The President's Perspective
Training in Problem Solving -alias- Creative Problem Solving
Certification Renewal Units (CRUs)
Department of Education News
OSERS/OSEP . . .
Federal Update . . .
DOE Division of Special Education On-Site Monitoring Calendar
Eighth Annual ED-MED Conference Registration Form
[Editors Note: The following article by Barry Bull, co-director and Mark Buechler, research writer, at the IU School of Education Office of the Indiana Special Education Policy Center is reprinted with permission. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent positions of the Indiana Education Policy Center or its funders, the Lilly Endowment Inc. and Indiana University.
The Indiana Education Policy Center is funded by Lilly Endowment Inc. and Indiana University to provide nonpartisan information, research, and communication on education issues to Indiana policymakers and other education stakeholders to improve education.]
The Indiana Education Policy Center conducted an in-depth study of professional development for the Indiana Department of Education. This policy bulletin summarizes the 94-page report that was delivered to the Department.
Five years ago, President Bush and the nation's governors formulated a set of six education goals for America that addressed (1) preschool education, (2) the high school graduation rate, (3) math and science achievement, (4) student competency in other core subjects, (5) adult literacy, and (6) student discipline. When President Clinton signed the Goals 2000 Act into law in 1994, two new goals had been added. One focused on parental involvement. The other addressed professional development for teachers:
This addition to the national goals reflected a growing consensus among educators, researchers, and policymakers that it is futile to call for profound changes in America's schools without giving practicing teachers the opportunities for professional growth they need to bring those changes about.
Unfortunately, the form that professional development for teachers has most often taken-occasional workshops conducted by outside consultants with little or no follow-up—is widely regarded as ineffective. It is unlikely that this kind of training will serve as the lever that helps transform education in America. As Richard Wallace and his colleagues have written, "We need staff development that is dramatically different, not just in content, but in form of delivery and level of commitment" (Wallace, LeMahieu, & Bickel, 1990, p. 185).
What might effective professional development for 21st-century schooling look like? How can schools make time available for professional development when teachers are also being called upon to increase student contact hours?
To help answer these questions for the state of Indiana, the Indiana Education Policy Center, under contract with the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), conducted a study of professional development and its connection to teacher time. Our charge was to report state-level policies on professional development in Indiana and other states, distill a set of principles for effective professional development from the research literature, generate a set of guidelines for state policy, and present and analyze policy options for making teacher time available for professional development in Indiana.
Opportunities for professional development are in no short supply around the country. Federal dollars fund many programs; state departments of education offer a variety of workshops to schools on mandates and innovations; school districts have access to an array of professional development programs offered by an army of consultants; there are professional development schools, teacher centers, programs provided by professional organizations, and so forth.
An idea of the organization, cost, and benefits of professional development on the state and local level emerges from a large-scale study of professional development in California (Little et al., 1987). Among their conclusions:
|- Professional development for teachers and administrators (excluding graduate courses) consumes about 1.8% of the state's education funds.|
|- For every dollar spent on professional development, teachers contribute 60 cents in uncompensated time.|
|- Most professional development activities are designed and administered by district personnel.|
|- Professional development resources are used in ways that generally reinforce traditional teaching methods and school structures.|
|- Rarely is professional development evaluated in terms of its effects on teachers or students.|
|- California lacks a comprehensive or consistent policy for professional development.|
There were some other findings as well, but on the whole, Little and her colleagues describe a situation in which a good deal of money and effort was being expended on professional development, with little evidence of significant changes in student learning, teachers' behavior, or school organization.
It was beyond the scope of our study to investigate local professional development activities in such detail. We did, however, report local contract provisions for professional development days in Indiana. The average Indiana school corporation provides 0.99 professional development days per year (defined as inservice and/or Indiana State Teachers Association days), with a range from zero to five days. The average corporation also provides an additional 0.95 days for orientation (Indiana School Boards Association, 1994).
Otherwise, we focused on state-level professional development policies and programs (excluding certification and licensing requirements) in Indiana and seven other states: the four bordering states (Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio) and three other states with a national reputation for professional development policy (Florida, Georgia, and Washington).
|State||Minimum & Maximum Professional Development Days Provided||Funding Provided for Professional Development|
|Florida||5-16||Local budget share|
|Georgia||0-10||Local budget share|
SOURCES: State statutes for each state; personal communications with officials in each state. *Washington schools are encouraged but not required to apply for grants that fund up to four professional development days beyond the minimum instructional year.
The states we studied take three different approaches to providing teacher time for professional development in their definitions of the school year. As the table above indicates, three states-Indiana, Michigan, and Washington-make no provision for teacher professional development time in the state-defined school year. (Both Michigan and Washington, however, do provide additional funds to be used for professional development.) Two states-Illinois and Ohio-allow school districts to use a certain number of mandated school days for professional development instead of student instruction. A third group-Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky-include within the school year non-instructional days that may or must be used for professional development.
State professional development policies vary in other ways as well. For example:
| - Linkage: Some states link professional development requirements and opportunities to state reform goals or to mandated school improvement plans; others make no such link.|
| - Level: Some state policies focus on individual schools, others on school districts, and others on multi - district entities. One state, Florida, routinely plans for and provides professional development directly to schools and districts.|
| - Funding: Some states provide funds for professional development by means of a formula based on the number of students served, others by mandating that a particular share of local budgets be spent on professional development, still others by operating a grant program for which schools or school districts may apply (see above table).|
With some sense of the range of state policies, then, we turn to the research literature on effective professional development, which can also be an important guide to policy options for Indiana.
Despite a paucity of direct evidence that links professional development to improvements in teaching and student learning, a relatively firm consensus has emerged among experts regarding the principles underlying effective professional development. One thing virtually everyone agrees on is that one-shot workshops for teachers are generally ineffective. Instead of occasional, fragmented workshops, professional development activities need to include sustained training for teachers, with opportunities for observation, practice, feedback, and coaching.
However, skills training for individual teachers, no matter how well designed, may not be enough to further the sweeping innovations that need to take place in schools, according to many experts. What is required goes beyond skills training to organizational development, which involves not just changes in individual teachers' abilities but also "improvements in the capacity of the organization to solve problems and renew itself" (Sparks, 1994, p. 42). This means focusing on formal school structures and processes (decision-making authority and channels of communication, for example) and, perhaps more importantly, on school culture-the norms, values, and beliefs that underlie formal operations and infuse the lives of administrators, teachers, and students with meaning. It means "introducing the notion of lifelong learning into our institutions, and making that goal a central factor in their organization, routines, and accountability structure" ("Making Staff," 1991, p. 4). Ultimately, it means transforming schools into centers of continuous learning for teachers and students alike.
|According to research and expert opinion, the most effective professional development:
| - Is school-based rather than district-based
| - Uses coaching and other follow-up procedures
| - Prompts collaboration among teachers and administrators
| - Is embedded in the daily lives of teachers
|- Focuses on student learning and is evaluated at least in part on that basis|
Principles of Effective Professional Development
Five general principles of effective professional development emerge from this view of overall school improvement:
The school is the basic unit of lasting change. It may be advisable, therefore, to shift from generic, district-level professional development initiatives to site-specific, school-based ones. That way, a school-based professional development plan can be part of an overall school improvement plan (the formulation of which can also be considered a form of professional development).
One of the advantages of this approach is that it gets teachers involved in the design and implementation of their own professional development activities. Such involvement can be essential to the success of those activities. Another advantage is that professional development initiatives can be carefully integrated with each other and with the overall school improvement plan, thus avoiding fragmentation and superficiality.
Single training sessions with no follow-up are ineffective. Activities that deploy sessions spaced over time have better results, particularly if those sessions include presentations of theory, demonstrations of new teaching skills, and opportunities for teachers to practice and receive feedback.
