WORKGROUP 3—DELIVERY SYSTEMS
MEETING MINUTES
9/7/2007 

Group Leader: Rebecca Cort
Attendees: Michael Grossfeld and Mary Curtis (via video conference); Judi Gerson, Susan Constantino, Mark Jasinski, Lisa Timoney, Bob Frawley, Dan Sheppard (DOB), Jyothsna Buddharaju (DOB), Sandy Rybaltowski and Donna Noyes were present in Albany.

Observers: Pam Madeiros (Greenburg Traurig), Tom Connelly (ACTS), Ken Crannell (NYSAC) and Jessica Morelli (NYSAC) in Albany; Trudy Font-Padron (ACTS), Kathy Grossfeld (All About Kids) and Gail Kligman (ACTS) by video conference. 

Facilitator: Donna Meixner
Recorders: Sara Silver and Denise Corbett

Meeting Start-up

Donna welcomed everyone to the meeting.  A proposal was made to postpone the acceptance of the previous meeting’s minutes (8/31/07) to the end of the work session, as most members had not had a chance to review them.  The ground rules were revisited: the need to provided balance, giving everyone a chance to participate, that observers were welcome to comment but that decisions on the recommendations were the responsibility of the members. 

Becky noted that she had circulated to all members the statutory language governing CSE and CPSE committees.  She also drew everyone’s attention to the format of the recommendation form, one that (should be) used by all workgroups (for consistency).
She was also working on getting additional data relative to the regional forums by next week.

Donna proceeded to review the recommendations, asking members to examine each, and to ask for clarification or rewording where needed (please refer to the recommendation worksheet used on 9/7/07).

Recommendation 1:
Focus the preschool decision making and service delivery process with those who have the greatest knowledge and expertise in the area of special education, increase accountability and oversight of preschool system by school districts, and facilitate the transition between preschool and school age.
Strategies/Action Steps:  

Online comments:
 Mary Curtis’ proposed substitution:  By 2013 municipalities will be removed completely from the fiscal, contractual, and programmatic responsibilities of the 4410 Preschool Special Education program.

Note: this is not a recommendation for providers to be eliminated from the process.

Mike Grossfeld’s wording: Explore a revised State Aid formula by which county costs are capped  and future additional costs are the responsibility of the State.  As of 2009 NYS should pay 75% of the cost with the county paying 25%.

Discussion points:

• Should “greatest knowledge” be replaced with “placement decisions”?  No, because the recommendation should go beyond what is administratively convenient.
• It was important to retain the “why” (what is there to gain?).
• Many counties feel that they have the greatest expertise in preschool service delivery.
• This is about service delivery, not funding.
• Cap the fiscal cost, but remove the rest of the counties’ responsibilities.
• Capping costs does not imply that there are no costs.
• There was one dissenting opinion on recommendation 1 and strategies (a) and (b), which included the following points:
• The county role should be continued.
• Strategy (a) should be replaced with the Mike Grossfeld wording.
• No information (data, studies) has been presented in support of the recommendation.
• Dissenting member disagreed with several of the pros listed here.

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Reword the recommendation to reflect “school districts who have federal and state responsibility for ensuring provision of special education services.”
• In (a) replace “explore” with “revise”.
• Rewrite (b) so that it is contingent on the occurrence of (a).
• In (b), replace “shift” with “transition”, to indicate that the process will take time.
• Important to set a timeframe and avoid “soft” language. “Transition over a 5-year period?”
• All parties (state, counties, and districts) must be involved in the 5-year transition process.
• This could be viewed as in support of or contrary to Gov. Spitzer’s government consolidation initiative. A statement to that effect should be placed in both the pro and con columns.

Action Steps:

• Transition issues are implementation issues: how to move responsibility from 58 counties and spread it over 677 districts. Lisa will get information about implementation with the assistance of Burt Porter.
• All were asked to add pros, cons and implementation issues to the worksheet.
• A suggestion was made that the dissenting viewpoint be presented as an alternative and taken to the Task Force, inasmuch as this alternative was not reflective of the whole state: regional forum data show that most stakeholders are in favor of school districts getting more involved. Mike will prepare an alternative recommendation to be attached to the WG recommendations to be presented at the Sept.18 Task Force meeting.

