference, the license difference in license between those non-residents and residents cost-wise?

Chris Enslinger (Iowa Department of Natural Resources)

The— so the resident license, I want to say, is around $30. I'm looking at Todd. Around $30. I buy one every year. I should probably know.

Todd (Iowa Department of Natural Resources)

The non-resident one is $131, then plus the habitat fee, and there's also a some convenience fees, things like that, for purchasing online. But it's $131 base.

Chris Enslinger (Iowa Department of Natural Resources)

I would also mention that this rule does not prohibit you from buying multiple licenses. So if you wanted to come for another 14 days, you could buy another license and do that.

Committee chair

Thank you. Any other questions on this one? Okay. Thank you. I did notice I was A lot of comments. Share some of those comments with your colleagues. Education Department, members of the committee.

Committee member

Somebody has one?

Committee chair

Okay. Senator Winkler.

Cindy Winckler

651 and 652.

Committee chair

Okay. 651 and 652. 652. Senator Peterson?

Janet Petersen

653.

Committee chair

And 653. So the last 3 under education, please. Good morning.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Good morning. Katrina Holk for the Department of Education. I apologize, usually you see Thomas Mays here. I'm filling in while he's on vacation. So there may be questions that we'll have to get back to you on. 651, I do have Jay Pennington here who is in charge of our school improvement team who can give you more information than I probably can. But just a brief overview, you know, this was a department-proposed filing. It updates and enhances the standards for practitioner prep program approval, requires teachers to be prepared to deliver evidence-based instruction in literacy and mathematics.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

There were about 2 dozen comments provided, and then 2 organizations gave public comment at the hearing.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Because of the vast amount of comments, I think we're pushing back when we're going to be bringing this to the school board or the State Board of Education just to give time to give the comments the full weight they deserve. Specifically, the organization with the most comments is the Iowa Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Any questions on that one? And then we can get to the Thank you.

Cindy Winckler

My mic was still on. I apologize. I do that all the time. So what legislation in the 2026 session did this rulemaking come from?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

There's no specific legislation that requires this. The backdrop or the rationale behind it is related to earlier legislation that requires teacher candidates to take a—

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

the Foundations of Reading test. And when we released the fall results in September, only 52% of Iowa teaching candidates actually passed that Foundations of Reading test.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So the purpose here is really to strengthen teacher education to ensure that the teacher candidates across the state, regardless of what college they decide to go to, learns about the science of reading and what they'll be required to teach once they actually go into the classroom.

Cindy Winckler

Then what timeframe had been given for those colleges of teacher education to know that the test was going to be required of students graduating?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So we just released the second year of test results. I want to say, maybe Katrina, I don't know if you know, that legislation passed in the 2024 session.

Cindy Winckler

So, but what lead time was given to the colleges of teacher education to know that this was coming up as a requirement and then being able to implement, change their potential content within their teacher education programs? How much lead time did you give the colleges in regard to then the mandate of the test and then keeping track of the scores?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So just to clarify, Just to clarify, that legislation that requires the test, while this is related to that, those are 2 different timelines. So the proposed rulemaking that's in front of you, our plan, we would have to provide a period of time in which teacher colleges would need to show evidence. And typically that's related to our accreditation cycle. So Every teacher prep college across the state is on a 7-year review cycle.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

And, you know, we're reviewing more than just this piece, but looking more broadly at the various requirements.

Cindy Winckler

And then Iowa has reciprocity of teacher certification with other states. What arrangements would be made if a candidate did not have this preparation?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Because we have reciprocity and no oversight of the teacher prep colleges, you know, outside of the state, those teacher candidates, you know, it would be up to their programs and where, you know, what the requirements are to ensure their preparation.

Cindy Winckler

So someone from Illinois that gets picked on could go through a program without preparation but then apply and teach in Iowa and they would not be prepared necessarily under the guise of this particular criteria?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

That's right. I mean, that's, that's the balance, right? Like, we want to obviously ensure we've got the best educated folks teaching our kids across the state. We have control, if you will, and oversight of the teacher prep programs. But in order to ensure that we have enough teachers in our classrooms, that reciprocity exists, but it would be outside of this requirement.

Cindy Winckler

Thank you. I think for this particular piece of rulemaking, it's It's outside of any legislation that was passed. I'm concerned that we are using the rulemaking process to sidestep policy with the legislature. I think that it could have a significant impact on students' ability to get a job in Iowa right now just because of the lack of forethought in making sure that the colleges, the teacher colleges, were prepared to give the instruction before the mandate came in that they take the assessment. And it concerns me that we're governing by rules rather than governing by legislation. Thank you.

