SEAS CableDecember 1996
volume 17 number 12
Supporting Special Education Administrators in Seeking Solutions
SEAS CableISEAS Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Board Initiates
Pilot Program for Substitute Teachers,
Speech-Language and Hearing Clinicians
CPS-B TIPS the Scales in Indiana
In July, the National Council on Disability (NCD) released its report, "Achieving Independence: The Challenge for the 21st Century." The report was a follow-up to its 1986 report, "Toward Independence." The report provides an assessment of disability policy in eleven areas: policy coordination, civil rights, education, employment, social security and other income maintenance, health insurance and health care, long-term services in the community, technology, housing, transportation, and international. Following is the full text of the Executive Summary of the report.
"We have an outdated system of public policy based on outdated attitudes toward people with disabilities." - Ed Roberts, World Institute on Disability
In 1986, the National Council on Disability (NCD) issued "Toward Independence," a report now considered a milestone in the history of disability policy. It set the agenda for the decade, proposing the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The adoption of this law in 1990 was certainly the watershed event for individuals with disabilities in the past decade. "Achieving Independence" is a follow-up to "Toward Independence." Fueled by the collective empowerment and self-determination of the disability community, it is proof of the impact of the ADA. It offers an assessment of the nation's progress in achieving equal opportunity and empowerment in the last decade (1986-1996) and sets the agenda for the next decade by offering more than 120 recommendations for change.
A National Summit on Disability Policy
In keeping with the values of empowerment and consumer-directed policy making, NCD decided to convene a summit of people with disabilities to discuss how to achieve independence in the next decade. Over 1100 grassroots disability leaders from around the country were asked to complete nomination forms for participation in the summit. Three hundred participants were chosen on the basis of the following criteria: disability and cross-disability representation; geographic representation; ethnic, racial and other diversity; policy area expertise and breadth of knowledge in disability policy. Eleven policy areas were determined by NCD and the Summit Advisory Committee after a review of the topics addressed in "Toward Independence" and the priorities reported by the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities in "Operation People First." These are the policy areas that are addressed in this report.
Politicians in both the Congress and the administration have increasingly called for "people first" government, for direct participation by Americans in decision making. There is less interest in hearing from intermediaries, such as professional advocates, and greater interest in hearing the views and ideas of Americans "outside the beltway." The National Summit on Disability Policy provided a forum for just such views-it was an event at which knowledgeable people from around the country met to provide input directly into the federal policy-making process.
With the sense of undertaking a complex and potentially controversial challenge, NCD proceeded into this experiment in democracy. From April 27 through April 29, 1996, people from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia gathered in Dallas. People with all types of disabilities were represented, as well as parents and family members. About 20 percent of the participants were minorities, including Native Americans, African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Participants were from disability organizations, service-providing organizations, academia, and federal, state, and local government. Federal officials provided technical assistance and background information. A special emphasis was placed on youth with disabilities. Twenty young people with disabilities, aged 13-22, participated fully, providing a glimpse of tomorrow's leadership and invigorating today's dialogue.
NCD chairperson Marca Bristo and disability rights leader Justin Dart opened the Summit, challenging participants to be both practical and visionary. Led by volunteer facilitators chosen from among the participants, Summit participants met in policy working groups for three days. The groups brainstormed about their policy areas, assessing the current state of affairs and debating how future policy could best promote the goal of independence.
The recommendations in this report were generated by these working groups and supplemented by suggestions from disability leaders who could not attend the Summit. Although the working groups' original recommendations were reviewed and amended by NCD, the recommendations presented here remain true to the deliberations of the people who attended the Summit and are thus reflective of the thinking of a cross-section of disability leaders and people with disabilities throughout the nation.
Summit participants had the opportunity to organize additional groups to discuss topics that they believed were not sufficiently addressed within the 11 policy areas defined by NCD and the Summit Advisory Committee. Discussions of nine of the "emerging issues" groups are summarized. The experiment in Dallas proved to be a great success of democracy in action. The diversity of the men and women who participated-in terms of their disabilities, their ethnic/racial backgrounds, their geographic homes, their ages, and their viewpoints-was remarkable. To our knowledge, the only similar event that has occurred was the 1977 White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals, where people from around the country assembled in Washington to determine recommendations for disability policy. When provided with the opportunity to change policy, people with disabilities are effective and thoughtful analysts and contributors. NCD counts this event, in and of itself, as an important outcome of the Achieving Independence initiative.
NCD draws the following conclusions about the current state of disability policy as a result of dialogue at the Summit, internal deliberations and a review and analysis of current law and programs. These conclusions provide the basis for the recommendations in the report.
1. Disability policy has made steady progress in the last decade in empowering people with disabilities; however, this progress is threatened, compromised, and often undermined by lack of understanding and support in the Congress and among particular segments of society.
The enactment of ADA and many other laws in the last decade is evidence of considerable progress toward independence. The sense of empowerment experienced by people with disabilities is an important outcome of this policy progress. However, repeated attacks on the fundamental liberty and freedom of people with disabilities by those who do not understand the need for and the requirements of disability rights laws challenge the progress of the past decade. The media backlash against people with disabilities, fueled by special interest segments of society, is evidence of the residue of stereotypes about people with disabilities that remains pervasive in some quarters.
2. Most public policy affecting people with disabilities does not yet promote the goals of ADA-equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.
Public policy continues to send mixed messages to people with disabilities, on the one hand, stating independence as a goal and on the other hand constructing significant obstacles to its achievement. The recommendations in this report are intended to change public policy so that it promotes the achievement of independence.
3. Most Americans with disabilities remain outside the economic and social mainstream of American life.
Despite notable progress in the last decade, people with disabilities continue to be less employed, less educated and poorer than other Americans. Barriers to the tools of economic empowerment remain significant. Minorities with disabilities are particularly disadvantaged by barriers unique to them because of their dual-minority status.
Overarching Themes of Recommendations
Most Americans will experience disability at some point during their lives, either themselves or within their families. Disability is not the experience of a minority of Americans. Rather like aging, it is an experience that will touch every American family. Thus, creating an accessible and inclusive society is important for all of us.
When Americans with disabilities achieve independence, the benefits to society are compelling. People with disabilities want to be employed, educated, participating, tax-paying citizens living in the community and contributing to the economic and social fabric of American life. Federal funds should be an investment in those goals, an investment in independence, rather than a trap of dependence.
The recommendations provided in this report are offered in the context of balancing the national budget, with a priority on investment in human capital. In the long run, investments in the productivity and mainstream participation of people with disabilities are essential to achieving a balanced budget, a maximally productive society, and an America that is able to continue to provide economic leadership in an increasingly competitive world marketplace.
The following are overarching themes of the recommendations in this report.
1. Existing laws should be more vigorously enforced.
While they are aware of the dedicated commitment of officials and employees at federal enforcement agencies, virtually every policy working group at the Summit discussed the need for greater enforcement of existing law. The lack of adequate resources dedicated to enforcement limits the impact of disability laws. The Congress and the administration must commit additional resources to enforcement.
2. People with disabilities should direct policy and decision making when they are affected by the outcome.
As the Summit in Dallas demonstrated, people with disabilities are knowledgeable, effective decision makers. However, policies are frequently developed and carried out with little involvement of people with disabilities. Too often the outcome is that people with disabilities have little choice about the services, programs, supports or accommodations they may receive. Decisions have already been made for them. The empowerment of choice is a key to achieving independence.
3. Outreach and awareness campaigns must be launched to educate the public about the human and societal benefits of achieving independence for people with disabilities and the important role that civil rights and community-based supports play in promoting independence.
Most Americans do not understand the barriers faced by people with disabilities, the concept of disability rights or the need for disability rights laws. The backlash of the mid-1990s is evidence of this lack of understanding and widespread misinformation. Public understanding can prevent needless lawsuits and needless mistakes, such as the construction of buildings without access. Public support is critical to furthering the independence of people with disabilities.
4. Incentives for the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society must be further developed and implemented.
Disability policy must continue to open doors to full participation. While business, industry, state and local government, employers, and other sectors of society must meet their legal compliance/obligations, they should also be provided with incentives to go beyond minimal compliance.