If training is to have any lasting effect on teachers' behavior in the classroom, however, follow-up procedures, especially coaching, are critical. There are two main types of coaching: (1) coaching by experts and (2) coaching by peers-where teachers have an opportunity to observe one another and provide feedback and support. (Interestingly, some evidence suggests that peer coaching may be more effective than coaching by experts.) Giving teachers structured time to discuss new concepts and experiences also can enhance the effectiveness of training.
Most schools are organized in ways that isolate teachers from their peers. However, professional development, like school improvement in general, works best as a collaborative endeavor. Each school needs to become a community in which teachers routinely have opportunities to participate in decision making, observe each other, identify and solve problems together, and share ideas in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.
Teachers can also benefit from collaboration that extends beyond the boundaries of individual schools. For example, collegial networks such as the National Writing Project and the Coalition of Essential Schools enable groups of teachers from across the district, state, or nation to join together in studying, developing, and implementing new approaches.
At present, professional development is primarily a patchwork affair: an inservice day here, an occasional workshop there. If school improvement is to succeed, this will have to change. Indeed, continuous learning opportunities will have to become part of teachers' everyday working lives and part of every school's institutional priorities. Administrators and teachers alike will have to develop an ethos of inquiry-constantly examining their own practice; seeking new knowledge about subject matter, instructional methods, and student development; questioning what they learn in light of their own experience; doing research; and thinking deeply about overall school improvement.
Such activities also provide a fine model for students, as they see their teachers taking risks, working together to solve problems, and learning continuously.
Professional development should be judged primarily by its effect on students, experts say. To be sure, other benefits-an expanded repertoire of teaching skills, greater collegiality-are worthwhile in and of themselves. But unless student learning improves, professional development cannot be considered a complete success.
The best way to judge the effects of professional development is to conduct some sort of evaluation beyond the standard five-point scale questionnaire used after so many inservice sessions. The most helpful evaluations begin early in the planning process and continue after the initiative has been completed. Ideally, evaluations provide continuous feedback to teachers, track the effect of professional development on teachers and on the school improvement process, and use data to document its effect on student learning.
Using professional development as a vehicle for school improvement and student learning, rather than simply as a means of improving individual teachers' knowledge or skills, is a difficult task. Without the proper setting and support, even the best professional development initiatives undertaken by the brightest and most motivated teachers may fail.
On the other hand, in a school where the principal is a strong advocate of continuous learning, where time is built into the schedule for professional development, where teachers routinely solve problems together, where innovation is encouraged, where a coherent strategy for overall school improvement prevails, and where policies and resources support change, chances are that many teachers will participate in and profit from professional development.
The following conditions are the ones most likely to influence the course of professional development initiatives:
Capable, active leadership on the part of policymakers, administrators (especially principals), and other key actors is vital to the success of professional development initiatives. The best leaders serve as advocates, showing through word and deed that they champion the cause of continuous professional growth. They provide assistance, solve problems, and remove barriers to change. They apply pressure when necessary. And they set the tone for a vibrant school culture that supports collaboration and continuous school improvement.
Other forms of support in addition to leadership are important as well. One is access to resources outside the school, such as research, examples of effective practice, and the creative ideas of experts. Policy coherence at all levels is also crucial, or else schools can be inundated with competing demands. Ideally, school, district, and state improvement plans are coordinated into a seamless whole targeted at increasing student learning, and the district and state have an infrastructure of policies and resources in place that support continuous professional development.
Professional development is much more likely to be successful in schools where teachers interact frequently with one another and with administrators, where the interactions focus on teaching and learning rather than on problem students or social lives, and where risk-taking is encouraged (see Little, 1982).
Without adequate teacher time for collaboration, observation, follow-up activities, continuous study, and evaluation, the odds that any professional development initiative will benefit teachers and students are low. But how can teachers find the time to engage in this kind of continual learning when their workdays are almost completely absorbed by teaching responsibilities?
There are essentially two options for increasing professional development time. One is to add time to the school calendar (this is discussed for Indiana in the Options section below). The other is to make more effective use of time within the school calendar. Among the many suggestions for "creative scheduling" mentioned in the research literature are:
|- expanded staffing (hiring rotating teachers, using substitutes);|
|- common planning time for teachers;|
|- alternative grouping and programming (bringing students together in large groups to free teachers, for example);|
|- banked time (scheduling a few extra minutes of instructional time per day above the required minimum, thereby accumulating enough time to dismiss students early on occasion).|
In light of the principles established above, how might state policy in Indiana make teacher time available for school-oriented professional development, that is, professional development directed to the concrete needs of individual schools? The following 10 guidelines chart out a general direction for ways state policy might define the purpose, scheduling, allocation, and use of teacher time for professional development. (Specific options and suggestions are provided in the final two sections of the bulletin.)
Guideline 1. State provision of teacher time for professional development should be based upon and integrated into local plans for school improvement that teachers at the school have helped formulate.
This guideline points out a natural link between the five principles of effective professional development and Indiana's Performance-Based Accreditation (PBA) System. PBA requires teacher involvement in establishing school goals for improved student learning. In turn, these goals provide a basis for designing and evaluating professional development in the school. State provision of teacher time to participate in the design of school improvement plans and of the professional development activities that accompany those plans would not only promote effective professional development but also expand state support of the local school improvement process.
Guideline 2. Time for professional development that enhances school improvement should be provided on the job.
Guideline 3. The scheduling of teacher time for professional development should be flexible enough to provide opportunities before, during, and after the regular school day and school year, as local plans for school improvement necessitate.
Because the focus of professional development is the local school, it stands to reason that teachers will need time at the school to gather information, analyze problems, seek solutions, and test those solutions. Thus, teachers should be encouraged to view school-oriented professional development as an integral part of their job, and schools should be prepared to grant teachers the necessary time on the job to carry out those responsibilities. Of course, some professional development might be most effective if scheduled off site-for example, to permit teachers to observe programs in other schools. But decisions about appropriate scheduling need to be made at the school.
Guideline 4. The scheduling of teacher time for professional development should encourage participating teachers to work together to develop and carry out plans for school improvement.
Some of the critical ingredients of effective professional development-such as peer coaching, research teams, and program evaluation-require teachers to work with one another at the school site. Even when teachers work individually-for example, to conduct library research-they must have time to discuss their findings with colleagues at their school. Thus, schools must be prepared to schedule school-oriented professional development to permit teachers to work together to design, implement, and revise school improvement plans and activities.
Guideline 5. The scheduling of teacher time for professional development should maintain instructional coherence and continuity for students.
Thoughtful planning will be necessary to ensure that student learning is not unduly interrupted during school hours. After all, the basic purpose of professional development is the improvement of student learning. Principals and teachers might consider, for example, using the funds provided for teacher time to employ regular substitutes, part-time teachers, or teachers shared with other schools-all of whom can help maintain instructional momentum for students while other teachers participate in professional development activities. Therefore, rules about the use of any professional development funds provided by the state must be flexible enough to permit such arrangements.
Guideline 6. Time for professional development should be targeted to projects and teachers where it is most needed for school improvement.
Guideline 7. The provision of time for professional development should permit sustained involvement of participating teachers.
Every teacher needs and deserves time for professional development. At the same time, however, the proposed purpose of state-supported professional development time (Guideline 1) suggests that those teachers who are willing to be deeply involved in the complex and time-consuming work of improving their schools ought to be given priority in the allocation of that time. Moreover, the research on effective professional development suggests that involvement must be sustained over a considerable time for teachers to make real changes in their teaching and their schools.
Thus, state provision of time for school-oriented professional development should not take the familiar form of doling out to all teachers the annual day of professional development to be taken at individual teachers' discretion. Instead, state policy must encourage the teachers and administrators in a school to allocate time to projects that serve the school's highest priorities for improvement and, therefore, to the teachers involved in those projects.