Committee chair

I have a follow-up question for teachers who were educated ahead of this science of reading approach, or for those with the out-of-state reciprocity. Is there a continuing education course available within the state to, to bring them up to speed on this latest evidence-based reading instruction?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Yes. I mean, you know, as part of the regular CEU requirements that all teachers have This would be an option for teachers to upskill, if you will, if they did not have that background. Absolutely. So I know the comment period just closed last Wednesday, but can you give us an overview of those— some of those comments, especially from the teacher prep programs?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Yeah, I would say they are more specific rather than broad. A lot of the requirements are just a cleanup of language. For example, the literacy changes lives language within the rule, they had some changes to what specifically that should include.

Cindy Winckler

The competency requirements for all teacher candidates, they had comments there.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

And then about the adopting the new literacy and math curriculum were kind of the 3 general areas that they had comments on.

Committee member

Kind of along Senator Winkler's line of questioning, is this in any way a backdoor way to get something like the praxis that we did away with put in place?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

It is not. Just to clarify, too, there was in House File 2232, there was a requirement that the legislature passed, signed by the governor, that does require an end-of-course summative test. It's not a barrier to licensure. It's not a requirement per se to graduate. So there is a testing requirement that was passed in this last legislative session. The intent of this rulemaking— so State Board and Department of Ed in their oversight capacity of the educator prep programs does have rulemaking authority. And so this would fall under that general authority. Again, trying to, you know, use the data that we have, 52% of candidates pass that Foundations of Reading test. 48% of teacher candidates from this last academic year did not. And so what do we do as a state to ensure that the programs that are educating our future teachers are ensuring that their candidates are well-versed in the science of reading. And this is just an additional step to ensure that and strengthen those programs.

Committee member

What kind of feedback was given to the teacher prep programs after you received those results of 52%?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Well, so we presented the results at the September State Board of Education committee meeting. Depending on where candidate— or where programs fell, there's a series of steps and supports that are built in for the 5 programs that underachieved. So an example of that is we've engaged a third party called the Reading League to do a curriculum review of those 5 programs. Again, to take a look at, okay, well, what, what does their program look like? How are they teaching teachers, you know, future teachers how to read? So that review is undergoing right now.

Committee member

Was there a wide disparity or pretty narrow disparity across the different teacher prep programs and how they performed on that?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Yes, certainly you have.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So just looking year to year, you programs across the state that saw significant gains from the first year. And you do see, you know, a continuum of those that have low passage rates to those that have high passage rates.

Janet Petersen

Senator Peterson. Thank you. Could you walk us through what happens to to an Iowan that doesn't pass and what the financial hit might be to them?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So in terms of the Foundations of Reading test, they're not required to retest. What the requirement is, is that the teacher prep program provide an opportunity for remedial coursework. That could be embedded coursework, it could be additional work that they do outside of a course. But the requirement really is for the teacher prep colleges to provide that remedial opportunity.

Janet Petersen

And who covers that bill and how much is that?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

The cost for remediation would be a cost to the teacher prep program.

Janet Petersen

So to the student?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

The student— only if it were a course requirement. But many programs have not done that. So they would have to take a multi-week set of— whether it's online or it would be outside of coursework, that remedial opportunity.

Janet Petersen

And at what point do they take the exam?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

It's up to the prep colleges in terms of when they want to provide that.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Before graduation is a requirement, but there needs to be enough lead time so that if that candidate doesn't pass, they have that opportunity to take advantage of that remedial opportunity.

Committee chair

Okay. Sounds expensive. Representative Olson.

Rick Olson

Thank you. So help me out again, what is the consequence to the applicant that has less than a 50% pass rate in the Foundations of Reading course?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So the candidate themselves would need to determine whether or not they want to take part in that remedial opportunity. The requirement The requirement legally is that the prep colleges have to offer it. There's not a barrier to licensure and there's not a barrier to graduation. So the intent here is a school improvement effort. Again, we want to elevate, you know, the quality of the programs that exist across the state. And at the same time, we want to ensure that we've got enough teachers quality teachers in Iowa classrooms. And so what's the balance here? If we make it a requirement for graduation, then we're putting up a barrier. At the same time, how do we ensure, again, teacher candidates get, get the quality education that, that we would like to see and learn, you know, the science of reading?