5. Principles of universal design should be universally applied.
Universal design involves developing and producing products that are usable by people with a wide range of functional capacity. Most families will experience disability in their lifetimes. Ensuring that technology, housing, transportation and other aspects of community life are designed to accommodate people with disabilities will ensure a more inclusive and productive society for all Americans.
6. Systems, services, and supports for people with disabilities must be further developed as a part of the mainstream of community life.
Too often people with disabilities face unnecessary barriers to full participation, such as employment, because the supports they need to fully participate are not available to them. Too often those supports are available only in segregated settings or for those who are not working. Community based services and supports are critical to independence.
7. Accurate data about people with disabilities should be regularly collected, analyzed and reported.
Policy development and implementation are inhibited by a lack of statistical information about people with disabilities. Regular reporting of statistics, such as employment rates, will promote policy development, implementation and public understanding. Without such data, people with disabilities and policy makers are unable to accurately assess the nation's progress in meeting the goals of ADA and achieving independence for people with disabilities.
The Challenge for the Future
People with disabilities are well aware of the tools they need to achieve independence. Advances in policy, science and technology are available to support independence as never before. The challenge of achieving independence is a challenge of mustering the political will to move forward. Progress requires a dedicated commitment from all sectors of society-policy makers, people with disabilities and their allies, state and local government officials, nonprofit organizations, the private sector and the media. The achievement of independence for people with disabilities is a test of the very tenets of our democracy. It is a test we can pass.
To order a copy of the NCD report, call National Council on Disability at 202/272-2004.
SOURCE: GTE INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 10/25/96.
Mary Jo Dare, Sheila Decaroli, Mike Livovich, and Jeff Young were presenters at the Secretaries/Support Staff Seminar sponsored by ISEAS on November 12, 1996. Sue Ann Specht, consultant on stress management from St. Vincent Hospital, presented on "Staying Well at Work - Coping, Surviving and Thriving. Craig Zablocki from Colorado completed the day on the topic of "Lighten Up and Laugh for the Health of It."
Karl Murray became Director of the NSTEP Project at the National Association
of State Directors of Special Education on November 1. NSTEP is a federally
funded project that focuses on strengthening the various components of the
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development and works particularly with
State Departments of Education, CSPD Councils, and stakeholders concerned
with personnel supply, demand, preparation, and professional development.
Previously, Karl was Director of the National CSPD Collaboration
Institute Project at CEC, which he left to assume his new responsibilities
at NASDSE. Before that, he held several key positions in the California
Department of Education.
October 23, 1996
[These minutes are considered unofficial until approval at the next meeting on November 13, 1996.]
Members Present: Phyllis Craig, North Central Representative; Mary Jo Dare, Central Representative; Sheila Decaroli, East Representative; Muriel Downey, Northeast Representative; Brett Bollinger, Southeast Representative; Saundra Lange, Southwest Representative; Joan Machuca, Northwest Representative; Bob Marra, Director, Division of Special Education; and, Jeff Young, ICASE Representative
Staff Present: Gary Collings, ISEAS Executive Director and Susie Thacker, ISEAS Executive Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Gary Collings as ISEAS Executive Director.
Approvals: Motion: Minutes from the September 25, 1996 meeting were presented. With a motion by Dare/second by Downey the minutes were approved as written.
Mini-Grants: Expenditures to date of $500 mini-grants:
Central Roundtable $ 0.00
East Roundtable 0.00
N. Central Roundtable 361.82
Northeast Roundtable 0.00
Northwest Roundtable 0.00
Southeast Roundtable 0.00
Southwest Roundtable 0.00
Mini-Grant Applications/Reports: Southwest - Southwest Roundtable will use their $500 mini-grant to offset the cost of roundtable meetings and distribution of materials to participating districts. The roundtable will meet to establish targeted topics for meetings during the 1996-97 school year.
Northwest - Mini-grant funds will be used to cover costs of meeting rooms at the Michigan City Holiday Inn.
East - East Roundtable's mini-grant will support local training, the focus of which has yet to be determined.
Central and Southeast - Central and Southeast Roundtables have not determined the use of their $500 grants.
North Central - North Central used a portion of their mini-grant to visit Purdue University on September 4 for an inservice on the Internet. A roundtable supper meeting was also held at Fall ICASE to develop the remainder of their activities.
Northeast - Northwest Roundtable will meet November 1 and will determine the use of its mini-grant. Mary McArdle, East Allen County, will serve as the Northeast Roundtable alternate.
Lighthouse Applications: No new Lighthouse applications have been received to date.
Administrative Study Keyclub (ASK): No applications have been received.
ISEAS 1995-96 Final Report: Collings reviewed the ISEAS 1995-96 final grant report which is going through channels at Indiana State University and will then be sent to Hank Binder, DOE Division. MOTION: A motion by Lange/Craig to approve the 1995-96 final grant report as submitted was carried.
1996-97 EVENTS/REPORTS: OT/PT Topical Session: ISEAS will sponsor one of the nine presentations at the Eighth Annual ED-MED Conference to be held Thursday, October 24, 1996 at the Indianapolis Convention Center. Vicki Hershman, State Coordinator for Partnerships for Assistive Technology with Indiana Schools (PATINS) will present. PATINS is a statewide project designed to provide training, resources and technical assistance to public school personnel and students who want access to adaptations and technology tools which enable students to control and direct their own lives. Registration forms have been mailed to Indiana special education directors, OTs, and PTs. Jackie Nink Pflug will deliver the keynote address on "Learning to Live with a Traumatic Brain Injury".
Secretaries/Support Staff Seminar: Approximately 47 registrations have been received to-date for the annual ISEAS Secretaries/Support Staff Seminar on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at the Holiday Inn North, Indianapolis. Concurrent sessions planned for the morning are: (1) Conflict Resolution with Jeff Young and Mary Jo Dare; (2) Parent/Public Relations with Mike Livovich; (3) Cracker Barrel Panel Discussions on Selected Topics with Jeff Young, Mary Jo Dare, and Sheila Decaroli; and (4) Staying Well at Work - Coping, Surviving, and Thriving with Sue Ann Specht, Health Promotion Services at St. Vincent Hospitals. Participants have been asked to select and attend two of the four topics. Craig Zablocki will present at the afternoon session on Lighten Up and Laugh for the Health of It. Registration forms have been mailed to those attending in past years and to all directors of special education. Deadline for registration is November 5. The $15 registration fee includes a luncheon. Collings has invited the president of the Indiana Association of Educational Office Professionals to attend.
LEASE Academy II: Collings reported only five applications have been received to date for the second annual LEASE Academy. The theme of the Academy is "Life in the Balance" and is hosted by ISEAS and presented by the Center for Organizational Resources (COR) of Ball State University. The Academy will be divided into two sessions: November 20-21, 1996 and January 20-21, 1997. Registrations forms and booklets were distributed in September to all directors of special education. ISEAS University Forum members were recently invited to attend and the application deadline was extended to November 1. Collings asked the Committee to consider if it was worthwhile to further market the Academy or pursue cancellation. The feeling was that the problem of low registration lay not with the topic, but with the timing, the difficulty of educators leaving their districts, and travel budget constraints. CONSENSUS: The consensus was to move forward with Academy II. In an effort to bring in more registrations, roundtable representatives will talk with roundtable members and Ball State University will invite faculty members, doctoral students and Delaware County School System. The deadline for registration has been extended to November 1.
LEASE Academy III: A letter from Collings to Dr. Leonard Burrello, Smith Research Center, Indiana University, regarding preliminary plans for a third LEASE Academy was discussed. The Student Union on the Bloomington campus is the likely location. Burrello has suggested a theme around Strategic Alliances. Potential topics are: moral ethical leadership, communications, learning theory, networking, technology, and marketing. Collings will need to have a program outline and budget estimates by February 1997. The academy proposal must first be endorsed by the ISEAS Steering Committee and then included in the 1997-98 ISEAS grant application.