Result: There was general agreement on recommendation 1, with one dissenting opinion.  Priority level: High (dissenting opinion was that the recommendation was a low priority).

Recommendation 2:
Reduce the extremely high costs for transportation within the preschool system and avoid costs exceeding maximum reimbursement rates.
Strategy/Action Steps: 

Discussion points:

• What if parents do not have the means?
• Concern about the word “incentive”.
• This could end up costing more than providing transportation.
• Not all parents need financial support.
• How much of a fiscal incentive will be necessary is an important implementation issue.  However, incentives should not be greater that cost.
• Should a strategy (d) be added to underwrite a transportation audit?  One such audit was done in the 1990s (Putnam County).

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Add “when it is cost effective” to strategy (a).
• Change “provide an incentive” to “provide financial support…”
• Lisa will rewrite the implementation issues to reflect cost/gifts.
• Becky will revise strategy (a) “maximize the use of parents’ ability to transport children where cost effective…..” and add (d) “conduct a transportation audit.”

Result: Full agreement on recommendation 2.  Priority level: High

Recommendation 3:
Ensure that the continuum of preschool services includes the flexibility needed to meet individual students’ needs in a cost effective manner and is applied consistently across districts and programs.
Strategy/Action Steps: 

Discussion points:

• The intent is to say that services can be indirect (e.g., to the teacher).  This will have greater impact.  At present, there is no indirect option for speech services—or a combination of direct and indirect services.
• (This will) eliminate the minimum level stipulation.
• There was agreement that this was a fiscal issue. 
• There are advantages to providing services in the child’s natural environment (e.g., home).
• It might be important to look at best practices research to gain support for the recommendation. Mike will add an implementation piece based on best practices research.
• There might be resistance from teachers (con?).
• The LRE workgroup is discussing how to improve coordination of services.

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Add statement about investigating best practices research
• Add a con about potential resistance from teachers
• Add following wording to b – “Eliminate minimum levels of related and…”
• Change the first implementation issue to read “…for group service and indirect service”

Result: There was full agreement for recommendation 3.  Priority level: Medium.

Recommendation 4:
Maintain current locus of expertise and established oversight structure for EI and preschool services but increase collaboration and sharing of information to improve transition from EI to preschool.

Discussion points:

Recommendation 5:
Enhance the knowledge and skills of CPSE members and program providers to facilitate transition from EI and ensure consistent decision making.

Result: All were in agreement on recommendation 5.  Priority level: High.

Recommendation 6:
Increase capacity to predict future system needs, to evaluate impact of early intervention and preschool services on future performance, and to provide system oversight, especially in regard to timeliness of referral, eligibility determinations and service delivery.

Result: All were in agreement on recommendation 6.  Priority level: Medium.

Recommendation 7:
Increase district responsibility and accountability for preschool services to be more closely aligned with school-age process.

Strategy/Action Steps: 

1. School districts should be responsible for conducting or contracting for CPSE evaluations.  A system of approved evaluation sites should continue but the school district would select the appropriate evaluator if they do not conduct the evaluation themselves.
2. Adopt a peer review model for evaluations and service delivery and encourage Counties to consider the results as they make decisions about contracting with providers.

Online Comments:
Mike Grossfeld’s alternative: School districts should not be responsible for conducting or contracting for CPSE evaluations.  A system of approved evaluation sites should continue.

Discussion points:

• Strategy (b) is not consistent with recommendation 1 (county role).
• While the peer review model has strengths, it is not cost effective.
• Change “peer review” to “objective criteria.”
• There were opposing viewpoints to this recommendation.
• Federal law states that districts should be responsible for evaluations.  In NYS, parents make the decision. 
• Even if school districts are held responsible for evaluations, they will still rely on private providers—especially for the severely and profoundly disabled population of students. 

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Should add to 7 (a) that CPSE evaluations require that evaluators have preschool/young child expertise.
• Move (b) to 10 (d) and rewrite (a).  Move Becky will revise.

Result: There was general agreement on recommendation 7 with 1 dissenting opinion.  Priority level: High.

Recommendation 8:
Ensure consistency of expectations and access to appropriate instruction for both non-disabled preschool students and preschool students with disabilities.

