Katy McCullough - ECTA Center



Consortium of Section 619 Coordinators

February 6, 2005

OSEP National Early Childhood Conference

Pre-Conference Event

(Updated April 25, 2005)

Welcome & Introductions

Dee Gethmann, Chairperson

Purpose of today’s meeting is to share & network. Invited to social dinner, Tues. 6:30 @ Mediterra. Nancy will post sign-up sheet at registration desk.

Special Thanks to guests: Sarah Mulligan, Beth Rouse, NECTAC, Nancy Treusch (OSEP) & all 619 Coordinators.

Round-robin introductions.

Get to know those at your table by exchanging items from your state.

Next Steps: 619 Steering Cmte. & 619 Coordinators.

Packet of info is loaded w/resources.

DEC Special Interest Liaison

Goal: To promote a collective voice at the national level for children w/disabilities, 3-5, and their families. How can we advocate? Brainstormed strategies. Found we needed a formal relationship w/DEC. 619- Dan McCarthy & Nancy Treusch. DEC- Lynette Aytch.

Sarah Mulligan – Executive Director, DEC

Very good, busy year. DEC is an international membership organization for infants to age 8 w/special needs. Division within CEC. DEC membership is almost 5,000. More than half of 619 coordinators are DEC members. DEC has 11 elected board members and 13 appointed committee chairs. Also have workgroups identified for a short period of time to tackle a particular task. Also have special interest groups.

This year DEC identified new mission statement, to articulate more closely who they are. Strategic plan for 04-09. Core elements are: membership, personnel development, products & publications, policy, diversity & research. Each year critical aspects are addressed (June). Newest book—Recommended Practices. 32 Sub-divisions (state affiliates that represent DEC at the local level). Conducted regional trainings to some sub-divisions. Currently putting together training events on Recommended Practices for all sub-divisions. What’s happening at the policy level within sub-divisions? Members want to know who their state coordinators are. That info will be disseminated.

DEC’s 619 Special Interest Group – To promote a collective voice at the national level to focus on & delineate distinct issues for children w/disabilities ages 3-5 and their families.

Nancy Treusch – OSEP

Liaison position is established. We need to get busy w/DEC and do some brainstorming about the communication system and make sure that it is working (getting communications from state regional rep). Now we need to get active with the Liaison.

Dee Gethmann – Facilitated discussion on what would be helpful re: communication system & up-coming DEC conference (Oct. in Portland).

Communication System:

• Would prefer info to come directly from DEC representatives (Dan & Nancy) to the 619 list serve.

• Not everyone knows what 619 is. Recommend putting preschool or early childhood special education on all marketing materials.

• Set up 619 list serve so that replies don’t get sent to all. May just need clarification on the difference between reply & reply all.

• When there is a turnover in the 619 coordinator position, would like means for informing or including the new staff in all communications (619 list serve and OSEP mailing list). NECTAC needs to be notified that new staff person exists. Suggested that coordinators notify NECTAC if they are planning to leave their position. Clarification that the third track of communication is between regional representatives and local 619 coordinators. How is this communication going?

• Recommend that the conference “cracker barrels” be themed by specific topic areas, have 2 different meetings, i.e. issue meetings for 619 coordinators & meet the 619 coordinator & service providers for each state.

• Recommend that the “cracker barrel” not be the last session on the last afternoon, but earlier, maybe during lunch.

• Clarify: what is the “cracker barrel”? Opportunity for networking & dialogue during a regularly scheduled session at the DEC national conference

• Both the 619 coordinator and CSPD person from each state cannot always attend DEC conferences. Just a caution to be aware of this fact.

See handouts:

• About the Special Liaison between 619 Coordinators and DEC

• Concise Version of DEC’s 04-09 Strategic Plan

• Detailed version of DEC’s 04-05 Strategic Plan

Partnership Opportunities Among National Associations

Update on current partnership activities between NAEYC, NAECS/SDE & DEC and their draft join position paper on curriculum, assessment and program evaluation.

Partnerships

Beth Rous-DEC

How DEC/619 partnership can work:

Need to get on the strategic plan-let them know

Response to NAEYC’s position statements on curriculum, assessment, and program eval

Companion piece coming from DEC. Will be available on-line

Need assistance of 619 in ideas for getting this out to those who need it.

1. article in Exceptional Children with outline of paper

2. are there supplemental docs that DEC can suggest to support the paper?

Timeline: reviewed in Feb, comments in March, send out again in April, revise in May, to Board in June, reformatted and onto website by July 1.

Will use a blind peer review process

Would they like to have input into the paper?

Discussion: Early learning standards in PA- developing assessments now; people on this writing or review group should be informed about these efforts in states

NE- 3- 5 guidelines included both typical and special needs and various other diverse populations; they looked at other states’ guidelines in the process; included accommodations.