Guideline 8. The appropriate uses of teacher time for professional development should be defined flexibly enough to meet the requirements of school improvement plans and the various elements of effective professional development, such as planning, instruction, practice, coaching, and evaluation.
Guideline 9. Time made available for professional development should be reserved for that purpose and thus be protected from utilization for the manifold other demands made on teachers.
It is important to ensure that time for professional development is not consumed in unrelated activities (routine clerical or supervisory tasks, for example). However, defining the use of teacher time for professional development too narrowly could prove counterproductive, since the needs of local schools vary considerably. Also, research on professional development suggests that many different types of activities are necessary in improving school performance. As long as state-supported time for professional development is thoughtfully scheduled, then, the state should permit its use for the wide range of activities related to the development and execution of school improvement plans.
Guideline 10. Additional support should be provided to make the use of teacher time for professional development most effective.
Time alone is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective professional development. There is also a crucial role for people in and outside the school to play in providing the support, information, and ideas upon which that development may depend. Therefore, a comprehensive state policy for school-oriented professional development must consider how teachers can gain access to the support needed to help them create and carry out plans for school improvement. This support could range from helping teachers work collaboratively with one another to increasing their access to recent developments in subject matter knowledge.
There are numerous options for establishing and funding a state system of teacher time for professional development. Among the categories of options:
| - Allocation of time: The state could provide time by (a) permitting some of the currently mandated 180 days of instruction to be used for professional development (effectively shortening the instructional year), (b) lengthening the school year and requiring that the added days be used for professional development, or (c) leaving the current instructional year intact and requiring that a specific number of person-days be provided for professional development each year (for example, a school with 50 teachers would be required to allocate 200 person-days to its teachers; this time could be scheduled as needed for school improvement activities).
| - Connection with PBA: The state could (a) establish an independent program for professional development or (b) incorporate the program within PBA.
| - Locus of control: Time for professional development could be controlled (a) by the school corporation or (b) by individual schools.
| - Source of funding: The state could (a) provide funds to pay for teacher professional development time, (b) require school corporations to pay the costs out of their base tuition revenue, or (c) share costs with school corporations.
| - Regulation: To regulate the use of teacher time for professional development, the state could (a) require each school to produce a detailed plan specifying precisely how teachers would use the time or (b) permit a more general strategic plan whereby each school could demonstrate that it was satisfying the principles for effective professional development and the guidelines for state policy without providing details about the use of time.
| - Additional resources: The state could provide additional resources beyond teacher time to schools via (a) services delivered by the IDOE, (b) a competitive grant program, or (c) restricted or unrestricted across-the-board funds to schools.
An analysis of these options in light of the principles and guidelines discussed above suggests a general picture of the way an effective state system of teacher time for professional development might work in Indiana. Such a system would join the state, local schools, and their teachers in a coordinated effort at school improvement under the aegis of PBA. Each school in the state would have an annual reservoir of teacher time made available by state support and thoughtful, creative scheduling at the school.
State support for teacher time would come in the form of person-days per full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher for school-oriented professional development. This person-day approach encourages professional development on the job, at the school site, and, when appropriate, during school hours. Thus, it is preferable to either adding extra days to the school calendar or permitting schools to use current instructional days for professional development, both of which encourage schools to follow more traditional patterns of professional development outside the context of the school and its specific needs for improvement. (The latter option also reduces time available for student instruction.)
The review of state policies summarized above suggests that states making the greatest effort to provide teacher time typically make at least four days available to teachers (see the table on page 3). Four person-days per teacher, then, might be a target for which Indiana could aim. Given the demands of the PBA process, perhaps schools in their PBA year or on probation could receive five days and other schools three days.
State-dedicated funding would fully support the provision of person-days. Calculated as a multiple of the average daily salary of teachers in the state, the five-day/three-day plan would cost approximately $40 million per year. Fewer days would, of course, cost less.
| - allocation of teacher time directly to schools rather than to school corporations, with provisions for schools to transfer their time to other schools in special cases;
| - a requirement that schools, as part of their PBA school improvement plan, develop a written five-year strategic plan for professional development time that involves teachers, focuses teacher time on projects that meet the school's highest priorities for improvement, schedules time to permit effective teamwork on those projects, maintains instructional continuity for students, provides sustained training to involved teachers, modifies projects on the basis of their effects on student learning, and explains how other resources to support the effective use of teacher time will be obtained;
| - submission of brief annual fiscal and performance reports as part of the state-mandated report card, accounting for the use of state funds and the extent and purpose of professional development time utilized in each school;
| - the provision of state start-up assistance (such as technical assistance in scheduling teacher time) to schools and the maintenance of a state infrastructure of policies and resources to support the effective use of teacher time;
|- the provision of state as well as local funding to help individual schools obtain specific additional resources needed for staff development.|
In general, teachers would use their newly acquired professional development time to participate in the school community's identification of priorities for school improvement and then to work in teams over sustained periods on specific school improvement projects to meet those priorities. While working on such projects, teachers could gather relevant research; observe at other schools that are using innovative approaches; receive instruction in subject matter, school organization, and teaching methods; experiment with new techniques; give and receive feedback on their efforts to change instruction; and conduct research on the effectiveness of their efforts in improving student learning. To enhance the work of the teams, teachers would have access to materials and individuals who could provide them with ideas and assistance relevant to the school improvement projects.
Finally, as projects succeed and mature and as school improvement priorities evolve, other teachers at each school would become involved in professional development. Indeed, schools committed to the linked processes of school improvement and school-oriented professional development would become centers of continuous learning for both teachers and students.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994).
Indiana School Boards Association. (1994). [1993/94 ISBA data bank: Teacher contract analysis.] Unpublished raw data.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.
Little, J. W., Gerritz, W. H., Stern, D. S., Guthrie, J. W., Kirst, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1987). Staff development in California (PC87-12-15-CPEC). Berkeley/San Francisco: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE); Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Making staff development pay off in the classroom (Research Brief No. 4). (1991). New York: New York City Public Schools.
Sparks, D. (1994, March 16). A paradigm shift in staff development. Education Week, p. 42.
Wallace, R. C., LeMahieu, P. G., & Bickel, W. E. (1990). The Pittsburgh experience: Achieving commitment to comprehensive staff development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 185-202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Copies of the full 94-page report, Professional Development and Teacher Time: Principles, Guidelines, and Policy Options for Indiana, are available from the Indiana Education Policy Center for $9.00 each. Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith Center for Research in Education, Suite 170, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698; 812/855-1240
Dr. Dana Mollenkopf, former director of special education and current principal of Starr Elementary School in Richmond, competed in the recent Boston Marathon. He used this experience as a motivating factor for the students in his school. Dana is now embarking on the Honolulu marathon on December 8, 1996 for an important cause through the Team in Training Program. This effort is the Leukemia Society of America's drive to wipe out leukemia and its related cancers by the end of this decade.
This program matches the members of Team in Training with leukemia patients around the state. Dana will be running in honor of Dustin Allen who is a middle school student in Richmond and was diagnosed with leukemia in September 1992. Dana has set a personal goal to raise $7,000 for the Leukemia Society as he trains with them for the Honolulu marathon and he needs your help. Please send your donation to the Leukemia Society of America, P.O. Box 0856, Indianapolis, IN 46206-0856. Mark your donation check for "Team in Training Member #21135."
Dr. David Mank has been selected as executive director of the Institute for the Study of Developmental Disabilities (ISDD) at Bloomington. He replaces Dr. Henry Schroeder who has retired. Dr. Mank was formerly an associate professor in the Department of Special Education and Community Resources at Eugene, Oregon.
