Transition71007

July 10, 2007 Transition/Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Workgroup Minutes

Attendees
Kim Fine, Bradley Hutton, Christine Vogelsang, Mary Garrett, Michael Dedee, William Combes; SED was represented by Cindy Gallagher and Sandy Rybaltowski
[Additional people observed the meeting and were asked for input during select discussions.]

Facilitor Bonnie Edelstein

Housekeeping items
Parking anywhere around the Capitol was a challenge and it was suggested that the next workgroup meeting be scheduled for a venue other than Albany. Christine V. will try to get space at NYSUT’s facilities in Latham.

Schedule of Future Workgroup Meetings

Tuesday, July 10 (12:00-4:00)
Monday, July 30 (12:00-4:00
Tuesday, August 14 (10:00-4:00)
Monday, September 10 (10:00-4:00)

Wednesday, September 12 (10:00-12:00) (hold for conference call)
Friday, September 14 (10:00-12:00) (hold for conference call)

1. Issue Review and Assignment

Michael Dedee presented to the group a revised version of the list of issues generated during the full task force meeting organized into two main categories (Transition and LRE), and moved additional issues into an “other” category. The group agreed with this approach and decided to focus on the two major categories.

Group discussion ensued regarding LRE, and the issue identified “truly define LRE”

What is LRE for PreK? Move into class/group setting, social/emotional or carry over in the LRE. It is a black/white issue? Regulations lay this out.
Bill Combes noted that LRE is not mentioned in the statue that should shape the group’s efforts.
Mary G. said there is a position paper on LRE that was developed by SED
Group decided that instead of defining LRE we should identify options for children who are preschoolers, identify barriers to participation in options and figure out ways barriers can be overcome to make them accessible.
SED put out an Early Childhood Policy paper – Cindy will share
Christine V. voiced concern about UPK being directed to 4-year-olds. She believes the initiative should be to provide pre-K to 3 & 4-year-olds. New money is for 4-year-olds only. Few districts allow 3-year-olds. There is insufficient funding for 3-year-olds and those districts that have been providing services to 3-year-olds will have to restructure their programs.

The two main categories were discussed: Transition & LRE. Under Transition there will be two main points (Specific dates/points of transition & Continuity of Service). Under LRE – ID options for Preschool and make them accessible.

Issue Statement for next full meeting – What are the concerns/issues? Share broad issue and sort down into questions or statements. Bullets may be repeated.

A group discussion ensued regarding Transition and barriers to a seamless system, specifically:

Age cut off
UPK challenges – availability for younger children
Kids change rapidly & the system doesn’t move as quickly
Current systems considers services by age instead of developmental or educational milestones
Lack of seamlessness – currently there are two different systems and two different sets of regulators and regulations
Federal & State regulations, etc. contribute to the non-seamless system.
Not all providers participate in both EI and preschool special education
Mike D. and Brad H. noted that parents have identified the following reasons for delaying transition from EI to preschool special education: loss of service coordinator, loss of support during summer months, potential change in providers

2. Prioritize Issues & Define Workgroup Goals

Category 1 – Transition

Priority Issues to be Addressed

Specific dates/points of transition (EI to preschool AND preschool to school)
Continuity of services

Vision

No negative impact of transition on child or family
A Birth-to-School entry age system based on developmental milestones including measures of educational attainment vs. age (based on set of standards Birth-5)

Discussion notes:

A need for a B-5 standard for all
Don’t lose service coordination piece
Maintain child provider throughout EI and preschool
Preschool System that is not based on school year

Summer Service continuation -- revisit criteria for extended school year
Discussion about regression requirement for services during school summer break

Consistency statewide in implementation
Ability to continue with same provider (remove financial & regulatory disincentives) – (Identified as a cross-over issue Rate Group)
Continuity of service coordination for families (as needed)

Discussion notes:

EI gets a service coordinator (no option) vs. PreK has an option for service coordination
Fiscal responsibility needs to be considered – all discussion of available services should be considered in the context of the need of the child and his/her family

Maintain family involvement as partners

Communication with families and between providers and school district is critically important
Progress has been made in recent years as a result of providers working in partnership with school districts

Category 2 – LRE

Priority Issues to Be Addressed

Availability of early childhood program options to allow for choice based on what is best for the child and family
Qualified supports in various settings so that children can be successful in the setting of choice

Vision

Program Placement for children based on children’s needs & parents’ preference
Accessible UPK for 3 & 4-year-olds with the supportive services they need

Discussion notes:

Universally accessible early childhood programs including Headstart, Childcare & Nursery School Programs)

Currently, children who need full day child care may be in a specialized program for part of the day and then a general program for the remainder of the day without support

Partnerships between 4410 service providers and Early Childhood service providers to ensure integration & qualified support for children & families

Discussion notes:

not enough support results in children being kicked out of childcare
Parents need help identifying help for children in their existing settings and alternatives if the current setting is not equipped to help the child
IFSP development to be written with all needs included – financial concerns should not result in omission of identification of needs

All childcare providers required to have CDA coursework that includes working with and supporting children with disabilities

Discussion notes:

OCFS/SED offers training. Also information on training for children with disabilities online.

OCFS currently has a Literacy Program to raise standards for childcare providers

Coordination of standards imposed /state regulators – remove disincentives for integrated programs (4410, OCFS, EI)

Discussion notes:

One disincentive is process for new 4410 approval. Approval of a new 4410 program may take several months. Sandy noted that SED is working to improve the 4410 approval process. Some delays are caused by providers not staying close to the language of the law and the resulting need for questions and information exchange. Process is quicker once a program is approved and just needs to be modified.

Streamlined approval process for new/modified 4410 programs (SED/VESID)

Discussion notes:

require licensed providers to have plan for accommodating children with special needs – it was noted that ADA requirements already exist. What may be needed are incentives in the form of special certification or a reimbursement enhancement for early childhood programs equipped to meet the needs of children with disabilities. (Cross-over issue for rate setting group)

4. Identify Resources Needed to Better Understand Issues/Answer Questions

Topic Assigned to

Transition data – EI to Preschool                                                  Brad
Birth-to-school age position papers                                              Brad
Updates on Chapter 57 Pre-K Standards Work                             Cindy

Notes: Coordinate efforts with SED. Chapter 57
PreK Standards group)

Data on 12 month vs. 10 month Preschool (including costs) Sandy

Notes: Average cost of summer program

4410 Programs that also provide EI                                              Sandy & Brad
EI Rates (Reimbursement)         Brad
Average Costs Preschool Special Ed                                            Cindy
(including related services)
Universal Pre-K (LRE)                                                                 Cindy
Longitudinal Study Preschool Special Ed                                     At Task Force
CDA Curriculum                                                                           Kim

Notes: Invite Susan Senate to next meeting

Copy of Standards/Briefing Kim
Early Childhood Policy Paper Cindy

6. Next Steps

Kim decided to have agenda item #5 EI – Preschool Transition Discussion tabled for the next meeting.

Clarification to group (Sandy): There is not a shortage of Early Childhood Special Education certified teachers. Geographically, maybe, but not statewide.

Handouts:
1.   List of all Preschool Special Education TF meetings
2.   Monroe County Early Intervention Program (2 page)
3. The Transition of Children from The NYS Department of Health Early Intervention Program to The State Education Department Preschool Special Education Program or Other Early Childhood Services (February 2005)
4.   Preschool Special Education Program Fact Sheet, including statistical information
5.   Section 200.16 of Education Regulations regarding regression