Senate committee hears bill to expand 'brain injury' definition for special-education eligibility

The Senate Education Committee on April 5 heard testimony on House Bill 2670A, which would modify the statutory definition of “brain injury” used for special-education eligibility to include injuries from internal as well as external sources.

Representative Emily McIntyre, sponsor, told the committee the change would align Oregon Department of Education practice with language in ORS 410.750 used by the Department of Human Services and ease access to individualized educational supports for students who acquire brain injuries after birth. “This just streamlines things for kids,” McIntyre said. “They’ve already been through enough. They don’t need to jump through more hoops at school.”

The bill would expressly recognize damage to the brain caused by internal events — for example, infection, tumor, anoxia or medical treatment — as well as by external trauma. David Kracke, Oregon’s brain injury advocate coordinator, testified that the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) originally defined traumatic brain injury in a way that emphasized external causes and that several states have moved to include internal causes. “What this bill seeks to do is to expand the definition of brain injury to include brain injuries from the internal source,” Kracke said, describing situations in which parents and teachers struggle to place students in an appropriate eligibility category.

Several senators and expert witnesses pressed for detail on how the change would affect actual eligibility and services. Senator Sara Gelser Blouin warned that eligibility for special-education services still requires assessment to demonstrate a need for specially designed instruction, regardless of the diagnostic label used. “It would go through the same pathway. It just would allow this to be a diagnosis,” McIntyre replied, and both she and Kracke said the bill is intended to create a clearer starting point so children with an acquired internal brain injury are not forced into other categories simply to begin the assessment process.

School psychologist Justin Potts, testifying remotely, said his work suggests districts already evaluate students with internally caused brain injuries when those injuries affect educational performance. “If a student is otherwise would qualify and has a condition, a brain injury of some sort, even if it’s not traumatic, that student can be found eligible,” he said, and urged caution about changing statutory language without clearer implementation guidance.

Zoe Larmer, government relations director for the Oregon Department of Education, told the committee she was not prepared to speak to all technical details at the hearing but flagged that changing the definition could affect regional inclusive services calculations and said ODE would follow up in writing.

Committee members debated two recurring concerns: (1) whether a label change would actually make it easier for students to receive services, given the assessment requirements already in place; and (2) whether relying on an external definition (in DHS statute) could create unintended reporting or programmatic consequences.

No formal action or votes were recorded during the hearing; sponsors and witnesses asked for follow-up with ODE staff to clarify technical effects and implementation questions. The committee closed the hearing on HB 2670A and moved to additional bills on the agenda.

Ending: Supporters said the measure would remove a barrier for students with acquired brain injuries by creating an explicit, inclusive definition; opponents urged further analysis of assessment, data and implementation impacts before statutory change.