Eastbrook Community Schools
Gibson-Pike-Warrick Special Education Cooperative
Clark County Special
Speedway City Schools
Division of Special Education
Covered Bridge Special Education District
Division of Special Education
Harrison County Special Education
Roundtable Caucus at Fall Conference: Please make a note of the location and time of your individual Roundtable Caucus meetings on Thursday afternoon, September 26, 1996. These sessions will begin immediately following the day's point/counterpoint presentation (approximately 4:00 p.m.).
Northeast Roundtable will meet in Trenton 1 & 2, Southwest Roundtable will meet in Trenton 3 & 4 and Southeast Roundtable will meet in Hackley Reserve B. These conference rooms are located in the Convention Center.
Across the street at the Hotel Roberts will be: North Central Roundtable - Charleston, Northwest Roundtable - Georgian, East Roundtable - Bloomsberry's, and Central Roundtable - Rendezvous.
Speaking of Roundtable, be aware that there has already been a great deal of activity taking place with respect to some exciting professional development sponsored by Roundtable members.
Tom Adams has taken the lead with North Central and is putting together an outstanding conference on October 14, 1996 in Lafayette. Eric Hartwig and Marge Bannon-Miller, two outstanding attorneys, as well as top-notch presenters, will conduct this training on discipline issues.
On December 4, Ann Schnepf and the folks at Southeast will be hosting a day presentation with Marilyn Friend.
On April 22, 1997, Lynn Thompson and the East Roundtable crew have Dr. Dave Ebeling at the Horizon Convention Center presenting a day long program on Adaptations and Modifications for the Curriculum. The cost, which includes materials, will be $45.00.
These are all high quality workshops and a true bargain in price. Get the word out to your building administrators, as well as all teachers, parents, paraprofessionals, related service providers, community agency personnel, etc. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could document training in Indiana of a million people during the 1996-97 school year to match the million dollar allocation of funds we received for professional development!! Okay, maybe that is just a little ambitious - however, we could certainly impact in a positive way the lives of over a million students in the State of Indiana this school year. That certainly is a desirable goal and one that we could all be proud to accomplish. How about it?
Daena Richmond, ICASE President.
The following two groups of individuals have been recently completed trained in Creative Problem Solving. Those completing the training in Group VIII-96 on May 13 -17, 1996 at University Place Conference Center in Indianapolis, Indiana were: Linda Blong, Trainer & Project Coord, Family Support Council; Kristie Carter, Grad Asst, Training In Problem Solving, ISU; Sheron Cochran, Education Consult, DOE - Div. of Spec. Education; Sandra Friesen, Step Ahead Coord, United Way Elkhart County; Michael Furnish, Dir of Programs, Indiana Special Olympics; Sharon Hoffman, First Steps/Step Ahead Coord, Clay County; Glenda Hott, Asst Dir Spec. Education, New Albany - Floyd Cnty; Mary Beth Janes, Dir of Ctr on Tech & Instruction, ISDD; Fran Lowden, Elementary/Early Childhood Education - ISU; Cathy McCormick, CSC/Outdoor Ed Speclst, Cedar House, New Albany; Nancy Meade, Health Sys Dev Team Leader, Maternal Child Health; Jennifer Meadows, Dir of Training for ATTAIN; Rachel McGeever, General Counsel, FSSA; Mary Meyer, Spec Education, Butler University; Maury Miller, University Forum, ISU; Don Murphy, Staff Attorney, IN Public Defender Council; NCCI; Amy Orr, Chairperson Ed. Dept, St. Mary-of-the-Woods Col; Kathy Osborn, Project Coord, Indiana Transition Initiative; Allen Parelius, Spec Education, IU at South Bend; Jackie Pittman, Exc Asst to Dep Dir, Div of Dis, Ag, & Rehab, FSSA; Susan Reimlinger, Education Consult, DOE - Div. of Spec. Education; Cathy Shea, Education - IN U Southeast; and Annette Smith, Asst Dep Dir, FSSA.
Those completing the training in Group IX-96 on July 15 - 19, 1996 at Holiday Inn Select, North at the Pyramids in Indianapolis, Indiana were: Colleen Brandenburg, Parent Inv Coord for Com Care, Union Cnty; Marilyn Caruthers, Nrthwst Reg Mgr, Div of Fam & Child, FSSA; Michael Dalrymple, Admin Asst, COVOH, Inc.; Janet Deahl, Prg Dir, Div of Fam & Child, FSSA; Suzanne DeMaris, Student Asst, Training In Problem Solving, ISU; Deb Moore Hardin, Education Dept, St. Mary-of-the-Woods Col.; Pamela Johnson, Prg Consult, Div of Mental Health, FSSA; Carolyn King, Exec Dir, New Hope Child & Fam Serv, Clarksville; Gregory Moore, Superintendent, Muscatatuck St Dev Ctr; Nancy Nicol, Coord Step Ahead Council of Vigo Cnty.; Becki Patterson, Coord Step Ahead/First Steps, Newburgh; Rebecca Rayman, Training Officer, FSSA; Evelyn Ridley, Turner Dep Commissioner for Juvenile Services; Marilyn Sassor, Exec Dir Non-Profit Agncy Com Care, Union Cnty.; Larry Schaaf, Parent Coord, Indiana Transition Initiative; Mark Stimley, Comm Disorders & Spec Education, ISU; Don Vyas, Dir of Com Corrections, IN Dept of Corrections; Jenna Walls, Asst Budget Dir, Indiana State Budget Agency; and, Nancy Zemaitis, Prg Super-VRS Grants/Vendors Unit, Voc Rehab.
Creative Problem Solving training is provided by the Training In Problem Solving (TIPS) project through the Blumberg Center at Indiana State University, funded by the Indiana Department of Education - Division of Special Education, in collaboration with the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration.
For more information regarding the TIPS project and/or Creative Problem Solving training, please contact Sonja Frantz, at Telephone 812/237-8115, Fax: 812/237-8089, or TDD 812/237-3022.
In 1984, both the Indiana General Assembly and the Indiana State Board of Education discussed two critical teacher licensing issues - the need to provide an alternative to the required master's degree and the need to change from a system of life licensing to a system of lifelong learning. The result of these and other discussions is a license renewal process that requires all Indiana teachers who do not hold life licenses to complete continuing education experience to maintain their teaching licenses.
On July 1, 1992, all powers, duties, and liabilities of the Indiana state board of education concerning teacher training and licensing issues were transferred to the Indiana professional standards board established by IC 20-1-1.4.
Individuals who do not hold life licenses must renew their licenses by completing six (6) semester hours of approved college courses every five (5) years. A professional license will be issued to teachers who complete certain experience and educational requirements, including a master's degree. The professional license is initially valid for ten (10) years. After the initial term, the professional license must be renewed every five (5) years.
After educators earn a master's degree or complete thirty-six (36) semester hours of approved academic credit, they MAY renew their licenses with Certification Renewal Units (CRUs). CRUs are earned by completing approved experiences that do not result in the award of college credit.
Certification Renewal Unit (CRU) programs may be sponsored by: a accredited college or university; a school corporation or combination of school corporations; an educational service center; a JOINT Service and Supply program organized under IC 20-5-11; an INTERLOCAL agreement program organized under IC 36-1-7: or the State Board of Education.
Prospective sponsors must submit their proposed CRU (Form CE-1) program to the director of continuing education at the Indiana Professional Standards Board for approval at LEAST 45 days prior to the start of the program. Questions may be directed to Nancy Taylor, director of teacher testing and continuing education (317/232-9040).
State Advisory Council Meeting - THESE MINUTES ARE CONSIDERED DRAFT UNTIL THEY ARE EITHER APPROVED OR AMENDED AT THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Minutes of the State Advisory Council on the Education of Students with Disabilities - May 10, 1996, Embassy Suites, North Indianapolis, Indiana. The meeting was called to order at 8:47 a.m.
