Temporary Task Force on Preschool Special Education
Minutes from October 17, 2007

Co-chairs:   Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner NYSED
Kim Fine, Deputy Director NYS Division of Budget

Attendees: William Combes, Christine Vogelsang, Mary Curtis, Susan Constantino, Eddie Lee, Michael Dedee, Robert Frawley, Mary Garrett, Michael Grossfeld, Bradley Hutton, Mark Jasinski, Eddie Lee, Sally McKay, Patsy Yang

Observers:  John Calderon (ACTS), Lisa Mill (Schenectady County Public Health), Jane Ryan (JE Ryan Associates), Ellen Burns (Early Childhood Direction Center), Nancy Hampton (Early Childhood Direction Center), Agnes Leahy (Whitemore Osterman-Harna , LLP), Joe Conroy (DOB), Jyothsna Buddharaju (DOB), Lisa Timoney (DOB), Melinda Person (NYSUT), Christine Decatur (NYSSBA), Dan Kinley (NYSUT), Hal Mattot (NYSED- STAC and Medicaid), Marcia Atwood (Questar III SETRC), Heather Evans (Carr Public Affairs), Pam Madeiros (NYS Alliance for Children with Special Needs), Andrea Rieger (LI Coalition for Preschool Children w/ Disabilities and Variety Child Learning Center), Jessica Janeski (OMRDD), Judi Gerson (CP of NYS), Dan Tworek (CP of NYS), Donna Noyes (DOH), Sandra Rybaltowski (VESID), Michael Plotzker (VESID).

Facilitator: Rebecca Kennard
Recorders: Sara Silver and Tina Goodwin-Segal

Meeting Start up

Becky Cort, Kim Fine, and Becky Kennard welcomed everyone to the meeting.  Attention was called to the fact that draft copies of the report needed to be returned at the end of the meeting since it was not a final document yet.  Members were thanked for their efforts in advancing the recommendations to this point.  The minutes of the September 18th Task Force meeting were unanimously approved.

Development of the Draft Report (Tina Goodwin-Segal, MAGI)

Over a series of editing sessions with the work group chairs and the facilitator, MAGI took efforts to write to a broader audience, and at the same time to preserve the language developed by the Task Force members.  The report incorporated an executive summary, a section on membership, an introduction, and a description of the processes employed by the Task Force to arrive at the recommendations.  The recommendations were distinguished as primary and secondary, applying the original criteria set by the members.  A concluding chapter summarized the intent and proposed impact of the proposals with a recognition of additional work that remains to be done. The list of appendices described additional resources used by the Task Force and these will appear in their entirety in the final report.  Members were encouraged to review the report for accuracy of information and to alert the writers of necessary changes. 

Review of the Draft Report

Becky Kennard established the ground rules for review of the report.  Members were asked to refrain from comments about grammar/syntax of the language and instead to focus on the report’s substance and message.  Three standards were employed:

1. Is the report complete?
2. Is the report accurate?
3. Is the report a clear documentation of the work of the Task Force?

The following is a summary of the highlights of the feedback provided by members on each section of the draft report.

Introduction

• Members expressed satisfaction with the quality of the draft, recognizing that it was produced in a short amount of time.
• Some of the language about NYS’ unique history of preschool special education that appeared in Recommendation 3 should be added to the Introduction—in particular, the original intent of the State to provide additional reimbursement to the counties, and the fact that NY is one of few states with a county fiscal role.
• Language should reflect that the work of the Task Force was to examine ways to improve the delivery of high-quality services to children, so that it does not give the impression that charge was solely driven by fiscal considerations; the Executive Summary and Conclusions should also capture this objective.
• Some mention of home-based services to children should be added in this chapter.

Process

• This should not be a stand-alone chapter. The section on Task Force process should be moved to the Appendix, and the section on outreach efforts should be retained as part of the Introduction.
• Mention should be made that over 100 issues were initially discussed in the workgroups, which resulted in 30 recommendations that were finally pared down to nine by the Task Force.

Primary Recommendations
Recommendation 1

• The ordering of the primary recommendations was based on the four criteria set by the group, leading with those that reflected system improvement and helping children.  The rate-setting proposal appeared to flow from the others.
• Some language should be added to show that all recommendations within each of the primary and secondary categories were weighted equally.  Each chapter—Primary and Secondary—should begin with that explanation and it should be included in the Executive Summary as well. [Note:  although the group agreed to no longer refer to recommendations by number, for purposes of these meeting notes, it is clearest to continue to identify numbers.]
• Language on inappropriate or unnecessary services should be deleted as stakeholder forums did not reflect this.
• The timeframe for completing the Parent Handbook should be articulated, perhaps as a footnote. 
• Acronyms, except the most common (NYSED, NYS, etc.) should be spelled out each time they are used in the text, as readers outside the Task Force will not be familiar with them.