The group discussed the best time for holding such training and the amount of time to be allotted to it. The feeling was that a two day workshop around mid to late January 1998 would be best. Collings will bring back more information on the theme topics. There was a suggestion that district public relations personnel also be invited to attend if this theme is used. It was also suggested that a survey be sent to directors regarding the theme, timing, and costs of the Academy. ACTION: Collings will have a survey ready for the next meeting.
Roundtable Calendars: Roundtable meeting calendars for Northwest, North Central and East Roundtables were distributed. Collings asked that each roundtable submit a calendar of meetings as soon as dates are confirmed.
Limited License Report: A report of limited licenses issued over the past 10 years was reviewed with data available for the past 18 years. The Indiana Professional Standards Board has reported that a total of 970 individuals received a limited license during the 1995-96 school year. Of these, 503 were original limiteds and 467 were renewals. Of the 970 individuals teaching on a limited license last year, 880 (91%) were some type of instructional license in special education. Marra also noted our field is the only one which monitors licenses as closely since teacher certification is currently tied to the special education reimbursement.
Conference Sponsorships/Reports: NASDSE: The 59th Annual NASDSE Meeting will be held November 17-20, 1996 at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in New Orleans. The theme of the meeting is "Accountability in a World Class Education System for Individuals with Disabilities". Sheila Decaroli, Anderson, will represent ISEAS at the meeting. Muriel Downey is the alternate.
CEC: Salt Lake City will be the site for the International CEC Conference April 9-13, 1997.
LRP: The annual LRP Conference will be held May 4-7, 1997 in San Diego.
University Forum: Organizational Meeting: A draft of minutes from the September 27, 1996 ISEAS University Forum organizational meeting held at the Radisson Hotel Roberts, Muncie, was reviewed. Copies of the minutes are available upon request from the ISEAS office.
November 1, 1996 Meeting: An agenda for the November 1 meeting was provided.
Committee members received a Schedule of Standards Presentation and Dissemination and a list of Edit Team members prepared by the Indiana Professional Standards Board. The University Forum is tracking the activities of this group.
Other Business: Speakers Bureau: The Steering Committee again discussed if there was a need for a list of possible local presenters to be sent to directors. CONSENSUS: There is a need for such a list of presenters. Collings will put together a form that roundtable representatives can disseminate. Possible suggestions for areas to be included in the list are inclusion, program review, transition, discipline, and alternative education.
IDEAS Videotape Series: The videotape series "Indiana Designs for Educating All Students, (IDEAS), is now completed and is being packaged for distribution. The thirteen-tape series is facilitated by Marilyn Friend, IUPUI, and is expected to be ready in October.
"Who are the Children Being Born Today": Anyone interested in using this video may contact the ISEAS office.
"Look Who's Laughing": This video is currently with Joan Machuca, Northwest Indiana.
Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on November 13, 1996 (Wednesday) at the ISEAS Office.
- 8:00 AM - Coffee and Rolls
- 8:30 AM - ISEAS Steering Committee Meeting (to be followed
by Division Report and ICASE Executive Committee Meeting)
Information from ICASEOctober 23, 1996
ISEAS Office - Indianapolis
[These minutes are considered a draft until approved at the next scheduled meeting.]
Members Present: Daena Richmond (President), Russ Dawson (President-elect), Jan Rees (Treasurer), Gary Collings (Secretary), Jeff Young (Past-President), Joan Machuca (NW), Muriel Downey (NE), Mary Jo Dare (C), Saundra Lange (SW), Brett Bollinger (SE), Sheila Decaroli (E), Phyllis Craig (NC),
Members Absent: None
Others present: Bob Marra, Sharon Henderson, Tom Doyle, Cathy Shea, Cathy Pratt, Lyle Lloyd, Ann Smith
I. Approvals
A. MOTION: After a motion by Jeff Young/Jan Rees the September 25, 1996 executive committee and September 27, 1996 business minutes were approved as submitted.
B. Rees presented a comprehensive balance sheet and docket of outstanding bills. The list of COCASE members was discussed. MOTION: After a motion by Mary Jo Dare/Muriel Downey the September 30, 1996 treasurer's report showing a balance of $50,899.48 and the docket of outstanding bills totaling $23,149.82 (plus hotel meeting room costs for today's meeting of the policy committee) were approved as submitted.
Rees reported there were 296 participants at the first regional ICASE professional development conference sponsored by the North Central roundtable. The agreement was that half of the proceeds after expenses would be available for the respective roundtable for professional development. Rees reminded us that our overall use of funds as a not-for-profit organization is to benefit the membership as a whole not as individuals. Rees requested guidelines on how to disperse our proceeds in behalf of the organization. Richmond noted that national CASE will likely propose a dues increase for next year.
In view of the additional bookkeeping required of the accountant for the regional professional development conferences, Rees requested the executive committee consider increasing the amount paid to the accountant.
Collings is a member of the planning committee for the Midwest Special Education Leadership Conference to be held in Colorado in June 1997. In the past other state ICASE groups have sponsored meals and were recognized for their support.
Collings requested the executive committee consider a $300 contribution to be applied to the continental breakfast for the first day topical on June 24. The topical will be conducted by Melinda Maloney, Esq. the former managing editor of LRP.
ACTION: Richmond commented that the development of funding guidelines and the two above requests would be the focus of discussion for next month's meeting.
II. Strategic Plan: 1996-97
A. Goal I: Encourage communication, support, and promotion of administrators of special education
1. Report: Colleague Accomplishments - Patti Kem sent a note to Richmond about the death of father of Gary Ryan and the approaching heart surgery of Bob Robertson. Russ Dawson informed the group that Susan Sullivan was ill.
2. Report: Membership - Flowers
B. Goal II: Promote the improvement of the education profession
1. Professional Standards Board: Licensure Subcommittee Application - not discussed
2. Report: University Forum - Ann Smith reported that she is encouraged by the willingness of Forum members to work collaboratively with local directors. The Forum has considerable interest in the work of the Indiana Professional Standards Board.
3. Report: Roundtable Development - Livovich was not able to attend this session but informed the group at last month's meeting of the following regional training activities - North Central (Behavior Management - October 14), Northeast (Adaptations with Dave Ebeling - June 1997), East (Adaptations with Dave Ebeling - April 22, 1997), Central (Mock Hearing - April 1997), Southeast (Co-teaching with Marilyn Friend - December 4, 1996), Southwest (Co-teaching - in joint sponsorship with Southeast), Northwest (yet to be determined). Livovich asked at last month's meeting that each roundtable determine their costs, set the registration fee and provide details to him; he will forward information to ISEAS so a registration insert can be included in the Cable newsletter.
4. Report: Fall 1996 Conference - not discussed
5. Report: February 1997 Conference - Russ Dawson reviewed an outline for the February 20, 1997 Annual Spring Conference.
6. Report: Fall 1997 Conference - Russ Dawson presented a tentative schedule for the ICASE Fall Conference (September 24 - 26, 1997) to be held at Terre Haute.
C. Goal III: Support the acquisition of adequate funding at local, state, and federal levels to meet the needs of children and youth with disabilities
1. Report: Washington D.C. Conference - Tom Doyle and Sharon Henderson reported on their September 26-28, 1996 attendance at the We Care Conference in Washington D.C. sponsored by the American Association of School Administrators. They were impressed at the amount of discussion about special education related issues at this meeting. It was noted that the new 105th Congress is to focus on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and now will also have to accommodate IDEA reauthorization. Stan Collander was mentioned as an informative and entertaining presenter at the conference.
D. Goal IV: Encourage the development of an infrastructure to support persons with disabilities in their local communities
1. Report: COVOH Legislative Committee - Sharon Henderson attended this recent meeting at which global statements in topical areas were proposed. This approach will allow COVOH to compare any proposed legislation to their belief statements.
Doyle commented that Roger Williams had not yet received legislation platforms from the other associations. Doyle requested guidelines for Williams as to what areas to offer support and testimony. Williams anticipates legislation proposals to remove the cap from the school transportation budget, changes in the transfer tuition, workable equalization components in the school formula, and issues of parental rights.