Result: There was general agreement on recommendation 8.  Priority level: High.

Recommendation 9:
Ensure that only eligible children receive services through the CPSE process. 

Result: There was agreement on recommendation 9.  Priority level: High.

Recommendation 10:
Improve mechanisms for tracking progress and child outcomes and increase comparability between EI and preschool measures.
Strategy/Action Steps:  (Donna)

• There is inconsistency between instruments, as well as between EI and preschool.
• Currently, both EI and preschool use the COSF (Child Outcome Survey Form).  But are the tests used to complete the form reliable and valid?

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

Recommendation 11:
Ensure access to educationally necessary July and August services for students transitioning from EI or newly entering preschool delivery system.
Strategy/Action Steps: 

• In (a), add “remaining” to “entering.”
• Send (b) to the LRE/Transition workgroup.

Result: There was agreement on recommendation 11.  Priority level: Medium.

Recommendation 12:
Increase the availability of recommended services for preschool students with disabilities.
Strategy/Action Steps:  (Mike)

• The issues are related to capacity. 
• One member dissented with the alternative set of strategies: there is an inherent prejudice in how TSSHs and school psychologists are used. 
• Professional practice laws do not allow these exceptions.
• We should be looking at the practicality of how to increase capacity, since we are not going to change professional practice law.
• Alternative (b) might be simplistic- simply allocating funds will not solve the capacity problem. 
• May add (d)- the birth to grade 2 certification category.  Many universities with special education programs do not offer the birth-grade 2 concentration. This has led to a shortage of qualified applicants for teaching positions in these levels.
• If rate-setting revisions make significant enough progress such that funding is adequate- then there is a substantial allocation of IDEA funds that can go to providers to offset costs incurred in the shifting of responsibility to districts.

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Becky will rewrite (b) -  “Identify and support research-based strategies to recruit and retain…..”
• Susan will add strategy (d) concerning the certification issue.

Result: Most members supported the recommendation with the alternative strategies.  There was one dissenting opinion. Priority level: Medium/High (?)

Recommendation 13:
To ensure services are being provided and done so efficiently a case management system is necessary.

Result: Recommendation was tabled.  Mark will write/revise in time for the Task Force meeting.

Recommendation 14:
Decrease public State and local costs for preschool services by maximizing other sources of income.

Result: All members agreed with recommendation 14. Priority level: Low.

Recommendation 15:
Support families’ understanding of their children’s needs and increase their involvement in the service delivery process.
Strategy/Action Steps: 

1. CSPEs should be required to explain why family and regular education provider support and training is not included in an IEP.

Alternative:

1. Strengthen regulatory requirements for districts’ and programs’ involvement of families in the preschool special education process.

Discussion points:

• Members opposed (a).  Eliminate this.
• They supported (b).
• This may not be a stand-alone recommendation.  Perhaps it should be stated as 5 (c).  This is a training issue. 

Editing Suggestions for the Recommendation:

• Sandy will rewrite (b) to become 5(c)

Result: Once folded in with 5, it will receive the same level of recommendation and priority.

Recommendation 16:
Added by Mike Grossfeld)  NYSED should propose legislation to allow all Preschool providers to maintain present registered business entities (i.e. LLC, S-corp etc.) and to allow new providers to be approved under any NYS approved legal entity.

Discussion points:

• There was a general lack of understanding as to what this recommendation was about and how it pertained to the Statement of Principles.
• This is a corporate practice issue, a legal one that had “nothing to do with VESID.”
• Some opposing viewpoints were that this was a capacity issue because it affected the status of a large number of providers.
• There was a suggestion that legal counsel be brought to the Task Force meeting explain the recommendation to members.  Possibly Doug Lentovich (Office of Professions) or Richard Trautlein?
• Mike will rewrite for presentation to Task Force. If the Task Force decides to go forward with this recommendation, Doug Lentovich or Richard Trautlein will be invited to a future issue to explain the issue further.

Result: No action taken.

Next Steps
Donna brought the meeting to a close by reviewing the action items needed to make the workgroup’s presentation before the Task Force on September 18th.  The next workgroup meeting is on October 12th. There might be a need for an additional workgroup meeting between September 18th and October 3rd.

Action Items