In attendance: Liam Grimley, Joan Melsheimer, Bill McKinney, Ed Kasamis, David Schmidt, Patricia Loge, Kathy Wodicka, Janine Hooley, Becky Kirk, Robert Gousha, Bob Marra, Judy Gilbert, and Sharon Knoth. Members absent: Mary Jo Dare, Arnold Ridgell, Bruce McKay, James Phillips and Mary Stewart.
Interpreter: Mike Moore - Special Guests: Sheron Cochran, Amy Cook Lurvey, and Tom Doyle. Dr. Grimley introduced our guests.
Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting - Dr. Kasamis moved that we approve the minutes. Seconded by Mrs. Wodicka. Mr. Schmidt indicated that Mrs. Lurvey's name should not be hyphenated. Dr. Kasamis asked whether the representative from the Board of Health will answer the questions posed at the previous meeting. Mr. Marra indicated that he met with Janine Hooley last week and they discussed these issues at that time. The issues are being explored for further discussion. There is a Department of Health Superintendent's meeting on May 22, 1996 and it is anticipated that the questions will be discussed further at that time. The Parent organization at the Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD) would like to see The Indiana School for the Deaf removed from the supervision of the Department of Health - and moved to a Board of Regents. The Council will be kept informed of the results of these discussions. The Minutes, with correction, were approved.
Washington DC Update - Mr. Marra addressed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization with the Council. The Division has a document which places the Senate, the House, and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) versions of the Reauthorization in a side by side format. When we have that copied, it will be sent to the Council.
It appears 1997 funding will consider a census formula combined with a poverty weight which would move away from an actual Child Count formula. The Child Count formula will gradually fade out by the year 2006. The Developmentally Delayed ("DD") definition for up to the age of 9 or 10 is also contained in the current version. If this is approved, the Council may want to look at adding this to Indiana's regulations. Mrs. Melsheimer asked whether ALL students identified as DD would then have the same protections as "our" students currently have. Mr. Marra indicated that he is unaware of statistical information regarding this exceptionality area and whether or not it would increase our child count. Another clause in the current draft would limit the number of POLICY letters OSEP is able to distribute. Most believe this would limit the number of precedent setting issues which could arise.
Department of Health - Mrs. Hooley gave an update on issues at the Department of Health. She is working with the Department of Health Schools on implementing outcome based assessments and is presently involved with Silvercrest. Dr. Kasamis thanked Mrs. Hooley for coming back to the Council with this information. Dr. Grimley also thanked her for taking the time out of her busy schedule to meet with the Council.
Communication Guidelines - Mr. Marra indicated that all directors of special education as well as speech language pathologists throughout the state were sent the Guidelines. Mrs. Dare has asked the Division to distribute them to building principals as well. Mr. Marra asked whether the Council would like them distributed to a wider audience for input over the summer (to be discussed further in the Fall when the Council comes back together). Dr. Grimley indicated that we might want to ensure parental involvement in the review of these Guidelines. They can be distributed to various parent organizations in our state for review and comment. Mrs. Loge indicated that we might be better off to distribute the Guidelines to directors of special education and ask that they distribute them to principals within their planning district. Mr. Schmidt indicated the same would be true for gaining teacher input. Mrs. Wodicka asked that we ensure University personnel receive them as well.
Learning Disabled Guidelines - Appendix 1 of the Guidelines was inadvertently omitted from the Guidelines so Mr. Marra distributed them to the Council. He also distributed incidence rates for LD throughout the state. Indiana is "ranked" third highest in the Midwest Region for prevalence of communication disorders, whereas we are fairly "in line" with other states in the Midwest regarding learning disabilities. The information has been shared with the legislature, but we have not shared it with the Superintendent's Association. Dr. Kasamis discussed students who transfer in to his district and the fact that the necessary data which is required, is not always contained within these student's files. This is even more apparent if the students transfer in from out of state.
A discussion was held on the overall increase in Indiana's Child Count from 1973 to date vs. the allocation of dollars and what increases have occurred.
Mrs. Melsheimer brought up the topic of strong building-based assessment teams and whether there is a correlation between the success of the team and the prevalence of LD. The issue of MiMH vs. LD was discussed (along with prevalence rates and socio-economic data). The Division will look at regional data and incidence rates and bring a report back to the Council this Fall. The new Statistical Report is being mailed this week which will contain an analysis of some of these factors.
Mrs. Lurvey brought up the issue of ISTEP, PBA, and the "movement" of students into LD. The Division might find a pattern here. Mrs. Melsheimer indicated that another factor the Division should look at is the number of school psychologists employed compared to the total school population, and then compare it to the LD prevalence ratio. Also, the number of LD teachers within each district would be relevant.
Dr. Grimley asked whether it would be beneficial for us to make some type of presentation to Indiana Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children (IFCEC) on these statistics? Most districts have no idea where they stand in relation to other districts.
Mrs. Loge asked that we also look at intensity level of services as well. Mrs. Melsheimer indicated that the data regarding this would probably not be accurate due to the inclusion programming and other factors.
The Division will attempt to gather the requested information and data to present at a future Advisory Council meeting.
Early Childhood - Mrs. Cochran distributed a revised document - which included the rationale for each of the recommendations being proposed.
The first recommendation is to amend the M-Team membership requirement for early childhood special education for Communication Disordered (CD) ONLY students.
Dr. Kasamis moved that the Council approve this language change as it appears on page 5 (the underlined segment) of the draft. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. [7-11-4(b)] Approved.
The second recommendation is a change in the language of Article 7 (which is necessary to accommodate recommendation 1).
Dr. Kasamis moved that the Council approve this entire segment. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. [7-11-4 (an entirely new section)]. Mrs. Kirk asked whether this was for a "new" student coming to the district. The answer was YES, this most likely would be a new student to the special education planning district. Mr. Schmidt asked how many students are actually NEW at age 3 (those who had not been "seen" by Part H). The consensus was there were a number of students who would be "new" - but those students with more involved disabilities most likely have been receiving services from Part H or screened by a pediatrician or agency earlier. Dr. Grimley asked that the language, under #3 be amended to read AND/OR - in both places it currently says OR. Dr. Kasamis and Mr. Schmidt agreed with the amendment. Approved.
The third recommendation is to add language that the evaluation data for early childhood should, when taken collectively, address cognitive, physical, communication, social or emotional and adaptive development.
Dr. Kasamis moved to accept the underlined language at 7-11-4(c) with the exception of the word MUST (remove the word MUST). Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. The language "needs to address" or "can address" or "should address" was discussed. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Schmdit withdrew his second. Dr. Kasamis withdrew his motion. Dr. Kasamis asked that each of the four recommendations be re-drafted in columns, with Article 7, IDEA Section 619 (preschool) and proposed new language enabling the Council to see all of them at one time. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Approved.
Mr. McKinney asked the question: "how do we know whether a preschool student labeled CD only, has an articulation problem or a language disability?" The answer was "we may not know," We could try to build this into the survey we are conducting with 10 planning districts.
Mrs. Melsheimer indicated that she believes that many of the issues and concerns discussed could be handled through Guidelines and not through regulatory changes. Mrs. Kirk asked that the Council be provided with information about the likeness and difference between the two groups. ("Preschool Students and K through 12 Students"). Otherwise, she believes we cannot make a decision on whether they should remain different, or be made similar.
The fourth recommendation relates to case conference membership and adds "That one early childhood special education teacher or supervisor/coordinator for the early childhood special education student. . . . ".
Dr. Grimley asked why the language does not say "one or more early childhood special education teacher/s" instead of "one.... "? He would also like the"Ors" to become "And/Or" it would seem to make it less restrictive.