2. Report: Public Policy Committee (Public Hearing on Interpreter Services) - Sharon Henderson reported that this committee met this morning to prioritize topics for future discussion. Next month the committee will focus on ISTEP assessment, speech language teachers and paraprofessionals, and charter schools.
Henderson reminded members about the October 25 public hearing in regard to the Board of Interpreter Standards which is proposed to be established to create a licensure system for sign language interpreters in the state. The public has until October 31, 1996 to send written comments to the FSSA Division of Disability, Aging and Rehabilitation Services.
E. Goal V: Promote collaboration with Department of Education and the Division of Special Education
1. Report: Division of Special Education - Bob Marra discussed the June 20, 1996 rules waiver made by the executive committee of the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) which would allow speech pathologists licensed by the Indiana Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board (ISLPAB) to be approved for purposes of special education funding. This action was taken as a means by which shortages of licensed professionals in communication disorders programs could, in part, be alleviated. The rule waiver is considered a pilot program and will be reviewed on an annual basis until new rules are in effect. This rule waiver was a result of a joint recommendation on behalf of ICASE and ISHA.
Directors must have the speech pathologists' license on file and the students on their caseload may need to be counted by hand. ACTION: Young asked that each director let him know when his/her district uses ISLPAB licensed personnel. ICASE/ISHA have to file a joint report with the IPSB at the end of this school year.
Marra discussed options for special education teacher licensing approvals which are currently tied to reimbursement. For example, licenses could be checked on the five year program review cycle. The response from the executive members was to maintain the annual review as it keeps business managers personnel directors engaged in the process.
Marra thanked the directors for the CHINS data. It appears that less than 1% of preschools students are CHINS which was anticipated. Approximately 10% of students in Alternative Residential Services are CHINS. The data will assist Marra in his future discussions within the department and at the budget agency.
Richmond mentioned that from her participation at national CASE board meetings how Indiana is being looked out by others with envy regarding our working relationship between local directors and the state division director.
In response to a question Marra explained the Robert Wood Johnson funded pilot study which will focus on EH students in Marion County. Mental health centers have been designated as the managed care organization (MCO). The MCO will purchase and manage the services at a capitated rate of $3800 per month. Clinical pathways is the concept of benchmarks to be developed to measure if the targeted children are improving from the services. There are 356 students currently receiving alternative residential services.
Marra replied to a comment to be cautious about the federal dollar increases that are currently being publicized. The I.U. cost study is expected to give us more insight about the special education finances.
F. Other Business - Richmond opened an after lunch discussion with three representatives of the University Forum. Cathy Shea, chairperson of the University Forum said this meeting represents an opportunity to hear from directors their needs and how we can maintain open lines of communication.
1. Members responded with the following comments:
a. many regions of the state do not have access to low incidence training programs;
b. can universities pool students around needed course work?
c. the number of limited licenses remains an issue;
d. universities seem to need to dialogue about their course work and structure for some consistency across programs;
e. categorical approaches in training programs are inconsistent with what is happening in the field;
f. new graduates often seem to require re-training upon employment;
g. can courses be taught on-site in local buildings using local resource personnel in a partnership approach?
h. why is it that elementary and secondary trained teachers with special education minors are among the better teacher models?
i. it seems general educators and principals in training receive a minimal amount of instruction in special needs issues even though they will be increasingly involved in these areas;
j. most directors would like to employ teacher candidates who have been taught to adapt their teaching styles to the diverse learning styles;
k. university faculty members need to have a training philosophy consistent with what is going on in the field;
l. teacher training programs are not market driven as we continue to see an overabundance of elementary teachers in light of other personnel shortages;
m. are there alternative ways of generating course credits?
G. Next Meeting: November 13, 1996 will be held at the ISEAS Office at 8:00 AM - Coffee & Rolls; 8:30 AM - ISEAS Steering Committee Meeting; 10:15 AM - Division Report; 11:00 AM - ICASE Executive Committee Meeting
The Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) has sanctioned two pilot programs affecting licensing requirements for substitute teachers and speech-language professionals.
On May 15, 1996, the IPSB approved a two-year pilot program that enables each Indiana school district to determine the requirements and assessments for licensing the substitute teachers employed by the district. The critical shortage of licensed substitutes and the frequent disparity between the special requirements of the district and the availability of qualified substitute applicants led the IPSB to appoint a committee of Indiana educators to address this issue and make a recommendation to the Board.
Under the provisions of the pilot, districts must submit a written plan to the Division of Teacher Licensing addressing five (5) specific areas: education requirements, work experience with children, in-service training, application procedures, and assessment process. Applications for substitute licenses are available only through the district offices. Individuals who meet the criteria established by the district must be recommended by the superintendent, who signs the application and forwards it to the IPSB for processing. Licenses will be mailed to the school office, not to individual applicants.
All certificates issued under this plan will expire on August 1, 1998. Any certificate issued prior to August 1, 1996, is valid until its stated expiration date; however, a school district may require its substitutes to meet the specific criteria for employment outlined in its written plan. At the end of the two-year period, the IPSB will have developed new rules based in part on the program as reflected in the written evaluations prepared by the districts at the end of each year.
In another licensing matter, the IPSB approved a rule waiver on a pilot basis to accept the license issued by the Indiana Speech-Language and Audiology Board (ISLAB) as an appropriate license for public school personnel in these areas. This action came after considerable dialogue with representatives of the Indiana Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ISHA) and the Indiana Council of Administrators of Special Education (ICASE), who had collaborated to propose the recommendation as one way to alleviate a critical shortage of licensed professionals in communications disorders programs. The waiver will be effective, subject to annual review, until the IPSB's new rules have been promulgated. As part of this review, ISHA and ICASE must submit a joint report to the IPSB Executive Director on the effectiveness of the waiver to date. The recommendation was approved at the August 16, 1996, IPSB meeting.
For additional information, contact Elizabeth Schurtz,
Director of Teacher Licensing at IPSB (317/232-0910).
[Editor's Note: The following article appeared in the July 1996 issue of the Communiqué: Volume II and is reprinted with permission.]
Over the past eighteen months, the Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo (CPS-B) and the Blumberg Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Special Education at Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, have had the pleasure of working together on a project that is changing the face of how government and education work to mobilize social and educational services for children and families in Indiana. During this project, we have provided nine training programs (five days each). Upon completing the second year, nearly 200 key leaders from state and local level educational and governmental agencies in Indiana will have been trained in facilitating the current version of Creative Problem Solving (CPS).
The first year of training was part of the Community-Based Care program supported by a grant from the Indiana Department of Education, Office of Special Education in conjunction with the Indiana Collaboration Project, a White House initiative focused on redefining government and sponsored by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The second year of training was supported by Training in Problem Solving (TIPS), a State of Indiana grant designed to teach CPS facilitation to state and local employees who are responsible for the mobilization of social and educational services to families and children. TIPS is funded by the Indiana Department of Education, Division of Special Education, and is hosted by the Blumberg Center.
CPS-B has trained a team of CPS facilitators provided by the Blumberg Center to deliver the training programs. It has been extremely rewarding for all of us to hear the stories people share about the impact this training has had at a state-wide level. As a result, we thought it would be beneficial to share some of these stories as examples of the training in CPS facilitation has had in state government and educational settings.
Numerous people have participated in this highly impactful intervention and it is impossible to identify all of them in this article. However, three people will be featured who have made significant contributions to the project's success. They will report their views on the impact of the training. Bill Littlejohn's perspective is through a state-wide lens. Bonnie Buddle represents a community focus, and Sonja Frantz provides an individual's point-of-view.
Bill Littlejohn, Director of the Blumberg Center and our host for these programs, has served as a table facilitator at all but one of the programs. In March, he sent a letter to the Group president, Scott Isaksen, to convey commendations. The following is an excerpt from his letter and is used to provide a general reaction to the training. He writes:
As director of the Blumberg Center, I am responsible for building and maintaining the Center's reputation for high quality products and training. The training provided through CPS-B is certainly making my job easy in these efforts! Your training is interactive; heavily steeped in experience; provides extensive materials for use after the training; and, provides advance materials which help to prepare the trainees.
