Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families and advocates urge expansion of inclusive postsecondary programs for Texans with intellectual disabilities
Summary
Senate Bill 1679 would create a program within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to expand Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP) programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, supporters said, citing limited in-state options and examples of positive outcomes from existing programs.
Get email alerts on the Disability Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Committee on Education heard invited and public testimony May 1 on Senate Bill 1679, which would establish a program within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to support and expand comprehensive transition and postsecondary (CTP) programs for Texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).
Senator Menendez said Texas currently has four such programs while 340 exist nationwide and that expanding options would help Texans pursue college experiences, independent living and employment. "When we invest in this population ... we see huge impacts both on an individual level and for all of us collectively," he said.
Invited witnesses included Kacen (spelled "Casen" in testimony), a high school senior with an intellectual disability who described visiting 12 universities and accepting an out‑of‑state program (University of Arkansas) because Texas had limited options. "SB 1679 would give students like me more options right here in Texas," he told the committee.
Shelby Davenport, a graduate of a Texas A&M postsecondary program who now works in higher education, described programs that include dorm life, job training and certifications and reported an 83 percent employment rate among program participants she works with. Candice Thompson, a parent, said many Texas families must look out of state because in‑state programs are few, costly and often new.
Witnesses discussed program features such as staffing levels, internships, on‑campus housing, micro‑credentials and funding. Committee members asked about fiscal notes and funding sources; the sponsor said the bill's fiscal impact could not be determined because data on potential grant recipients is unavailable, but noted the bill authorizes the board to use available revenue and solicit gifts, grants and donations. The committee left the bill pending subject to the call of the chair.