Rick Olson

So the foundations of reading course is to teach the applicant to understand how to teach the student, or is it to teach the applicant how to read?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So it's not a course per se. It's up to the programs in terms of—

Rick Olson

A test.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Yeah. So the test there is to test their knowledge of the foundations— or I'm sorry, the science of reading, both the pedagogy side as well as the content. And the purpose there is, again, to ensure that, you know, folks in their prep programs are learning the science of reading.

Rick Olson

And the teaching institutions that are required to offer this test are not required to force the applicant to retest. It is an individualized choice by the applicant that fails, who can then continue on into our credentialing process and become a teacher in our school system. Is that correct?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

That's correct.

Rick Olson

Goodness. Thank you.

Committee member

Go ahead. How many teacher candidates tested this year?

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Just over 1,000.

Committee chair

Further questions? Go ahead.

Cindy Winckler

I know that the Foundations of Reading is now considered the best. I understand that. And now we have placed significant pressure on that content alone. But from my background in education, I know that there is an evolution of thought and new things come up all the time. I'm really concerned that we are taking this step at this time As different studies come forward in regard to teaching reading and the preparation programs evolve, I think that this puts us in a situation that doesn't give us the opportunity to be nimble enough to change. And again, this was— these recommendations are coming forward without specific legislation. I know that the department has overarching responsibility for rulemaking, but this is pretty specific without any kind of legislative intent on how we move forward. I can't understand why this is is coming before us as, as a rule. Thank you.

Committee chair

Any further discussion on this one before we move on to 652? Okay, go ahead, please. Oh, someone else? Okay, go ahead.

Committee member

So we've had a lot of conversation about the reading component of it. Can you— was there any comments on the math portion? And is there a test that candidates take to evaluate their proficiency in the math side?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Yeah, I would say the— sorry, the comments about the literacy and math were together. Their concern is about forcing the schools to adopt this this new curriculum. And so that's both literacy and math.

Committee chair

Thank you. Let's move on to the next one, please.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

All right. So 652D comes from 2026 Iowa Act House File 2754. Specifically, this is Sections 98 and 99. 98 is about diplomas and 99 is verification of enrollment. So specifically, it's about adding charter schools to those sections. We didn't receive any public comment. No one came to the public hearing on this. I'll take any questions.

Cindy Winckler

I, I know that the legislation gave homeschool parents the opportunity to independently issue a diploma. The role of, I would think, the Department of Ed would be to set up some criteria by which that diploma meets a standard, and all it does is give them the authority to issue a diploma. There's no requirement for keeping records. There's no requirement for transcripts. There's no requirements at all other than giving them the authority. And I'm concerned that without knowing What that diploma means, higher ed and anyone hiring someone who they are asking for a high school diploma, it's going to create just some interesting dynamics. And I would like to see— I would think that having— I think that's a good point. Some criteria for what that diploma would recognize other than just giving parents— I know homeschool parents make a lot of effort in making sure that they learn the content, but they also need guidance with that authority, and there really is no description in in the rules. And, you know, as we look at the other rule that we just talked about that had significant specificity without having a legislative action, and then this, when we just repeat the legislation without taking the time to discover how you will implement that diploma. It just— I don't understand why this is so wide open. It concerns me.

Committee chair

A question.

Committee chair

So on the last rule, you raised concerns with the fact that the department had gone further than the legislation goes. And it sounds like in this case the legislation did not direct that they would put standards around a diploma.

Committee chair

So if you were not suggesting the department would do it on the last rule, why would we suggest that now the department should go beyond the legislative intent?

Cindy Winckler

I appreciate that question. Because they set graduation standards. The department has a responsibility for graduation standards, not content. necessarily, but standards. And that diploma should be identified to represent something. We take great effort in mandating offer and teach content and then in requiring graduation requirements. And there doesn't seem to be any direction as to how a parent—I mean, the school district issues a diploma. How a parent issues the diploma, and what would be necessary for that diploma to qualify? So the standards are already there. You—I would. I would think that you would want universal standards implemented on graduation requirements, and this doesn't give any guidance to those families who want to— I mean, any guidance to families that independently would issue a diploma. Thanks.

Committee chair

Were any public comments received to that effect or any discussion within the department about putting some requirements That mirrored the other graduation requirements?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

No public comments, and I'm not aware of any internal discussions about making it more specific.

Committee chair

Senator Peterson, go ahead.

Janet Petersen

Thank you. Could you maybe walk us through what verifications or complaint process there might be in place for a parent-issued diploma under the department I don't believe there currently is one.