The training provided by CPS-B is an exemplar of how to meet adult learning needs! The research and experiential bases of the process are evident throughout the five-day training programs. Your curriculum is strong and your trainers really make it work, especially given the challenges of the five consecutive, long days in our training. Our trainees evidence that the training is powerful and immediately applicable. CPS-B trainers are client-centered and have gone well beyond expectations to see that each trainee is successful in meeting his/her learning needs.
It is not easy to bring a group of adults, especially leaders, together for 5 consecutive, 8-plus-hour days! However, the word is out in Indiana. We do our training by invitation only because of our funding and have had to turn a number of persons away. We also have had waiting list for the last three training programs and have added an additional program with funding from another agency. After just two programs in our first year, our funding source was hearing such tremendous feedback from persons trained, that we were asked to conduct the project for a second year. Recently, we were asked to continue the training for a third year. This is certainly good for our center's reputation. While we have received multiple years of funding for our other training projects, and have always been recognized for high-quality training in our other programs, we have never experienced reactions as extremely favorable as we are experiencing with Facilitating CPS.
Bonnie Buddle, Title I Teacher in Clay Community Schools, Brazil, Indiana and certified CPS Facilitator, has served as a table facilitator for many of the programs. She applies CPS extensively in her school and community. Recently, she applied her CPS expertise in her community which resulted in a major breakthrough for a Community Education Program. The following is only one example of the success she is having in applying CPS. She writes:
Our small community had been trying to get a Community Education program together for over 5 years. The public school district had taken on the project with little success. The community newspaper ran a survey to solicit interest in the program and very few surveys were returned. Since it was difficult to understand what the community wanted, the Community Education program was limited to a couple of computer classes.
When the community's largest employer started laying off workers, interest in a Community Education program was sparked again. A resource-group of 12 business and community members was brought together to generate many options for classes which could be included in a program. I facilitated the group.
The challenge was to focus the options down to a list of classes that would not only enrich members of the community, but also make them more employable. Availability of instructors, facilitates, and the cost also had to be considered. Special care was taken to make sure all of the resource members felt that their contributions had been valued.
I helped the group focus by generating and selecting criteria to be used for selecting classes. After attaining group consensus on seven criteria, the resource-group narrowed the options from 200 to the 25 most promising.
Then I had the group generate sources of assistance and resistance, such as people, places and things that could help or get in the way of a new Community Education program. As a result, the resource-group planned an entire set of courses detailed with instructors, facilities and enrollment. After a 90-minute meeting, the group had a ten-course offering for the Spring, plus a set of criteria for all future class selection. Something that had been elusive for five years was attained in 90 minutes with the application of CPS.
Sonja Frantz, Project Manager for the Blumberg Center, has also served as table facilitator for all the programs. Her training has had a powerful impact on her work with children with special needs and college students. When asked how she has integrated CPS in her world, she provided a list of specific examples. A subset of those examples are provided below. She writes:
As Project Manager mid-way through the first year of this project, the funder requested that we train for a second year (and now a third). This request was based on positive impact information shared by people trained in CPS here in Indiana, and the benefits that CPS application has brought to them in their jobs as mobilizers of social and educational services to families and children.
As a professional and individual, my mission is to support the potentialization of others, and the CPS method delivered by the extraordinary CPS-B trainers and facilitation team does just that. The training team sets the affirming atmosphere and provides the problem-solving tools that participants can emulate when they themselves facilitate groups of professionals collaboratively with families and children.
In this work, I have accomplished the following types of outcomes:
* in Special Education child conferences. The average length of meetings has been reduced by half. The time reduction is due primarily to applying the Understanding the Problem component of CPS to identify student, parent and staff needs. Also, people in the meetings report higher levels of satisfaction from the meetings.
* in the development of Individual Education Plans (IEP's) for students with disabilities. Sources of Assistance and Resistance have been used to strengthen the implementation plans for accomplishing student's educational goals and objectives.
* in my college classroom. As a college instructor, my students and I have used brainstorming to develop unique formats to evaluate performance, such as videotapes, brochures, interviews with children and volunteers, and teaching demonstrations.
* to evaluate and improve college class sessions. I apply the ALUo tool at the end of class sessions for evaluation and improvement, particularly to get student feedback on various methods of teaching formats I use.
* to improve story telling and writing. I have taught the morphological matrix and used generating and selecting criteria with preschool students to improve their story-telling and writing processes. As a result, "every student has a story to tell."
Sonja Frantz is one person affecting the lives of many through the application of CPS and her many other talents. Bonnie Buddle is impacting her school and her community. Bill Littlejohn, with the help of many others, is impacting state government. Nearly 200 people have been trained as CPS facilitators in Indiana through this initiative and are helping to transform how state government works. CPS is making a difference, a BIG difference in Indiana!
For further information about the Blumberg Center or this CPS Facilitator Training project, please contact Sonja Frantz at: The Blumberg Center, Room 502, School of Education, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809; Phone: 812/237-8115, Fax: 812/237-8089.
On July 8, 1996, the Indiana General Assembly's House Select Committee on Economic Growth and Regulatory Relief met with several state agencies to discuss successes in reducing regulatory burdens and costs. The Indiana Professional Standards Board provided testimony on several matters but the Committee took special note of one issue: the Board's Executive Director, Marilyn Scannell, testified that the Board would be considering a revised fees rule the following month.
On August 16, 1996, the Board voted to eliminate licensing fees for additions of subjects and endorsements, reinstatements, renewals, and conversions. In addition, the Board voted to reduce fees for evaluations of out-of-state transcripts, original licenses, duplicates, and limiteds from $25 or $15 to $5 per license. Substitute licenses remain $5 per license. The measure now goes to other state agencies for approval and eventual promulgation. The Board had originally proposed eliminating all fees, but it was required to conform to a state statute that requires certain fees and fee amounts.
Clearly, the issue of fees paid to government agencies for mandatory licensing is of utmost concern in Indiana. Governor Evan Bayh's Executive Order 95-5 directed state agencies to reduce or eliminate fees as soon as practical. The Governor's office has made fee reduction a top priority and several recent moves to reduce or eliminate government fees have been initiated and broadly supported by business and consumer advocacy groups.
Currently, revenue from teacher licensing fees is deposited in the state's general fund. Philip L. Metcalf, Board chairman , said, "It seems only right that the Board act to decrease or eliminate fees, especially given that fact that the revenue collected from the fees does not directly support licensing or standards development. Decreasing or eliminating fees will save money for teachers and will remove some unnecessary accounting procedures for the Board's staff."
In fact, the Board said it will support legislation to eliminate the statute mandating licensing fees. "This is the next logical step in resolving the fees issue," said Metcalf.
For additional information contact Steve Griffin, Director of Legal and External Affairs, IPSB at 317/232-9010.
Please be advised that Senate Enrolled Act 151 amended the conditions in
which a person with a learner's permit is authorized to operate a motor
vehicle. The amendment was effective July 1, 1996.
An individual with a learner's permit may operate a motor vehicle while, "(a) the holder is enrolled in an approved driver education course; (b) the holder is participating in practice driving; and (c) the seat beside the holder is occupied by a parent or guardian of the holder who holds a valid operator's, chauffeur's, or public passenger chauffeur's license."
Please feel free to contact the Division of School Traffic Safety and Emergency Planning at Indiana Dept. of Education at 317/232-0890.
Department
of Education News
Minutes of the State Advisory Council on the Education
of Children and Youth with Disabilities
September 13, 1996
Holiday Inn
Shelbyville, Indiana
Please Note: These minutes are considered draft until voted on and approved at the December 1996 Meeting of the State Advisory Council on the Education of Children and Youth with Disabilities.
The meeting was called to order at 8:52 A.M.
In attendance: Edward Kasamis, David Schmidt, Becky Kirk, Kathy Wodicka, Michael Dalrymple, Richard Gousha, Robert Marra, Liam Grimley, Patricia Loge, Joan Melsheimer, William McKinney and Sharon Knoth and Judith Gilbert from the Division of Special Education.
Special Guest: Sheron Cochran from the Division of Special Education.