Mrs. Kirk brought up the concern that IF we are going to be asking for this additional assessment information, WHY are we not involving others in the actual assessment. To leave this solely to the Speech Language Pathologist might not give accurate information to the committee. She is concerned that we are giving school districts a way to NOT involve other people in the assessment.
Mrs. Melsheimer indicated that her staff is very good at determining which students need further assessment time and which students simply need speech-language therapy. We don't require all those other people to be involved with K through 12 speech-only students, - why do we do this with early childhood students?
Discussion followed regarding the language used - it leads one to believe that more assessments would be required. Mr. Doyle and Mrs. Cochran indicated that was not the intent of the committee. The committee probably needs to re-word the current language being proposed. The committee did not want the assessment to involve more paperwork - not even in the sense of more data. What the committee was indicating was the need to document the current assessment data in a different fashion.
Mrs. Wodicka went back to Mrs. Kirk's concern and expressed the need to be sure that we find all of the student's needs as early as possible. Mrs. Lurvey indicated that some students who appear to have only a speech problem, in reality have language difficulties later in life. Early childhood education is an important first step in recognizing and overcoming the student's difficulties.
Page 7, number 3 - says "must" which is very strong. The Council asked that the word "must" be removed as it almost reads as if the student must have a deficit in all five (5) areas.
Mrs. Kirk asked that the "general" referral procedure for early childhood be explained. Although she doesn't advocate unnecessary assessments, she doesn't want us to "miss" something. The role of the school psychologist is not addressed in these recommendations.
Dr. Kasamis indicated that pediatricians and community agencies conduct screenings prior to the student even coming to the school district for an evaluation.
Mrs. Kirk asked whether the Council could read this document again and discuss it in the Fall? Mr. Marra indicated that he would like to distribute this document to the State Board of Education and then send it to a wide audience in the State as a whole package for public comment. Once comments are received, we enter into the same Rule Change process we went through with Article 7 earlier. Mr. Schmidt indicated that if the rationale is included, he has no problem with the proposed language. However, if the State Board is going to distribute the proposed language changes without the rationale, he has a completely different perspective. Mr. Marra indicated that if we keep pushing this to the back burner we will not progress. Once the public comments come back, the Council will have another opportunity to discuss this in more detail. Mr. Marra promised that this would not be the end of the Council's discussion on this topic. The public comments will be brought back to the Council so that the language can be discussed further.
Mr. Marra asked that the Council contact Mrs. Cochran if they have additional information they would like to have for the next meeting. Mrs. Cochran and her committee were commended for their work on this topic.
Dates for Meetings of the Advisory Council for The 1996/97 School Year - Mr. Marra shared with the Council the proposal for Advisory Council meeting dates for the upcoming school year. The four required dates are in bold letters, with the three "as needed" dates inserted in regular font. Mrs. Kirk moved that the Council accept the proposed dates as listed. Seconded by Dr. Kasamis. Approved. Dates are: Friday, September 13, 1996; Friday, November 8, 1996; Friday, February 14, 1997; and Friday, April 11, 1997. If necessary, additional dates would be: Friday, October 11, 1996; Friday, March 14, 1997; and Friday, May 9, 1997.
Assessment Committee Update - Triennial Assessments: Mr. Doyle gave an overview of the Triennial Assessment document. The intent is not to change Article 7, but to provide some flexibility in the manner by which assessments and triennial assessments are administered. The document has been shared with the Indiana Council of Administrators of Special Education ("ICASE") and the Indiana Association of School Psychologists ("IASP"). ICASE was very supportive of the proposed changes whereas IASP was not supportive. The main theme of their concern was if we did not require a structured triennial evaluation process it might provide some districts with a reason for not conducting the triennial assessment and possibly not hiring additional psychological staff. Dr. Grimley asked that this document be shared at the upcoming IASP and the Indiana Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children (IFCEC) conferences through panel discussion so that input might be gained from a variety of sources. Training and Inservice should speak to the fact that this process does not save time. It requires at least as much time to conduct this type of assessment as it does to conduct the "regular assessment". The document will be shared at a variety of conferences and to a mixture of groups to gain insight from all constituents.
Mrs. Melsheimer asked that this committee also give the Council a 3-column chart describing the IDEA, Article 7 current and Article 7 proposed language.
State-Wide Assessments: Mrs. Lurvey addressed the Council regarding state-wide mandated assessments. The assessment should include ALL children which would necessitate a listing of specific standards for students. Most students are capable of taking the same assessment with specific modifications and accommodations. Criterion referenced assessments vs. norm referenced assessments.
Other Business - The Superintendents of the Department of Health Schools would like to address the Council to discuss their schools. It was recommended that the November meeting be offered as a good date for this meeting. Extended School Year (ESY), Suspension/Expulsion, and other questions will be pulled together for the September Council meeting. The Division will forward those questions to each of the Superintendents so they may address them at the November meeting.
Mr. Marra thanked the entire Council for all of their hard work and diligence this past year.
Meeting adjourned at 1:47 P.M.
Psychological Report and Monitoring Activities - [Editor's Note: The following is the text of a July 16, 1996 letter from Susan Miner, consultant with the DOE Division of Special Education, to a director of special education as posted on the Division News & Notes bulletin board of the Indiana SECN 7/16/96.]
I am writing in response to your inquiry dated July 10, 1996 regarding the need for a separate evaluation report to be included in student files. When a planning district undergoes a program review by our office we look for separate evaluation reports. This separate report allows the school psychologist opportunity to report the numerical data related to the evaluations given as well as space to provide interpretation of the results, including how this would impact the student in an educational setting. Reporting of only numerical data is not a full psychological evaluation. The data must also be interpreted to have meaning. An additional consideration for having a written report, rather than relying on the case conference coordinator to take notes as reports are given orally, is that the written report allows the school psychologist to review and certify that these are the evaluation results they obtained on this student in the event there would be a challenge to the evaluation data reported in the case conference summary.
Child Service Coordinators Meeting - Following are the minutes of the August 12, 1996 meeting of the child service coordinators.
CSCs present: Ginger Arvin, IPS; Cathy McCormick, New Albany-Floyd; JoAnn Engquist, Porter Co.; Karen Sonderman Hendrix, WCJS; Sandy Wooton, Johnson County; Greg Hilligoss, Richmond State Hospital; Pam Bruchette, ISD; Marsha Mulroony, Dubois-Spencer-Perry.
CSCs absent: Steve Scofield, Hancock Co.; Trace Benedict, Hamilton County (unclear as to whether he is CSC with new position); Geneva Vinson, Elkhart Schools; Bunny Nash, Clark County; Victoria Boyd-Devine (maternity leave); Terry Tahara, South Bend Schools; Cindy Skoog, Forest Hills. (It was noted that several CSCs were not back from summer break on 8/12/96).
Guest Speakers: Michelle Tennell, Juvenile Justice Task Force.
IDOE Staff: Carol Eby, Connie Rahe.
Wraparound Conference: October 8, 1996, Brown County - Michelle responded to questions regarding the conference. She will have a program/registration mock-up by Friday. CSCs provided her with mailing lists for registration purposes. The final agenda will be faxed to Michelle on August 13th. CSCs then developed the introductions for the program, as well as finalized presenters and determined responsibilities for the day of the conference. Because the conference includes a play which demonstrates the benefits of wraparound, it was determined that a meeting for those CSCs involved in the conference (JoAnn, southern and central Indiana CSCs) would be necessary - that meeting is September 25, 1996 at 1:00 pm at IPS, 6th Floor.
Marsha raised the issue of how the strengths discovery and the child family teaming process interface with CCCs and especially with due process hearings. CSCs discussed whether it would behoove them to establish some guidance on how to use the wraparound steps within special education procedural safeguards. This will be discussed at greater length at the October meeting.
ISEAS requested CSC changes this year - those changes will be needed by the end of the week for publication in the 1996-97 directory.
