Membership Meeting Minutes

Date: February 11, 2005
Location: St. Joseph’s College - Crystal Room in Mercy Hall
Chair: Pamela Starr

2004 - 2005 Executive Board
President: Pamela Starr
Vice President: David Ryan-Soderlund
Secretary: Barbara Barnwell
Treasurer: Barbara MacKay

Discussion

Dr. Starr convened the meeting at 9:11 a.m. and introduced the speakers. Dr. Hank Lerner from the Learning Disabilities Association of CT and Dr Stan Shaw from UCONN.

The principal agenda item for the meeting was a presentation on the current status of the new IDEA legislation passed in November and the potential impact on post-secondary schools.

Note:The minutes that follow reflect the discussion to the best of the ability of the temporary secretary. Apologies in advance for any missed comments, questions or answers. If you notice any serious omissions, please let me know and I will correct before the next meeting.

Questions indicated by the letter “Q”
Answers indicated by the letter “A”
Comments indicated by the letter “C”

Main Focus of Talk

Transition assessment and documentation issues for students with disabilities. Stan Shaw looking for dialogue and discussion with CT-AHEAD.

What are the issues to be raised?

Documentation guidelines.

• Q. Will kids be tested in high school on a regular basis?
• A. No!!

Karen H. Big picture is that Stan is working at national level to develop protocol for the new performance summary that will be used instead of the final triennial evaluation. Summary to be completed prior to exit from high school.

Protocol will need to meet requirements of IDEA and also meet needs of school for documentation. BRS will be developing a standardized summary that all school districts in CT will be required to use. IDEA Law to take effect by July 1, 2005.

This primarily affects graduates in the year 2006 so we have some time to help develop regulations, We have until February 28th to provide the feds with comments. Stan urging us to email him to get information on how to email feds about what we need. They need to hear the post-secondary perspective.

Pam suggested that Stan send her the information about contacting people and she will disseminate through the CT-AHEAD list serve. Stan said that the Education Department is not requiring assessments under the Bush administration already but nobody knows about this. The language in IDEA is “A comprehensive evaluation shall not be required”. IDEA 2004 simply codifies current practices.

Proposed Summary of performance documented to be completed as part of the transition process intended to include.

• Academic achievement
• Functional assessment
• Recommendations for post-secondary goals

Preliminary regulations will be issued in May from Office of Special Education. Final regulations will be issued by September when we are stuck with those regulations for five or six years.

Two opportunities now until the 28th of February and then sometime in June to comment on regulations.

• Q. What kinds of data will we get and how do we get that information to us?
• A. The IEP is not sufficient information. Secondary personnel will be using RTI (response to intervention) as new model for determining disability.

It will become possible to label students as LD without formal evaluation. Not evidence based instrument. Student can’t learn? LD.

• B. Likelihood of students showing up to college presenting as LD without anything in the way of documentation.

Stan working on national level to address all of these issues.

• Q. What about ETS requirements?
• A. Stan will be meeting again in April with large group including ETS representatives to figure out how to agree on a whole list of things.
• B. Cost issues for those students who cannot afford testing. Loring Brinkerhoff looking at the issue nationally.
• Q. Are there any benefits of the revisions? For students?
• A. One of the questions we should be asking is what we get now really all that helpful? Performance summary may actually provide more helpful info because of the requirements to include functional assessment.
• B. May actually help students with stigma issues.
• A. No because they will still be labeled with disability label.
• B. Maybe this process will speak to some of the equity issues that have been out there.
• Q. Do we need to think about the gap widening between secondary and post-secondary requirements?
• A. The legislation had a mind of its own; up to this point previous iteration of IDEA had been developed by consumers, parents, and educators. This law has been developed by Boards of Education, superintendents and other people who want to save money.
• B. There is a concern over standards. Who and what relevant to performance evaluations.
• A. Definitely for schools not providing formal evaluations fiscal issue is paramount. All of us will have to bend some and make this work in more positive ways.
• Q. Who will be making the LD label decision?
  • A. IEP team making the decision still, for the next few years we still are still looking at probably getting evaluations. But out west, RTI is taking hold quickly, not such an issue here in CT.
  • A. Getting rid of the discrepancy model, BRS used to look at that only, now looking at functional evaluations more closely, and clinical people will still like to see an hx of function and testing to check consistency of performance over time. Some of the thinking behind new IDEA was we test people too much, not worth it because things don’t change that much over time and too costly.
  • A. Stan very concerned about final regulations, if they are minimalist we are going to have a major problem as opposed to them being more robust. CT BRS will definitely be going robust. Washington people Stan has been meeting with also looking for robust.
  • C. RTI is another effort to serve students well and not requiring students to participate in special education if they don’t need it. Equity issue may be that we see more students in college who have never been identified as LD because they passed RTI standards or never identified at all or simply underserved.
  • C. How do we establish disability then? First requirement for colleges is to establish disability.
  • A. The challenge will be to do this with limited data. What secondary folks will do is most likely to be only those things identified as necessary in the regulations. What can we do? Have to be ready to be flexible in response to changing circumstances. Summary performance will include recommendations from secondary schools about possible accommodations. How will this affect what post-secondary schools will be required to provide in the way of accommodations. Concern over no data, no outcomes, parents and students saying we want the whole menu; we had it before we want it now.
  • Q. Are there different standards for high stakes testing as opposed to math class text?
  • A. No. It is the same standard. Typical accommodations apply across the board including all those they get in their regular classes.
  • A. Not going to be clears in final regulations how accommodations are determined. Request to BRS to make it clear what the accommodation are; why they are needed, relationship to the disability and the outcomes of using the accommodations. BRS will be making it clear that just page 8 from the IEP is not enough. Need clear documentation that relates the accommodation to the disability.
  • C. Most important to talk about functional limitation imposed by disability not just he disability label. There is a possible laundry list for each disability label.
  • C. Equity issues will still come into play as economically advantaged people will get better functional evaluations then economically disadvantaged people. Evaluations are often shaped by people who know how to write them to get what students need.
  • C. It takes 12 hours to do a good evaluation by a psychologist. Many clinical people would rather look at history and do functional evaluations than do a new WAIS.
  • C. One good reason to do psychological evaluations is that at age 18 or 19 students can do their data.
  • A. Stan looking primarily for effectiveness of accommodations for students.
  • C. Direct relationship between accommodation and disability absolutely necessary.
  • A. Stan commented on three tiered eval (slide 4 in his presentation) Does the student have a disability? Does it limit major life function? What accommodations are needed? 504 stuff from schools pretty much useless but more and more kids are getting 504 plans. Right now 95% IDEA kids, 5% kids.
  • C. Some people are using learning weakness, style, as opposed to LD. Is it going to get more gray?
  • A. Money will drive labeling process for secondary so we will still get diagnoses.
  • A. Schools may do initial evaluation in 2nd grade to satisfy the law but then may never redo.
  • A. Nobody understands yet what RTI really is yet. Maybe 15 years down the line it will be more developed but for now we will still be seeing psychological evaluations.
  • Q. What about private schools?
  • A. The LEA will still be responsible for evaluations.

Three areas in the three tiered process.
Does the student have a documented disability?
Most students have this now. Question moving forward will be: “Is this a life-long problem if they are identified at age 2? Will older evaluations suffice? Not likely to get more current data unless parents pay for it. Is regency critical for the label or for accommodations? Stan said issue of currency of evaluations is not as critical as many people think.

• C. Students do not change that much over time.
• A. Are you saying the kid is no longer disabled (No); Real need is for current information about function. Hence, summary needs to be robust.
  • C. Need to be flexible but just because the evaluation said it and we don’t necessarily agree. We in CT-AHEAD have a responsibility to share information with each other and to agree on intake interviews, standards, etc. for what we need in terms of functional assessment.
  • A. We are going to get a menu that does not necessarily reflect the realities of the post-secondary environment or demands. Need for us to develop realistic set of accommodations for students.
  • C. Useful to just speak with the student directly about what has really worked for them in his way of accommodations.
  • A. Concern about self-determination drives our concern to deal with students directly.
  • Q. Will there be standards that apply to all schools?
  • C. Depends on regulations. If minimalist the standards could be anything. If regulations are more detailed they will be standard. CT should be in good shape because BRS will be developing standards for schools districts.
  • A. States can always do more than the federal regulations require. CT will have the same performance summary for each LEA according to BRS. How well the LEA’s do it is beyond anyones control. Tendency however in he past had been to keep pretty well balanced with Federal regulations.

Stan promising to be as robust as possible in writing national recommendations.

• Q. Just clarification is it mandated that no longer will psycho educational evaluations be required?
• A. Is it possible that some wealthy schools will still do to satisfy needs?
• A. It is a possibility that that will happen; personnel issues may drive all of this.
• Q. Did CT specifically have a role in a new IDEA development?
• A. Lots of issues beyond money including paperwork reduction, short term objectives clarification, etc.
• Q. Are parents asking questions at this point?
• A. That question assumes that parents understand the law and that schools share information with them. Most parents don’t know anything about the law until they apply to post-secondary schools. Current law say schools not required to do evaluation unless parents request it. “Request it”, KH says when she does parent talks “Unless parents requests” language is gone from new law.
• Q. Does this change what we should ask for in our brochures?
• A. Use the three tiered evaluation process in the law. What data goes into the evaluation of the three tiers is still up in the air. CT-AHEAD should develop a response and send it out to everyone. All of us should comment on the proposed regulations because feds need to hear from post-secondary people. Stan has a concern over some parents’ group influence.
• C. Sometimes feel that we should be more sympathetic to secondary schools. Why should they be required to meet our needs? Perhaps set up a fund to cover evaluations at colleges. It really should be about helping students. Perhaps we should convene a group of stakeholders to address issue. Hank Lerner. What is LDA doing? Gets calls every day from parents and students returning to school who need evaluations. LDA very aware of cost issues ($1,500 per evaluation) LDA/CT asked a number of psychologists to help out with 2 or 3 evaluations per year at reduced rates. Now 10 people doing it at very low cost. Eligibility for evaluations is family income under 35K, a high probability of LD, $450 or less per evaluations. LDA still looking for clinicians to participate. Stan urging CT-AHEAD to explore this issue of paying for evaluations for low-income people. Federal Higher Education Act is also being reauthorized this year. Stan working on language to include specific money for evaluations. Stan giving a charge to CT-AHEAD to come up with language recommendations about funding.
• