NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Aragon

 

DATE TYPED:

3/19/03

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Braille Access Act

 

SB

301/aSJC/aHJC

 

 

ANALYST:

L. Baca

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

NFI

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

Duplicates HB 349

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

 

Commission for the Blind

Commission of Higher Education (CHE)

State Department of Education (SDE)

 

SUMMARY

 

       Synopsis of HJC Amendments

 

The Amendments adopted by the House Judiciary Committee:

 

  • strike “computer or” in three of four statements in the bill because the terms are considered redundant; 
  • specify that printed materials may be copied as permitted by federal copyright law, including the provisions of Public Law 104-107; and
  • define eligible materials as “workbooks, teacher manuals or editions, blackline masters, transparencies, test packets, software, CD-ROMS, videotapes and cassette tapes (this language is identical to the definition in HB 349).

 

Senate Bill 301 is similar to House Bill 349. 

 

       Synopsis of SJC Amendments

 

The amendments adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee:

 

  • Strike the terms “or generally accepted” standard and only allow the use of “nationally recognized standards” in the selection of materials;
  • Allow the Department (SDE) to determine the acceptability of materials if there is no nationally recognized standard;
  • Require the purchase of the latest corrections and revisions of the printed materials; and
  • Strike language stating that attorney fees and costs would not be available during the administrative complaint process.

 

     Synopsis of Original Bill

 

Senate Bill 301 repeals the Braille Literacy Act (sections 22-15-21 through 22-155 NMSA 1978) and enacts the Braille Access Act (BAA), an Act intended to improve access to printed instructional materials used by visually impaired and blind persons attending a public school or postsecondary educational institution. The bill requires publishers to provide any printed materials in an electronic format, stipulates that the SDE shall adopt guidelines for implementation and administration of the Act, and provides a private right of action for students who contend the Act has been violated.

 

        Significant Issues

 

Braille textbooks are extremely expensive.   According to the CHE analysis, school districts are paying between $800 and $1,200 per Braille textbook, and one school district has paid up to $25,000 for a Braille textbook.  The SDE reports the costs of translating materials into Braille are estimated at between $3 and $4 a page. Enacting this bill would provide greater access to and reduce the cost of obtaining materials for visually impaired and blind students and enhance their opportunities for academic success and employability.

 

DUPLICATION

 

SB 301 duplicates HB 349, Braille Access Act.

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

In its analysis, suggestions made by the SDE include the following:

 

  • Align definition of “instructional materials” on page 2, lines 14-16, with definition currently in use in matters involving adoption of instructional materials.

 

·        Page 5, lines 19-21: The educational use of materials is not the responsibility of publishers but of educational institutions.  Inasmuch as publishers are funded according to purchased materials, the author of this bill may wish to strike “the student’s educational purposes” and replace it with “students for whom the material has been purchased in original format as adopted by the State Board of Education.”

 

·        Delete lines 22-25 on page 5 and lines 1-4 on page 6. This language seems to conflict with existing practice of using materials during multiple years for multiple students.

 

·        On page 6, line 24, replace “deemed required or essential for student success” with “adopted by the State Board of Education

 

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

 

The purposes of the Braille Access Act are to:

 

  • enhance literacy,
  • increase Braille proficiency,
  • improve employability for blind and visually impaired students, and
  • reduce the cost of acquiring Braille and other alternate accessible materials.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

  1. How much is currently being spent on instructional materials for use by visually impaired students in public schools?  At the School for the Visually Handicapped?
  2. Is it possible to estimate the savings that would accrue from enacting this bill?
  3. Has anyone heard a reaction from publishers regarding this proposal?

 

LRB/prr/njw