Important that as a companion, people need to read the NAEYC paper, too; need to make sure people see the difference between the child outcomes part and the program guidelines part; also a companion piece coming on English language learners.

2 open forum sessions to allow people to have input into the paper; at NAEYC and at DEC. “Issues in designing state accountability systems” copies on the table.

Jim Lesko-Vice President, NAECS-SDE

What role could 619 folks play in the organization of Early Childhood State Specialists in Departments of Education?

Accountability one of the biggest issues

Are children with disabilities included in the standards efforts?

Social emotional development a priority in Good Start Grow Smart.

Pew Charitable Trust funding initiative that will support the establishment of accountability systems for pre-kindergarten.

Need to find a way to mesh.

PA- policy director in dept building universal preschool in PA; doesn’t include preschool sp ed, but has an early learning team with 619 on it; easy for 619 to be overwhelmed by the early childhood pieces.

Would like other 619 coordinators and State Directors having conversations at national conference.

State Early Childhood Specialists has a very active listserv- recommends other people tie in; join this organization.

Sp ed needs to be a part of early childhood;

SCASS- council of chief state school officers- have been looking at assessment over the last few years; have a PowerPoint that can be used at the local and state levels by others;

Looking at the impact of standards on states and assessment.

Initiative: bring together state early childhood specialists and 619 people together to talk. Maybe regionally in conjunction with something they are already doing.

How about birth to 5? We can’t leave out Part C either.

CoP resources to do strategic planning birth to 5?

Regional phone conversations may be the start.

Pew Charitable Trust- funds yearbook of early childhood efforts, just has a little bit about 619 -- it should be more prominent on these pages.

PA- if we bring these 2 groups together, what’s the clear definition of what we want to be a part of? How do we want to be involved? What’s the goal?

On the other hand, just join and sit at the table and see what the national agenda for children is, and make sure our children are a part of it.

See handouts:

• About NAECS/DE

• About NAEYC

• Issues in Designing State Accountability Systems

Election of Regional Representatives of the Steering Committee

Dan McCarthy, Election Official

Regional representatives for the Steering Committee

Need to:

• Elect (or re-elect) regional representative (including the rep and members at large)

• Discuss most effective way to get & receive information within the region

Previous Representative Newly Elected

Region I Russ Hoyt Beth Tkach NJ

Region II Nancy Vorobey MD Nancy Vorobey MD

Region III Sandra Reifeiss AR Sandra Reiss AR

Region IV Pam Reising-Rechner IL Pam Reising-Rechner IL

Region V Cheryl Blackwell Connie Nink UT

Region VI Mary Bostick Karen Walker WA

Members at Large

Amy Cohen R Jim Lesko DE

Kathy Baars NC Cathy Jones AL

Susan Crowter LA Robin Ward TX

Cathy Bishop FL Darla Griffith SRRC

Lisa Backer MN Esther Beck PA

Dee Gethmann IA Dan McCarthy MT

Barbara Crane-Jaques WY Mary Bostick ID

Nancy will e-mail representatives notification of conference calls.

See handout:

About the Steering Committee for the Consortium of Section 619 Coordinators

Announcement:

***619 NCSEAM (OSEP monitoring) Meeting - Wed. 12:30 – 3:30 in Wilson C. Lunch will be served. RSVP to Sharon Walsh (who is in the hotel)***

Facilitated Discussions

Costing Out Early Care & Education

Ester Beck - Build Initiative document re: funding levels sent via e-mail by Shelly deFosset. Very helpful. Currently we have funding silos; federal & state funds. Increase in numbers of children is higher than the increase in funds. Points of discussion:

-How do we go about calculating the cost of quality 619 programs?

-Do you have a cost accountability program in your state?

• UT is working with the University of UT to do a cost study. Problem is separating transportation. Most districts have refused to try to separate out transport. Huge problem with the amount of service: the preschool day. Continuum different amounts of service are difficult to identify.

• NM does not collect this data at all. State funds every 619 child (a lot of money) then we add in the federal $). All districts have to do is meet this child’s needs per the IEP. The local school district can use funds for whatever they choose.

• MA has a lot of data. But in EC did a series of cost quality studies (Wellesley) one of which was on preschool. Inclusionary. Cost average was approximately $11,000 per child per school year (combination of funds). A sample of public preschools; from a couple of half-days to full day.

• NC joint license (SE/Reg ED) combine with state funds; More at Four, Evan Start, Head Start, Title I programs that support preschoolers. Children either qualify for Title I or More at 4, and no EC funds go into that classroom, or blend a class and pro-rate accordingly. they look at make up of classrooms and prorate the dollars for the cost of the program across the program $, based on the proportion of which kids are in the various programs. Inclusion has worked nicely due to the blending of funds.