Members absent: Mary Jo Dare, Janine Hooley, James Phillips, Bruce McKay and Mary Stewart.
Interpreters: Janet Lancaster and Lisa Masters.
Welcome and Introductions
Dr. Grimley welcomed our newest Council member Michael Dalrymple, as a Consumer Representative. Mr. Marra introduced Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Dalrymple spoke to the Council and expressed his pleasure at being selected a member and stated he was looking forward to serving on the Council.
Approval of Minutes from the May 10, 1996 Meeting
Mr. McKinney moved that we approve the minutes. Seconded by Mrs. Loge. Mr. Schmidt indicated that on page 4 his name was misspelled. Approved with the correction.
Council Membership - New Appointments
The first meeting of the Council in the new school year is the meeting designated to elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the coming year. Dr. Grimley asked for nominations for the two positions. Mrs. Kirk nominated Dr. Grimley for the chairperson position. Seconded by Mrs. Wodicka. Mrs. Melsheimer nominated Mrs. Wodicka for the chairperson position. Seconded by Mr. McKinney. Mr. Schmidt moved that we close nominations. Seconded by Dr. Kasamis. Approved. An election by paper ballot occurred. Mrs. Wodicka was elected as the new Chair for the Advisory Council.
Mr. McKinney nominated Mr. Schmidt for Vice Chairperson. Seconded by Mrs. Melsheimer. Dr. Kasamis moved to close the nominations. Seconded by Mrs. Melsheimer. A voice vote elected Mr. Schmidt Vice Chairperson.
A member of the council noted that actions by any public agency in Indiana cannot be held by ballot. Subsequently, an election by show of hands was held to correct the error. Mrs. Wodicka was elected Chairperson of the Advisory Council.
Mr. McKinney thanked Dr. Grimley for his past work as the Chair of the Council. The rest of the Council concurred.
CSPD Update - Mr. Marra and Ms. Knoth gave an update of the CSPD Discretionary Grant process. It has been a very positive task to review each district's CSPD Application. There is a wide variety of inservice activities planned throughout the State. Many districts have combined their resources to set up a comprehensive approach of PEOPLE Development throughout the community.
The idea of a State-Wide CSPD Committee was discussed. Given the complexity of the dollars which need to be managed, a committee which could look at what is going on across the State would be a wise idea. The Division might want to work with a small group of Directors regarding the paperwork issues. If not, the Division will get "guesses" not actual facts. Collection of data across the state will vary from district to district. The Division wanted to be accountable to the General Assembly, it did not set out with a hidden agenda nor did the Division try to make the task difficult. Dr. Kasamis stated that the availability of substitute teachers is a serious issue. It is difficult to find the correct number of substitutes to offer training to personnel in the district. A committee of Directors to look at the CSPD process was recommended. Consistency is important but flexibility is necessary as well.
A discussion about involving general education ensued regarding Inclusion, modifications and adaptations in the classroom. Mr. Marra will bring copies of the LRE/Adaptations Manual for the Council's next meeting.
The issue of grading, adaptations and cumulative records is a high priority for general educators. How do you fairly assign grades to all students? Class "ranking" and other issues need to be addressed. What are the standards that students must meet?
We cannot forget the need to look at the changing role of special educators as well.
Preschool Assessment - Mrs. Cochran gave a presentation on the Early Childhood Evaluation Recommendations. We need to keep in mind the differences between regulatory (rule) issues and training (CSPD) issues. Mr. Marra discussed the purpose of this document. IF the Advisory Council accepts it in its current form, then it is distributed en masse throughout the state (to afford input from all constituents). It would then be proposed to the State Board of Education for possible changes to Article 7.
Concerns regarding "permitting" an SLP to be the "sole" evaluator and person to develop the IEP were brought up. If the parent is unable or unwilling to participate it could result in the SLP making all the decisions.
Screening vs. Assessment. If we are looking at screening, then it changes the perspective somewhat.
Dr. Grimley suggested that 7-11-4(c)(1) be re-worded to include "and/or" and that 7-11-4(c)(4) be re-worded to include "as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures".
The suggestion was made to add "other people at the discretion of the parent or agency"
Dr. Kasamis would like for 7-11-4(c) to NOT include the word must.
The Council looked through the proposed language line-by-line:
7-11-4(b): Eligibility for early childhood special education for the child with a suspected disability as defined in this rule except for the child with suspected communication disorder only, shall be determined by a case conference committee on the basis of a multidisciplinary educational evaluation. The multidisciplinary evaluation team includes, but is not limited to, the following members:
(1) A school psychologist
(2) A teacher licensed in the area of the suspected disability or a specialist with knowledge and expertise in young children with disabilities
(3) The parent or primary caregiver of the child, unless the parent or primary caregiver chooses not to participate
(4) Medical and therapeutic professionals as appropriate
7-11-4: Eligibility for early childhood special education for a child whose only suspected disability is a communication disorder shall be determined by a case conference committee on the basis of a multidisciplinary education evaluation. The multidisciplinary evaluation team for children whose only suspected disability is communication disorder includes, but is not limited to the following members:
(1) The speech-language pathologist
(2) The parent or primary caregiver of the child, unless the parent or primary caregiver chooses not to participate; and
(3) The early childhood special education teacher and/or supervisor/coordinator, school psychologist, medical and therapeutic professionals, as appropriate.
Results of the evaluation by the speech-language pathologist may indicate a significant delay in receptive and/or expressive language or other problems than a speech disorder which warrant further evaluation. In this event, the child is to be referred for a further evaluation.
7-11-4(c): The evaluation data and assessment information gathering procedures should be designed to provide information, as appropriate, in cognitive, physical, communication, social or emotional, and adaptive development, and includes:
(1) An individually administered, standardized assessment including norm referenced and/or criterion referenced instruments;
(2) A developmental and social history;
(3) A systematic observation of the child in a daily routine setting or other appropriate setting by an appropriate professional; and
(4) Additional evaluation data specific to the child's age and maturational level and to the suspected disability as described in Article 7, Rule 11.
Dr. Grimley moved that we go back to the original language of Article 7 and omit the language change listed above. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Carried with two abstentions.
7-12-1(f): The case conference or annual case review committee for a student whose only suspected disability is a communication disorder, or who is already in a program for students whose only disability is communication disorder, shall consist of at least the following members:
(1) A speech-language pathologist;
(2) The student's parent, unless the parent chooses not to participate;
(3) One (1) or more of the student's general education teachers, or one early childhood specialist education teacher and/or supervisor/coordinator for the early childhood special education student, or the building principal, or the principal's designee;
(4) The student, if deemed appropriate by the parent, unless the purpose of the meeting is the consideration of transition services, in which case the student shall be invited. If the student does not attend, the public agency shall take other steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests are considered;
(5) The student, if the student is at least (18) years of age and has not been adjudicated incompetent; and
(6) If the purpose of the meeting is the consideration of transition services, a representative of any other agency likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services shall be invited. If an agency invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the public agency shall take other steps to obtain the participation of the other agency in the planning of any transition services.
Mr. Schmidt moved that 7-12-1(f) be re-written or adapted to reflect the addition of the responsibility of case conference coordinator, the addition of an inclusion for personnel for children in early childhood education, and that subsections (4) and (5) (the references to the student) be merged into one statement. (Something that more closely parallels what Article 7 says for all other students). Dr. Grimley seconded. Carried.
Mrs. Melsheimer would like for us to look at re-referrals of students who have exited special education at the preschool level.
State-Wide Assessments - Mr. Marra brought the Advisory Council up-to-date on where we are presently with regard to students with disabilities being included in state mandated assessments. He made a presentation before the State Board of Education in July and shared the document he presented at that time.
Mr. Schmidt would like for us to add the issue of the actual time consumption which is going to be necessary to do this. The administration time - with the adaptations - will be an increased amount of time for special education teachers.
Old National Trail and West Central Joint Cooperatives - Reorganization: Mr. Marra shared the documentation which will be discussed at the November 8, 1996 Advisory Board Meeting. We will be at the Embassy Suites, North (by the Pyramids off of 421 North in Indianapolis). The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m.
