State Advisory Council on the Education of Children With Disabilities

March 1, 2002
Holiday Inn – North
Indianapolis, Indiana

APPROVED MINUTES

Members in attendance: David Schmidt, Lanier DeGrella, Marcia Johnson, Brett Bollinger, Becky Kirk, Bret Lewis, Julie Swaim, Terry Huser, Elaine Scaife, Rose Black, and Carolyn Heier

Staff in attendance: Bob Marra, Paul Ash, Demaris Stewart, Connie Rahe, Joe Bear, and Becky Bowman

David Schmidt convened the meeting at 10:00. Council members reviewed minutes from the January 11, 2002, meeting. A motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Carolyn Heier and seconded by Elaine Scaife. No discussion ensued. A voice vote was taken and resulted in unanimous approval of minutes.

Council member introductions were made. Lanier DeGrella is a new member to the Council, representing Part C services.

Update from the Division
Bob Marra provided an update on Article 7 by reviewing the February 28, 2002, memo to the State Board of Education regarding the testimony and written comments to the proposed revisions to Article 7. One change will be made to the proposed revisions based on the testimony and comments regarding the responsibility for providing private institutions with a copy of the procedures manual for community supported and residential services, as well as a copy of Article 7. Bob also reviewed OSEP’s rationale for requiring the elimination of the “current case or controversy” limitation on due process hearing requests. Bob asked for comments from Council members. Bob will present this information to the State Board of Education at the Board’s meeting next week. The Board will vote on the regulations with any proposed changes on March 7, 2002.

David called for a vote on approving the proposed changes. Brett Bollinger clarified that the Council was voting on all of the proposed language, including the recommended change. Rose Black asked for clarification of the recommended change to 511 IAC 7-27-12(m)(7). Bret Lewis moved that the language be approved, and Carolyn seconded the motion. No discussion ensued. A voice vote resulted in unanimous approval.

Bob advised that the current East Central cooperative would restructure into two separate planning districts. The new planning districts are expected to be operational on July 1, 2003. Bob expects to have the to have the Council review the new districts’ comprehensive plans at the November 2002 Council meeting. It is expected that members will receive copies of the plans in October for review prior to the meeting. Bob also advised that there might be other planning districts going through restructuring in the upcoming months.

In addition to restructuring of current cooperatives, the Council will be asked to review the comprehensive plans submitted by charter schools. The charter schools approved by the mayor of Indianapolis are in the process of determining how they will structure special education services. There are also two “conversion” charters being considered: one in Evansville and one in Carmel. If approved, these charters will have to determine whether they will be a part of the current planning district, and if so, the planning district then gets to determine if it will accept the charter. Any addition of a conversion charter school to an existing planning district require the Council’s review and approval of the district’s revised comprehensive plan.

Council members discussed funding for charter schools – Part B, ADM, APC – including pending legislation requiring the charters to be provided with state funds “up front” rather than waiting until January 2003. The Council also discussed how enrollment in charter schools will be handled and whether the charter’s special education population is expected to mirror that of the current public school.

Bob reported on the Mayor’s charter schools. Each has the option of being a single district, joining an existing planning district, or combining to form a planning district (cooperative) of charters. Three of the four Mayor’s charters are still considering coming together as a new planning district. Regardless of choice, planning district will have to come before the Council with its comprehensive plan and have it approved before opening. Bob also advised that Ball State is currently reviewing applications for schools to be chartered by the university.

Bob reported that he has been asked to serve as co-chair of a committee of representatives from the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers looking at the reauthorization of the IDEA. Eleven states are represented on the committee with 2 participants from each state. The committee is drafting guiding principles with focus on accountability – specifically one system of accountability for the state. The committee is also looking at quality and quantity of teachers and how states are using their federal money to increase the availability of quality teachers. Another component of the accountability equation is a unified system of education (special and general education). At the meeting scheduled for later in March, the committee will review the 40% funding issue. There is some resistance in Congress based on alleged overrepresentation of minorities and overidentification of students with disabilities. Discipline is also an issue, but agreement is not anticipated because of disagreement within the NGA and within the CCSSO. A report from the Committee is anticipated in May after input from advocates.