Recommendation 2

• There was a need to spell out the role of other early childhood programs and current partnerships that exist with community –based organizations.
• In a few parts of the State, preschool children with special needs (those requiring RSO and SEIT) are already being integrated into general education preschool settings as part of the district’s continuum of services. There was concern that this recommendation will tie the funding only to “special classes in an integrated setting” that use UPK funds to support the general education portion of the population in these classes, so that only three-year-olds with the most intensive needs will be served.  There might be potential for abusing the system, where children will be prescribed more services than they need, so as to be served in these special classes.  However, the purpose of this recommendation was designed as a first step to address the statewide insufficiency of “special classes in an integrated setting”.  Given that, language was needed to specify eligibility and maximum enrollment criteria, to limit the number of transitions, and a provision to allow districts to continue operating targeted UPK programs to accept and fund three-year-olds in their classes.

Recommendation 3

• Reference to NYSAC should either be complete or excluded.  Ultimately it was determined that it should be excluded.
• The fiscal issues were warnings and realities that currently exist, i.e., not newly created by the recommendation.  It was only that with the recommendation, the same burden would shift to another party.  Language should be added to specify that costs may be greater depending on future administrative structure.
• More NYS-county history should be added.
• Reference to accessing health insurance dollars to pay for special education should be reconsidered.  However, the purpose of including this was to recognize the importance of maximizing other funding sources as County contributions are capped – to not suggest tapping additional funding sources would be fiscally irresponsible. 
• Parental informed consent was implied for accessing health insurance, consistent with FAPE.
• The inability of dependent school districts to raise tax levy funds should be noted as an implementation issue. 
• The role of parents vis-à-vis CPSE in the selection of evaluators needed to be clarified.
• Members did not support the inclusion of a dissenting opinion, either as an attachment or on the website.  They stated that it was important to each of them to add strength to the proposals of the Task Force and not to take away from it. The member with the dissenting opinion stated that his viewpoint reflected an entire constituency, not just his voice.  Members responded that each of them also represented a constituency, and that opinions other than those supported by the group have alternate avenues for expression.  The inclusion of some of the concerns of the dissenting opinion within the implementation issues was discussed.

Recommendation 4

• The recommendation should be revised as “eliminating” the rate reconciliation process since it would become unnecessary with the new methodology.
• It was important to include, as a strategy, the involvement of an advisory group composed of provider organizations, counties, and school districts that would be consulted by NYSED and DOB as the new rate method was being developed.

Secondary Recommendations
Recommendation 5

• The language about compensating general educators should be deleted.
• Additional detail on the expanding needs of children with autism was needed.

Recommendation 6

• The section on pre and inservice training for teachers needed to be a more actionable strategy, without a call to mandate the number of hours of training.
• Some mention should be made of when the pre-K learning standards will be completed as well as a plan to disseminate the standards to all providers. 

Recommendation 7

• The rationale section, with reference to EI and preschool RSO providers should be revised to reflect greater detail about continuity of services. Also, “aligning” reimbursement rates was a more accurate representation than “equalizing” rates.

Recommendation 8

• Some clarification was needed on whether the implementation issue called for reimbursing parents for transporting their children (e.g. criteria for doing so).
• Transportation aid for preschoolers might be explored.

Recommendation 9

• In the rationale section, language should be revised to read, “compliance issues”.

Conclusions

• Language about the improvement of high-quality services should be underscored.

Glossary

• 611/619 funds should be deleted as no reference to this was made in the report.

List of Appendices

• The results of the regional round table follow-up survey should be removed from this section and referenced on the website.
• The transportation cost analysis should also be removed and referenced on the website.

Meeting Wrap-Up and Next Steps

Becky Kennard summed up the review by asking the members if the report fulfilled their charge as a Task Force.  Members felt that if the revisions suggested were made, they would have accomplished their charge. 

The co-chairs agreed to incorporate all changes and send the final draft by email to the members for final comment.  The November 6th meeting will be needed to affirm the final document.  However, members may elect to video-conference or conference call into the meeting.  Upon acceptance of the final product, the chairs will send it with a cover letter to the Governor and the various stakeholders (members of the Senate, Assembly, etc.).  At that point, it will be a public document. It will also be presented to the Board of Regents.

In summary, the co-chairs felt that much had been accomplished by the Task Force.  It had met its charge and tried to balance what is important for children with what is practical.  The fiscal component must be recognized even though it was not the primary objective.  Members were urged to think about how their recommendations could be supported in each of their professional roles, so that they could collectively move this important agenda forward.