IDOE Information - Carol Eby explained that thus far the financial data from ARS applications is providing gross figures as to costs - this will be helpful for the Budget Agency. She and Connie requested comments about the initial application process - those forms will be reviewed for changes on August 23rd. IDOE is concerned that life domain pages do not always coincide with goals and objectives of IEP and IDOE is also concerned that applications are submitted incomplete. IDOE is considering requiring districts to submitted the completed checklist page to ensure all parts are included.
Karen shared a policy brief booklet which addresses human services coordination and the need for change. According to the booklet true change will require legislative change to encourage local governance over human services, which must be based on results, not process. Step Ahead is a good example of an attempt to govern locally. The concern is whether Step Aheads are considered political subdivisions and thus protected under the IN Tort Claims Act. It can be argued that they are not. Additional legislation may be necessary to include them. Until the election is over, and the future of Step Aheads is better known, this issue will continue to exist.
CSCs continue to share frustration over the lack of adult services. Students involved in ARS make progress through 21 and then there is so little available to them. DARS simply must address this issue.
Action Planning Review and for 1996-97 will be addressed at October's meeting due to the extensive content of today's meeting.
Please note: CSCs are meeting every other month this year.
The regular meeting adjourned at 2:45 pm.
Nursing Services - [Editor's Note: The following is the text of a February 22, 1996 letter from Thomas Hehir, Director of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to the Superintendent of a Special Education District in Lake County, Illinois as posted on the Division News and Notes bulletin board of the Indiana SECN 7/26/96.]
This is in further response to your letter requesting clarification regarding whether school districts are required to provide "one-to-one nursing services necessary for a student with disabilities to attend a public school setting." Specifically, you seek the views of the Office of Special Education Programs ("OSEP") as to whether such services are eligible school health services or excluded medical services. Please excuse the delay in issuing our response.
In our initial letter acknowledging receipt of your inquiry, we indicated that our response also would address the requirements of Federal civil rights laws enforced by the Department's Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of educational services to disabled students. Officials of OCR have reviewed your inquiry and have advised that the analysis that follows also reflects the obligations of school districts to provide educational services to disabled students in accordance with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II.
Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("Part B"), each State and its local school districts must make a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") available to all children with specified disabilities residing within the State in mandatory age ranges. 20 U.S.C.1412 (2). FAPE includes, among other elements, the provision of special education and related services at no cost to the parents, in conformity with an individualized education program ("IEP"). 34 CFR 300.8.
A threshold issue raised by your inquiry is whether "one-to-one nursing services" to enable a disabled student to attend school would be considered an eligible "school health service" or an excluded "medical service" because the services are for purposes other than those that are diagnostic and evaluative in nature." 34 CFR 300.16 (b) (4) and (b) (11).1 Courts that have addressed this issue have reached differing conclusions based on factors such as the nature and intensity of the nursing services required for a particular student and the level of skill required of the individual performing the services. If the care required is intermittent and could be provided by a regular school nurse, courts have generally held that the service is an eligible related service. See e.g., Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 104 S.Ct. 3371 (1984), Department of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D, 727 F. 2d 809 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. den. 471 U.S. 1117 (1985) and Macomb County Intermediate School District v. Joshua S, 715 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. MI. 1989). However, if the care required is continuous, courts, relying on the private duty aspect of the services, generally have held that the service is an excluded medical service. See e.g., Neely v. Rutherford County School District, 68 F. 3d 965 (6th Cir. 1995) ; Detsel v. Board of Education of Auburn Enlarged City District, 637 F. Supp. 1022 ( N.D. N.Y. 1986) Aff'd per curiam, 820 F .2d 587 (2d Cir. 1987) , cert. den. 484 U.S. 981 (1987) ; Granite School District v. Shannon M., 787 F. Supp. 1020; (D.Utah 1992) and Bevin H v. Wright, 666 F. Supp. 71 (W.D. Pa. 1987).
Because the question you raise could arise in a variety of factual contexts, OSEP cannot express a view as to whether or not "one-to-one nursing" services are a required related service for an individual disabled student. Rather, the determination as to whether these services are required related services for an individual disabled student must be made on a case-by-case basis, in light of the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the request, by the participants on the student's IEP team. If the student's IEP team determines that nursing services are a required related service for a particular student, those services must be provided at no cost to the parents. Under Part B, a public agency may use funds other than Part B funds, including whatever State, local, Federal, and private sources of support that are available in the State to meet Part B requirements. See 34 CFR 300.301 (a).
1 The term "medical services" "means services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related disability that results in the child's need for special education and related services." 34 CFR 300.16 (b) (4). The term "School health services" "means services provided by a qualified school nurse or other qualified person." 34 CFR 300.16 (b) (11). r
President Addresses ADA and IDEA - On July 2, 1996, a national teleconference was held to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). President Clinton had the following statement delivered to participants.
"I am pleased to join with all Americans in celebrating the sixth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"I declared when I ran for President in 1992 that America must have a national disability policy based on three simple creeds: inclusion, independence, and empowerment. We must make sure that all Americans understand it is just as wrong to discriminate against someone because of a disability as it is to discriminate against someone because of race, gender, or religion. We must make sure that all Americans understand that excluding someone from full participation in society simply because of a disability is simply wrong.
"The promise of ADA - and all other disability rights laws - will never be fully realized until we rise to these challenges. To do that we must first make sure that the ADA is consistently and vigilantly enforced. My Administration has made vigorous enforcement of all laws protecting people with disabilities a top priority. And we will stay this course until all barriers against individuals with disabilities come down. Consistent with this commitment, my budget for 1997 proposes a 3.9 percent increase in the resources available to enforce the ADA. We are on the path to balancing the budget in seven years; funds are tight all across the government; but this is a national priority.
"As we celebrate the sixth anniversary of the ADA, we must remember that a civil rights law alone will not achieve our goal of inclusion, independence, and empowerment for people with disabilities. That is why we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act - and why I have proposed extending it so that employees can take time off for their children's or parents' routine medical visits.
"And that is why I am committed to preserving our national guarantee of Medicaid coverage for people with disabilities. For over 30 years, Medicaid has been a lifesaver for millions of Americans. The Republican Congress sent me legislation to repeal that guarantee. I vetoed it last year, and I will veto it again if they send it to me again.
"And we must strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA makes it possible for students with disabilities to take full advantage of the opportunities of the new global economy and the information revolution. I know how much IDEA means to the millions of students with disabilities and to their parents, and I strongly support it. Each of us must do whatever we can to expand opportunity and demand responsibility from all of our citizens. We can't afford to waste a single person as we go forward toward the twenty-first century. You can count on this Administration to do its part, and I know I can count on Americans across our great land to do theirs." - Signed, Bill Clinton
Source: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 8/12/96.
Completion of IDEA Reauthorization in Doubt - With each passing day, it is more and more unlikely that reauthorization will be completed this year. As this update was completed, the Congress had just recessed for its annual month long August break, so nothing more will happen until after Labor Day. The Senate failed to give final approval to its version of IDEA reauthorization prior to this recess.
The Senate is scheduled to reconvene on September 3, and the House a day later. With only a few short weeks from Labor Day until the anticipated adjournment of the 104th Congress, the prospects for completion of the reauthorization of IDEA this year look grim indeed.
The bill is still being held from Senate floor action by three Senators - Mr. Gorton (R-WA), Mr. Gregg (R-NH), and Mr. Ashcroft (R-MO). These members have asked that a time limited debate occur on the Senate floor to address their remaining issues which include: discipline, attorneys fees, and cost. The Democrats have rejected the plan to have a time-limited debate on the Senate floor. It is generally believed that any such debate would not result in any improvements to the existing bill.
Regardless, Senate committee and subcommittee staff and members are still attempting to move the bill along.