Regarding the State Self-Assessment Report, Council members were provided with the proposed improvement plan and the following related documents: summary report submitted to OSEP, draft executive summary, and improvement plan timeline. Bob advised that Division staff will continue to work on the plan, and will solicit feedback/input from the Council. Although a meeting will be scheduled if needed, Bob hopes that the feedback/input can be obtained via e-mail and fax. The Improvement Plan is due to OSEP on July 1, 2002. An OSEP staff person is currently reviewing Indiana’s Self-Assessment Report against an established checklist. Once the staff person completes the initial review, the Report will be distributed to an OSEP panel for further review. Bob expects feedback from OSEP sometime after April. Bob also advised he is looking at the various plans/reports due to OSEP (i.e. Self-Assessment Report, State Improvement Plan, Biennial Performance Report, etc.) to see how they can be aligned.

State Self-Assessment and Improvement Plan
Paul Ash reviewed the Improvement Plan and related documents with Council members. The executive summary will be widely distributed to directors and other stakeholders. David offered appreciation that the summary shows both the good and the “not so good” aspects of our system.

Paul advised that the biggest task is to address those areas where the rating is “below expectations,” although this doesn’t diminish the need to also address maintenance and improvement in those areas rated as “above expectations” or “meets expectations.”

Paul reviewed the draft of the Improvement Plan, which is based on a sample provided by OSEP that divides the improvement plan format into four components: (1) Desired Outcome, (2) Baseline Information, (3) Evidence of Change and Benchmarks (what evidence will show change has occurred), and (4) Improvement Strategies. Indiana’s draft plan contains all components and identifies the rating. Division staff added baseline information and proposed improvement strategies. Paul asked Council members for assistance in developing the criteria for evidence of change and their benchmarks.

Council members reviewed the following:

Component BT1: “Appropriate services are provided to prepare youth with disabilities for employment, post-secondary education, independent living, community participation, and life skills.”

The steering committee rated this component as “below expectations.” A discussion ensued regarding this component. Paul asked if any information in the draft should be added to or changed. Brett questioned the second item in the Evidence of Change column – is this a strategy instead of a benchmark? Paul agreed it should be transferred to the Improvement Strategies column. Brett also questioned the lack of participation in the Indiana Graduate Follow-up Study. Paul advised participation is voluntary, and the Division cannot make it mandatory unless it is in Article 7. Brett suggested that participation should not be voluntary and that the Division may wish to expand its use, especially if it continues to be used as a data collection instrument.

Council members also discussed graduation rates, obstacles, and other issues related to graduation and dropout rates, such as a school’s failure to prepare students early on for the academic standards. Paul suggested that perhaps an approach or mechanism of “talking straighter” to parents about potential consequences or outcomes of the various decisions made throughout a student’s educational career. More discussion ensued. The Council determined the ultimate goal is that the dropout rate for students with disabilities will not exceed the dropout rate of the general education population. Marcia Johnson suggested looking at disability areas when looking at dropout and graduation rates to see if they’re patterns and whether those patterns suggest other strategies or needs. Paul suggested that one of the improvement plan strategies might be developing “Straight Talk” for parents for inclusion in Live Learn Work Play.

Carolyn raised a concern about the improvement plan format – based on baseline information, she would like to see something in the next column related to the information in the previous column so that there is consistency/parallel across columns. Other members concurred, and Paul agreed.

Component BT2: “Youth with disabilities are actively involved in appropriate transition planning.”
The steering committee rated this component as “below expectations.” Paul indicated that the results are not what the Division had hoped for, even though activities are occurring. David suggested that benchmarks are difficult in this area – we know it’s not where it needs to be, but we don’t know where it does need to be. David also suggested that the proposed “straight talk” strategy applies to students as well with respect to expectations. Paul indicated he would include information on the standards and examples of standards as they relate to ISTEP in the Live Learn Work Play. It could also identify skills needed to achieve standards and a parent-friendly version of the state standards

Members also discussed the need for a publication on how to help a student pass ISTEP, ISTEP in general, and preparing students with disabilities for participation in ISTEP.

Component BP3: “Programs and services for children with disabilities are improved because parents are actively involved in program improvement activities.”
The steering committee rated this component as “low meets expectations.” Brett questioned what outcomes are expected in this component and suggested that strategies could not be identified until outcomes were identified. Paul indicated that because we were at the beginning of this process, information is not available. He also suggested that the discussion on other components would be helpful here – because Live Learn Work Play is so widely disseminated, incorporation of additional information such as “Straight Talk” will also reach a significant number of individuals. There was also some discussion of the ICAN and DIAS as a way for parents to become more aware and more involved.

Upcoming meetings
David polled the council members to identify dates for upcoming meetings. Future meetings are as follows: May 17 (combined advisory/steering committee), September 13, and November 15. In addition, the Division will sponsor optional meetings to review the improvement plan on March 22 and April 25.

Brett moved that the meeting be adjourned, and Terry Huser seconded the motion. Motion carried, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.