Janet Petersen

Okay, so you're saying the department won't verify coursework in a parent-issued diploma?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

There is verification of the coursework for charter schools.

Janet Petersen

I'm talking about the parent-issued diploma.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Right. I don't believe there is one at this time, but I can bring that back and get more clarity.

Janet Petersen

Okay. Could you just— yes.

Janet Petersen

I would like confirmation of what specifically, you know, I mean, we are required to provide children an education no matter where they receive their education. And if there aren't requirements for a parent diploma, Iowans need to know exactly what they are getting with this diploma? And also, if a child wants to issue a complaint about not receiving an education, how would that process work?

Committee chair

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Can we please move to 653? Yes, so same bill.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

This implements the requirement that receiving districts report the reason why they denied open enrollment. Looks like we had 2 comments that requested that the rules contain more detail about what is to be reported and what are permissible grounds for denying open enrollment. But Iowa Code Section 282.18 has 3 permissible grounds within it: late filing with no good cause, I've got a couple questions.

Janet Petersen

One, does the— do you have any authority to override a school district's decision?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

I don't know the answer to that. I'd have to get back to you.

Janet Petersen

And then my second question is, what is the department planning to do with this information, and will it be publicly available?

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

Just— sorry, Senator Peterson. Just to go back to your previous question, Jay has an answer.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

Yeah, I mean, the State Board can hear an appeal related to open enrollment under specific criteria.

Jay Pennington (Iowa Department of Education)

So there's a process to go in front of the State Board if needed.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

So sorry, can you repeat the second question?

Janet Petersen

Okay, and then the second question deals with what the department is planning to do with the information that you receive and if it would be publicly available.

Katrina Holk (Iowa Department of Education)

I don't believe there are any plans for that at this time. Obviously, if someone requested it through an open records request, that would be available, but I can certainly bring that back to the department.

Committee chair

Anything further on education? All right. It's a good place to spend a good chunk of time. Pretty important. So thank you for being here and answering our questions. We'll move on now to communications network. Any members of the committee wish to speak about rules in the communication network? 687. Rates and rate disputes. Any others? Members of the public? Members of the committee? All right. Thank you.

Jennifer Smith

Hello, I'm Tyler Smith with Iowa Communications Network. Could you remind me what— which one you had a question on? Sorry.

Committee chair

Yes, no problem. 687D. Rates and Rate Disputes, Chapter 12.

Ryan Weldon

Good morning, Chair and Committee. I'm Ryan Weldon, the Executive Director of Iowa Communications Network. I'm happy to answer your question. So the rate and rate disputes rules basically were streamlined in the Executive Order 10 review, just basically to kind of reaffirm zero subsidy mandates for healthcare and federal users of the network, as well as to simplify informal rate dispute resolutions. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Committee member

I appreciate your willingness to change the comment or notification period from 30 to 90 days. How often are those rates changed and what, what goes into your rate change decisions?

Ryan Weldon

Yes, they— I mean, we're constantly evaluating our rates to make sure that one, it's something that our users can afford, right? And, you know, not outside the bounds of what the, what the market is out there. So that's constantly kind of an evolving, changing things. We try to always make our rates go down. That's just kind of the broadband market out there, right? Bandwidth's becoming more and more of a commodity. So we certainly try not to raise our rates and make them more affordable for, for our users. And You know, as far as, you know, the notice period, you know, it's pretty common, I would say, probably in the broadband industry. And there's a lot of FCC regulations and things where you have to give that notice. And Iowa Hospital Association requested that, and we found it reasonable going from 30 days to 90 days. We're happy to comply with their request.

Committee member

How often do those rates change?

Ryan Weldon

They can always change. I mean, they can change— I mean, at a minimum, we look at them annually. But if we get new information or as we continue to try to find more of an understanding of our cost of our services sold, which we historically haven't done very well, but we We are constantly striving to do that. So I'd say at minimum probably annually. If not, hopefully going forward we can get that to maybe quarterly or on multiple occasions.

Committee member

How many ratepayer users in the healthcare industry in Iowa do you have on there?

Ryan Weldon

We have, I believe, over 150 hospitals and clinics that we provide provide services to. Most of them are through the Iowa Hospital Association with a consortium called the Iowa Rural Healthcare Telecommunications Program, where we basically run a network, a private network for them on top of our fiber network for them to be able to share, especially imaging, which are generally large, large files that they're sharing back and forth across the state.

Committee chair

Any further questions for Communications Network? Okay. Any further business to come before the committee? All right. Seeing none, Representative Olson moves we adjourn. We'll see you in December.