• MO required to fund EC/SE at 100% by constitutional amendment. Everyone submits ECSE budget. Have very few general education EC programs. Have some Title 1, do blended & pro-rated. We have a data base on the number of FTE contracted for therapies and can calculate, but do not have data on per child cost.

• DE-A somewhat easy method to measure cost by local or state level–Tom Parish & Steve Barnett (AIR)–Resource Cost Model lets you categorize resources and do cost averaging- makes it a little easier than collecting more detail; use expenditure per child rather than cost. Need to be careful what is being measured.

• MA has data base on staff and credentials, which assists in identifying cost

• MA has some data to estimate cost of serving children w/Autism, but not on a per child scale.

• OH - Consider sharing economic impact we have on the investment. Info was shared.

Interest in looking into identifying cost of providing ECSE services? Distinctions between use of federal funds vs. state funds for new coordinators. Also might be helpful to think about the fact that some states are looking at finance models, and understanding who uses what combinations of funding. Data available within 619 Profile, Question #6.

Recommendation that Steering Cmte. ask for volunteers to work with Esther on this topic.

Stretching Staff & Fiscal Resources When Serving Children in Multiple Settings

Shelly deFosset (NECTAC) provided brief update on preschool inclusion TA opportunities. Preschool LRE Community of Practice (CoP). On pg. 23 of conference agenda book is description of each of the communities. Preschool network is an automatic member, but we would like you to participate. Responding to areas identified via APR analysis: data collection, TA & connecting with broader ed community. Federal reps from child care, ADD & HS. Use the community to respond to some of these initiatives for community based services for children. Will start with 4 state teams (interagency) to get going. Will use the summer Inclusion Institute (Chapel Hill, August 2005) to initiate planning. Also just created a searchable data base on preschool LRE on the NECTAC web site. One on natural environments is under development. Help us shape initiatives & develop new ones! More to come on Tuesday.

Early Childhood Outcomes

Nancy Vorobey

Early Childhood outcomes are coming, for children & families. GSEGs, funding to develop early childhood accountability systems. 16-17 states received GSEGs, approx. 5-6 are birth to 5 (MD is one). Building on standards already developed for 4 & 5 year olds. Working collaboratively w/Dept. of Human Resources. Biggest challenge is coming to consensus on measurement systems. Piloting statewide on-line IEP form.

Lynn Kahn-ECO

Outcomes that have been posted (visit ECO website). Family outcomes (5) have been open for public comment. Submitted recommendations on Friday. Only the first 3 seem to apply to the 619 population while all 5 seem to apply to Part C (from feedback from the field). Need more specific assistance on how you might pull together resources to respond to the APR (especially those who did not get GSEGs).

MO-Interested in the process states went through to align preschool outcomes with standards.

DE – Preschool has not been included in any focused monitoring efforts, until recently.

How are states using 619 in focused monitoring? It would be VERY helpful to learn more about how this is playing out in other states. LRE and EC transition are big areas (for DE).

AR – Monitoring all preschool programs w/preschool standards. What are the benefits to doing it separately?

LA – we’re looking 3-21.

FL – request of GSEGs on 3-5. Looking at costs is very important. Kindergarten population may mean two different mechanisms for collecting data. K = different body of assessment & curriculum. I also hope we can think very simply. Accountability system can easily out-strip resources available to implement it.

Continue to get access to accountability resources from other programs (Head Start & Early Head Start).

Identification of Issues Important to 619 Coordinators, Including the Impact of the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004

Esther Beck

Questions from Judith Malveaux, Editor, Early Childhood Report. Coordinators are asked to discuss the questions in the Preschool Special Education Coordinator Survey at their tables. Responses from the group regional discussions include the following:

Region I

Region II

Region III

Region IV

Region V

Region VI

State Sharing

Mary Bostick

Coordinators were asked to respond to the questionnaire circulated in preparation for this meeting.

Preschool Special Education Coordinator Survey

Section 619 Coordinators Meeting

February 6, 2005

7 responses (1 labeled NCRRC, others not identified)

1. What do you think is the biggest issue facing preschool special education coordinators today?

• Money/time/state budgets (4)

• Some state concern over implementation of LRE-access to established quality early care/education environments; leading IEP teams to look at a community early care & education site as most inclusive/initial option on the continuum (4)

• Funding LRE

• Some state foci: QUALITY early childhood environments

• Some states do not have certification for teachers for kids under age 5. Teacher qualifications not defined. (2)

• Paperwork/time

• Outcomes-development of measurement systems (3)

• Money for development of data systems for outcomes

• Lack of universal, high quality preschool/would address multiple issues

• Personnel-not enough staff at State Department, not enough teachers at local sites