Mr. McKinney asked for a map of the state with these districts extrapolated out. He would like December 1 counts and student populations for each district on this map.
An informational meeting of Advisory Council members will be held on October 11 for the Council to discuss this issue. Another meeting will be scheduled for early December - at which time the Council will hopefully be prepared to vote on the Reorganization issue. Mrs. Gilbert will get the exact locations and times to the Council as soon as possible.
Old Business - The SP/Communication Guidelines have been mailed out again. We would like your assistance in distributing these booklets.
Mr. McKinney moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Loge. Carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Internet Domain Name
Service (DNS) - [Editor's Note: The following is the text of a September
20 memo to Superintendents and Technical Coordinators from Mike Huffman,
director of the DOE Division of Educational Information Systems.]
Based on conversations with school personnel from across the state, it seems that everyone is making significant progress in getting school corporations connected to the Internet. Lines connecting schools to the Internet are being installed, Internet servers are going into place, and school personnel are planning to begin using the services that are available.
Domain Name Service (DNS) is a critical part of making your Internet connection work. DNS is the service that allows a computer as far away as New Zealand or as close as another building in your corporation to find your computer on the network. DNS is the worldwide "glue" that ties your computer's name with its address, allowing everything to work seamlessly.
Any discussion about DNS includes details of primary and secondary DNS servers. A primary server is the one that is mainly responsible for associating names (host names) with addresses (IP addresses) for your computer network. A secondary server (there may be more than one) is a computer that stands by, ready to do the work when the primary is unavailable, because of network outages, equipment failure, or work that you may be doing on the unit.
There are many ways to provide DNS. Some school corporations have elected to provide DNS on their own server located somewhere in the corporation. Some have chosen Sprint or Ameritech to provide DNS in addition to their role of providing the "transport" or connection to the Internet. It also appears that others have not yet established a way to provide DNS for their network of Internet connected computers.
To get started quickly with the full array of Internet services, Educational Service Centers have agreed to provide DNS to schools that need it until the school corporation is ready to do its own service. They will provide this service to member and nonmember schools. With a total of nine (9) servers placed throughout the state, the ESCNet also provides services ranging from training to curriculum, much of which is available on easy-to-use World Wide Web pages.
If you have not yet made arrangements for DNS, call your area Educational Service Center. They will work with you to register your Domain and to get DNS up and running for your site(s), for both a primary and a secondary server. Your school corporation will incur no charge for this service. In registering your Domain the ESC will provide you with a Registration template and also help to complete it. Templates are also available by calling the Department of Education at 317/232-0808. Domain Name Service is a required part of connecting to the Internet. We hope that this service from the ESCs will help to ensure a smooth startup of statewide K-12 Internet services.
If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 317/232-0808
or call the center in your area for more information.
Indiana Teacher Of
The Year For 1997 - Judy C. Fraps, an Indianapolis elementary school mathematics
teacher, was announced today by Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen
Reed as the Indiana Teacher of the Year for 1997.
Dr. Reed said Mrs. Fraps, a teacher 17 years, will represent all Indiana educators in the National Teacher of the Year program next spring. For the past 12 years, Mrs. Fraps has been Title I math teacher for Kindergarten through Grade 5 at the Greenbriar Elementary School in the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township, Marion County.
Jill Fairhurst Taylor was announced by Dr. Reed as the Teacher of the Year runner-up for 1997. An elementary teacher for 15 years, Mrs. Taylor has taught third grade the past four years at Lincoln Elementary School in the Brownsburg Community School Corporation, Hendricks County.
Mrs. Fraps, who earned the B.S. degree in elementary education at Indiana University in 1969 and the M.S. degree from Butler University in 1972, began teaching in 1969 with mildly mentally handicapped children at Wyandotte Elementary School (now used as the district's administration building). As Title I mathematics teacher, she serves two to four schools each year.
Her professional activities include presentations at five national conferences of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and four state meetings of the Indiana Council of Teachers of Mathematics. As a member of the At-Risk Student Committee at Greenbriar and Nora schools, she has been a mentor for three pupils.
The runner-up, Mrs. Taylor, earned the B.A. and M.A. degrees at Indiana State University in 1981 and 1985, and began teaching sixth grade in 1981 at Brownsburg Intermediate School. She won Lilly Endowment grants in 1995 and 1996 and the Channel 13 Shining Star award. In 1995, she published "The Empty Desk," a book "to help educators through the heartbreaking experience of having a seriously ill child in their classrooms and then, if necessary, how to handle the death of a student."
Mrs. Fraps and Mrs. Taylor will be honored at a recognition dinner November 6 with all of this year's nominees, their colleagues, and families. The state program and recognition dinner are co-sponsored by the Department of Education with Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc., the Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, and Scholastic Inc.
The state's Teacher of the Year receives $1,000 cash and a scholarship from Indiana University to cover tuition and living expenses for one year, in addition to jewelry, plaques, and a framed certificate. The runner-up receives $500 and a leather attaché case from Brenner Luggage, in addition to a certificate and plaque. Each of ten finalists receives $100, a certificate, a plaque, and a leather writing portfolio.
The National Teacher of the Year competition is conducted each spring by the Council of Chief State School Officers and Scholastic Inc. in Washington, D.C. Evansville's Dan Durbin, teacher of English and hall of fame speech coach at Reitz High School, represented Indiana as Teacher of the Year for 1996 and was one of four finalists for National Teacher of the Year.
The Teacher of the Year program recognizes outstanding teachers as representatives of the nearly 60,000 teachers in the state's 294 public school corporations and in state-accredited nonpublic schools. The program is open to all licensed classroom teachers who intend to remain active in the teaching field.
Public Thinks Too
Little is Spent on Special Education - The 28th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
Poll Of the Public's Attitudes Toward The Public Schools was published in
the September 1996 issue of the KAPPAN. Three questions were included in
this year's poll that specifically addressed special education.
The first question, regarding the cost of special education, asked the question "is America spending too much of its total education budget on students with special needs, too little, or about the right amount?" Five percent of the respondents think too much is being spent, 47% believe too little is being spent, 41% answered about the right amount, and 7% said that they didn't know. Upon further analysis of the responses, "groups most likely to say that too little is being spent on special education are blacks (67%); about the right amount, (29%), nonwhites (63% to 31%), public school parents (53% to 35%), residents of the South (52% to 37%) and urban dwellers (51% to 37%). Groups most likely to say that about the right amount is being spent on special education are persons over age 65 (54% to 30%), rural residents (50% to 37%), and Republicans (48% to 36%). Interestingly, even among that small segment of the population (9%) that is at least reasonably aware of both the percentage of public school students receiving special education and the additional costs, only 16% think too much is being spent on special education, compared to 36% who say too little."
When asked about the percentage of students in public schools who receive special education services, only 26% picked the correct range (6%-19%), with the official estimate being 12%). Fifteen percent picked a lower estimate of students receiving services and about 44% picked a higher estimate.
However, when asked about the how much more it costs to educate a student receiving special education services than those in regular education only 7% selected 100% and over, which is the correct response. Seventeen percent responded that they didn't know and the rest selected ranges that were less than 100%, with almost 50% of the respondents estimating the additional costs were 50% or lower.
The Annual Survey included a large number of other issues. Some of the highlights:
-Sixty-one percent oppose using tax dollars to support attendance at private schools, with 6% in favor,
-Respondents oppose the use of vouchers, 54% to 43%.
-Forty-three percent of Americans give their local public schools a grade of A or B, with 77% giving their schools a grade of C or higher.
-"Drug abuse" narrowly beat "lack of discipline", 16% to 15%, as the most frequently mentioned "biggest problem" facing local public schools. However, the third place answer, "fighting/violence/gangs" received 14% of the answers. If the second and third place answers are combined, their total would be 29%.
-Ninety-two percent of the respondents believe that troublemakers should be removed from the classroom so that order can be maintained. Eighty-eight percent support a ban on smoking anywhere on school grounds as another strategy for maintaining order and control. Strong support also exists for requiring students to remain on the school grounds during lunch (79%) and for a ban on hugging and kissing on school grounds (56%).