In mid-July, Senator Frist (R-TN), chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, and Senator Harkin (D-IA), Ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked members of the consensus group that developed the House IDEA compromise measure to meet to develop a few amendments that could be added to the current Senate bill that might result in agreement from all sides. The consensus group, with representatives from the disability, special education and general education communities, met several times but no progress was made.
In addition, Senators Frist and Harkin recently have been attempting to negotiate a "manager's package" to address the remaining areas of disagreement. No details on the pieces of this package have been available to the community, which is a cause for concern at this point. If agreement is reached by committee members, this package would be inserted into the bill prior to the floor vote. The "manager's package" does offer an opportunity to negotiate remaining issues while avoiding a potentially long and bitter debate on IDEA on the Senate floor.
As you know, the House bill, H.R. 3268, passed the full House on June 10, 1996. If and when S. 1578 passes the Senate, the conference committee faces a difficult task of resolving the differences in the two bills to create a final bill that can pass both houses of Congress before the October 4 projected adjournment.
Source: GTE-INS Federal newsgroup posting on Indiana SECN 8/12/96.
Eighth Annual ED-MED Conference - The eighth annual ED-MED Conference will be held on Thursday, October 24, 1996 at the Indianapolis Convention Center. ED-MED is an annual effort designed to provide an opportunity for various disciplines to access current medical information related to the provision of quality educational services for children with disabilities in Indiana.
Presenters include medical specialists, speech pathologists, special educators, and a juvenile judge. The topics this year will include: Helping the Injured Brain Mature; Transitioning Hospital Rehabilitative Services to Home or School; Brain Morphogenesis; Partnerships for Assistive Technology with Indiana Schools (PATINS); Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Drug Exposed Infants; Traumatic Brain Injury - Acute Phase; Medical Intervention for Management of Spasticity; Contributions of the Juvenile Justice System to Education; and, Pharmaceutical Management of Cognitive Performance.
The keynote lecture will be given by Jackie Pflug, who is a powerful motivational speaker and the author of "Miles To Go Before I Sleep", an incredible story about her journey back from a traumatic brain injury suffered during the hijacking of EgyptAir Flight #648 in 1985 when she was shot execution style by terrorists.
To request a registration form, contact Mary Pate, Methodist Hospital Continuing Education Office, (317)929-8215 or 1-800-847-3370; or, Karyn Romer at the Indiana Department of Education, Division of Special Education, 317-232-0578. The registration fee is $40 and includes lunch. Pre-registration is required by October 18, 1996. (See page 25 of this issue.)
This conference is ideal for people who work with children who have disabilities, such as teachers, administrators, parents, physicians, physical and occupational therapists, recreation therapists, speech pathologists, nurses, social workers, counselors, psychologists and paraprofessionals.
The ED-MED Conference is sponsored by: Methodist Children's Hospital, Pediatric Rehabilitation Clinic; Indianapolis Public Schools, Special Education Department; Indiana Department of Education, Division of Special Education, and the Indiana Special Education Administrators' Services (ISEAS).
"Best Practices in Preschool Assessments for Eligibility: A Family-Centered Focus" - Indiana's Unified Training System and The Indiana Association of School Psychologists are co-sponsoring a workshop titled "Best Practices in Preschool Assessments for Eligibility: A Family-Centered Focus" on September 16, 1996 at the Holiday Inn North in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The purpose of the program is to improve early childhood assessment practices and support family members to be more actively involved as part of the multidisciplinary team.
Presenters for the morning will be the New Albany-Floyd County preschool assessment team including: a special education administrator, a family member, a psychologist, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, a speech-language therapist, a nurse, and a classroom teacher. Constance Rahe and Susan Miner, education consultants with the Indiana Department of Education, Division of Special Education will be presenting in the afternoon.
Providers, family members, advocates & others who serve as multidisciplinary team members to comprise case conference committees for three to five year old children with special needs.
Registration and continental breakfast will begin at 8:15 a.m. The workshop will be from 8:45 a.m. - 4:15 p.m. Registration for the workshop is $25 for providers and $15 for family members. The registration fee includes continental breakfast, lunch, refreshments, and handout materials.
The program is approved by the Indiana State Department of Education to offer three Certification Renewal Units (CRU) and by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association to offer .6 Continuing Education Units (CEU). Noncredit CEUs will also be available from Indiana State University.
For more information or special assistance during the meeting, call Teresa Reynolds at the Blumberg Center at ISU at 812/237-2830.
Reauthorization of 1973 Rehabilitation Act - The Education Department is beginning to gather public input for next year's reauthorization of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act which includes Section 504.
ED's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is seeking comments on improvements to the law, which authorizes federal programs, such as employment services, to help disabled people live independently.
Upcoming meetings will be:
July 11 in Washington DC; July 23 in Boston; September 17 in Atlanta; September 19 in Chicago; and, October 29 in Bellevue, Washington
For more information, contact Beverlee Stafford, Education Department, 600 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 3014, Switzer Building, Washington DC 20202-2550
Written comments are due October 29 to Frederic Schroeder, Education Department, 600 Independence Avenue, SW Room 3028, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2531; FAX 202/205-9772 or 202/260-7527 r
Videotape: Mainstreaming in Child Care Settings - Many care givers who work in community child care centers of family child care homes wonder how they could possibly care for children with disabilities on a day today basis in their homes or centers. This 25-minute videotape dispels myths about inclusion and offers care-givers simple information about interactions with children in a context of play.
The program explores what mainstreaming/inclusion is and why to do it, how to plan play spaces and play activities for children with disabilities, and ways to enhance children's development.
Originally produced by Project MAINSTREAM of the Family, Infant and Preschool Program at Western Carolina Center, Morgantown, NC. Available for $60 plus $6 for shipping.
Contact: Child Development Media, Inc., 5632 Van Nuys Blvd, Suite 286, Van Nuys, CA 91401; 1-800-405-8942 or 818/994-0933; Fax: 818/994-0153.
|September 18-20, 1996||Indiana School for the Deaf||Kathy Rapp|
|October 9-11, 1996||South Bend Community School Corporation||Susan Reimlinger|
|October 16-18, 1996||Richmond Community Schools||Kathy Rapp|
|October 30-November 1, 1996||Boone-Clinton-Northwest Hendricks||Susan Reimlinger|
|November 6-8, 1996||Delaware County Special Ed Coop||Kathy Rapp|
|November 13-15, 1996||Fort Wayne Community Schools||Susan Reimlinger|
|November 20-22, 1996||Logansport Area Joint Special Services||Kathy Rapp|
|January 15-17, 1997||Michigan City Area Schools||Susan Reimlinger|
|January 22-24, 1997||Indiana School for the Blind||Kathy Rapp|
|February 12-14, 1997||IN Dept of Correction-Girls School||Ann Paetz|
|March 5-7, 1997||Clay Community Schools||Susan Reimlinger|
|March 12-14, 1997||Knox County Special Ed Services||Kathy Rapp <|
|April 9-11, 1997||Cooperative School Services||Susan Reimlinger|
|April 16-18, 1997||Bartholomew Special Services Coop||Kathy Rapp|
|April 30-May 2, 1997||Huntington-Whitley Special Services||Susan Reimlinger|
Please register your choice by letter:
1st Choice ___ 2nd Choice ___
1st Choice ___ 2nd Choice ___
1st Choice ___ 2nd Choice ___
Method of Payment
___ Personal Check
___ Purchase Order
___ Master Card
Credit Card #
Please make check payable to: Methodist Health Group, Office of Continuing Medical Education (CME). Mail check and registration to: Methodist Health Group, Office of Continuing Medical Education, P.O. Box 1367, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-1367 or fax your registration to 317/929-6707. For further information, please call 317/929-8215 or 1-800/847-3370.
Return to Table of Contents