• ELL

• Standards

• Blended funding

• National accountability implications

• Changing role of Early Childhood Special Education teachers

2. What do you consider the biggest issue concerning 619 to come out of the new IDEA? Why?

• Don’t know enough about it, but Part C option to serve to K (4)

• A lot of the Part C language related to funding early intervention and 619, emerging literacy curriculum

• Lack of increase in funding (3)

• Predates IDEA 2004, but accountability up to OSEP and down to LEAs for quality of programs for children/families-outcomes

• Don’t see IFSP at part B-new transition requirements

• Doesn’t address highly qualified

• IEPs without objectives in states with out preschool standards

3. What other issues coming out of reauthorization would you like to know more about?

• Does parent refusal of special ed relieve the district of responsibility?!

• Transition

• “Highly Qualified” for preschool (2)

• If parent request, early intervention is included in initial IEP-confusing, need clarification

• Does language on excused from participation apply to classroom teacher & early interventionist?

• IEP without objectives

• Birth to K option

4. How do you think reauthorization of the IDEA will impact what you do?

• Step up training for reauthorization

• Doing away with short-term objectives

• Increase TA on C to B

• Don’t know yet (2)

• More emphasis on accountability will reduce the focus on 619 in states where 619 coordinators have multiple responsibilities.

• Direct service in private and/or religious schools

• Time to allocate specifically to pre-K

5. IDEA aside, what are some legal or instructional issues facing 619 programs?

• State-level interpretations of 619-what it is, how it is used

• State standards

• 619 Funding

• IEP forms do not apply to preschool

• Exposure to regular curriculum that typically developing children experience

• Early literacy

• Promoting children’s social-emotional/mental health development (2)

• Responsibility to provide services by age 3 for children who are late entry or referred late by Part C

• Autism programming (2)

• National accountability implications

• Quality of inclusive sites

• Districts ability to provide a continuum of services

6. What topics do you feel are important that I should be writing about? Any possible sources you would recommend?

• LRE

• What was the policy development process behind the decision to offer expanded Part C services, birth to Kindergarten?

• Writing meaningful & measurable goals

• Differences between states – universal preschool programs, state funded/variety of funding, similarities, costs, successful practices states use to find qualified staff

• Any of the above

• Something tailored to administrators about inclusion

7. What changes have you made in your program in the last year and why?

• Increase the number of early childhood special education student data collection on parity with non-disabled peers

• Developing on-line C to B transition training for parents, C & B service providers and community partners to improve transition from Part C to Part B

• Wed-based statewide IEP

• Revamped monitoring-compliance & focused monitoring

• Statewide web-based communication system

• Monitoring transition from Part C to Part B

• Inclusion initiatives

• Response to APR

• TA for 3-5 SWD

• Responding to increases in population and behavioral/emotional concerns

• Data development

8. What are some of the innovative things your state has done to save money in 619?

• Froze state salaries (MO, MN-4 yrs.)

• Medicaid reimbursement

• Universal pre-K

• We don’t have any money to save! Linking/collaborating with other early childhood partners (but this doesn’t save money). Some states developing early childhood standards save districts money

9. What kind of information would help you improve what you do?

• Outcomes: how to measure them

• Critical for states without GSEG grants to get the support they need in developing outcome/accountability systems

• All of the above

• Continue face-to-face opportunities to share

• How to collect data (fiscal, programmatic, child, family)

Lynne’s extra notes

619 Coordinators Meeting

Sunday 2/6

1:00 to 4:00

DEC liaison ideas:

619 listserv- we need to keep it up to date, someone said it took 6 months to get on it.

Nancy has a list to send out communiqués from OSEP

The steering committee has regional reps that distribute info to 619 coords in their regions

DEC session ideas:

Separate into 2 DEC cracker barrels: 1 to discuss issues and 1 to meet your 619 coord with service providers from the state

When $ is low, the CSPD/TA person gets to go to DEC, not the 619 coord

Cost discussion:

UT- doing study, but hidden costs, e.g. transportation, utilities, and things that are shares of a bigger bill; problem with amount of time getting “special services”

NM- doesn’t collect it at all; rolled into general budgst, schools can spend it on whatever they need to

MA- have a lot of data – cost quality studies (Wellesley) found cost for sp ed children was about 11,000; they have methodology and can share

NC- joint reg ed/spe ed license, so same teacher does both- mix of state funded “More at 4”, “Even Start”, Head Start “Title I” programs that support preschoolers; MO- has a data base for calculating the per child costs; can pull down costs based on FTE’s providing services to preschool age children

DETom Parrish and Steve Barnett have a model called resource/cost model that

MA- has some data to calculate costs, but not exactly on a per child scale

Table discussions

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download