-To improve security and address the drug problem, the public would approve security guards in school (81% in favor, 18% opposed), the use of trained dogs to sniff out drugs (75% to 24%) and random drug testing (63% to 35%).
-Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being more interested in improving public education than the Republicans by 44% to 27%. And, President Clinton is perceived as having done more than the Republican Congress to improve public education by 49% to 23%.
-If more money were available for public schools, then curriculum improvement, technology, and more teachers and staff would top the public's list of spending priorities.
Copies of the Annual Survey are available. The minimum order for reprints is 25 copies for $10. Additional copies are 25 cents each. This price includes postage for delivery. Send a check or money order to: Phi Delta Kappa, P.O. Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402; 1-800-766-1156.
SOURCE: GTE INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 9/17/96.
Reasons for High
Teacher Attrition Rates in Special Education - Findings from the survey
research conducted at the University of Florida indicate that stress, perceived
manageability of workload and certification status are the three best predictors
of staying in or leaving the special education classroom.
Special education teacher attrition is one of the most difficult challenges confronting special education professionals in Florida. Several large-scale demographic studies confirm that special education teachers are more likely to leave the classroom than regular educators. These studies raise serious questions about public education's ability to provide quality services to the nation's students with disabilities. In Florida, the attrition problem is compounded by critical teacher shortages resulting from the growth in the numbers of children at risk for needing special education services.
Despite the magnitude and importance of the teacher attrition problem, little research has been conducted to identify variables associated with special education teacher attrition. Research-based strategies for improving the retention of special educators is virtually nonexistent. Understanding the variables that contribute to special education teachers leaving the classroom may make it possible to develop interventions that improve teacher retention.
In this regard, Drs. Mary Brownell, Stephen Smith and David Miller recently completed a three-year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs to study teacher attrition in the state. In the first year of their research, they surveyed over 1,500 special education teachers across the state. In the second year, they interviewed 94 teachers who left special education after completing the survey. For the final year of the project, the researchers studies two rural districts in Florida to determine why teachers stay or leave the special education classroom. The researchers were interested in the rural districts because they believe that administrators in these districts confront unique issues in recruiting and retaining special education teachers.
A stratified random sample of 1,576 special education teachers was selected for the study. Teachers sampled were employed full-time and were teaching on either an emergency or regular certificate. Emergency certified teachers were included because of higher attrition rates among this group. The research methodology included a survey instrument, interviews, and case studies. The survey instrument was designed to address teacher and workplace characteristics that the general and special education literature identified as factors related to teacher satisfaction, commitment to the workplace and profession, and attrition. For example, teacher characteristics included such variables as certification status, age when entered teaching, years teaching, teaching efficacy, and initial commitment to teaching. Workplace characteristics included variables such as perceived relationships with students, support from building administrators, collegiality, and role. Measures of job satisfaction, stress, teacher commitment, and intent to remain in special education teaching were also included.
Teachers who are uncertified in special education are more likely to leave than those who are certified. Teachers who are more stressed or perceive their workloads as less manageable are more likely to leave than those who are less stressed and perceive their workloads as more manageable. Not only do these factors work in isolation but there is a cumulative effect. That is, teachers who are the most stressed, perceived their workloads as the most unmanageable, and who are working on emergency certificates in special education have the greatest chance of leaving (i.e., 30% probability of leaving over a two year period).
Interviews with leavers illustrate many of the reasons special education teachers feel stressed and overwhelmed. The majority of leavers were disgruntled when they left because of a variety of negative factors interacting in the workplace. For example, these leavers often left for some combination of the following reasons: lack of administrative support, lack of adequate preparation, overwhelming student needs or job responsibilities, and lack of decision making power.
The researchers conducted interviews with 94 teachers who did not return to a special education classroom the year after they completed the survey. Teachers were asked about their current employment, why they left the classroom, what incentives, if any, would cause them to consider returning to the classroom, what their future career plans were, and if they could do it all over again, would they become a special education teacher? These questions were designed to determine how many teachers remained in the education profession, why teachers leave the classroom, and what types of retention strategies could be developed to retain special education teachers.
The case studies validated many of the results obtained earlier. Rural attrition was lowest when fully certified teachers were placed in special education classrooms. Support from school administration and colleagues along with sufficient resources to teach made a difference in retaining special education teachers. The researchers also identified factors that were not generated in earlier research. That is, in rural districts, pay supplements for teachers of students with disabilities seem to make a difference in retention. In addition, fully certified special education teachers who have family ties to a rural area are more likely to remain than those teachers who do not.
The cumulative findings of the research suggest changes are needed in special education hiring practices and teachers' work-places. First, hiring emergency certified teachers in Florida is commonplace in many districts. This strategy is problematic because these teachers are more likely to leave, threatening the stability of special education programs. Furthermore, the cost effectiveness of continually spending funds to hire faculty to replace emergency certified teachers who leave is questionable.
Second, school and district administrators must take an active role in reducing stress in the special education teachers' workplace and streamlining their jobs. Because special education teachers are asked to perform a variety of roles, schools and district administrators should reduce the tendency for these teachers to feel overwhelmed by setting clear priorities for what must be accomplished in their jobs. In addition, administrators must provide special education teachers with on-going staff development that is effective in helping teachers better manage behavior and meet the instructional needs of a diverse population.
Further, administrators need to involve special educators in decisions about scheduling students, programming and the implementation of state and local policy. By doing so special educators can reduce the diversity in their classroom, create programs that meet student needs as well as their own, and streamline bureaucratic requirements so that they are carried out with the available resources.
Finally, because lack of administrative support plays an important role in the decision to leave the special education classroom, all district and building administrators need to receive more preservice and inservice education regarding students with disabilities.
CONTACT: Mary Brownell, Stephen Smith, and David Miller, Department of Special Education, Norman Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2053; 904/392-0701.
CITATION: Florida CSPD. (1996). UF study examines reasons for high attrition rates. THE CHRONICLE/CSPD, 2(1), 1, 6.
SOURCE: GTE INS Ed. Personnel newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 11/14/96.
Calendar and Holiday Cards - The Children's Defense Fund 1997 calendar is now available. This wall calendar is a year-long celebration of children, with lovely photos and large format with space for noting appointments. Each month's display includes action steps to help you to help children. The calendar costs $11.95 plus $1 for postage. Multiple copy discounts are available.
Packages of 12 holiday cards in three designs are also available for $15 per pack plus 50 cents for postage. The cards are 4-1/4 x 5 inches.
Contact: CDF Publications, 25 E Street NW, Washington,
DC 20001. Fax 202/628-8333 for credit card orders.
All Students, Same Test, Same Standards: What the New Title I Legislation Will Mean for the Educational Assessment of Special Education Students - Valid assessments require all students to receive the same opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of academic material. But, given that standard, how can schools meet the special needs of learning disabled students without altering conditions so much that they jeopardize the validity of the assessment?
One way is to do it on a case-by-case basis, according to the researcher who wrote this policy paper. While accommodating students with physical disabilities generally poses no threat to the validity of test results, that may not be the case in accommodating students with cognitive disabilities. Accommodating these students' disabilities may very often affect the precise skill being assessed, thus giving them an unfair advantage. For instance, a student's reading test results are meaningless if that student had the test read aloud because of a reading disability.
"Clearly it is time for test administrators and policy makers to formulate clearer policies and procedures for dealing with (special needs) requests," Phillips states. While citing legal precedents that "schools do not have to lower standards," Phillips nevertheless encourages school officials to grant requests with regard to assessment whenever invalidation is not a concern.
In addition, the paper suggests that test developers remove any unnecessary skills or requirements from assessments. Annotating test results is another way to deal with the problem, so long as there is no violation of privacy in doing so.
The paper by S.E. Phillips may be purchased for $3.95 prepaid; 7 pages. Cite Order No. RPIC ASST-95.
Contact: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1900 Spring Road, Suite 300, Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480.
SOURCE: GTE INS Inclusive. ed newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 10/15/96.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to the Cable Homepage
Return to the ISEAS Homepage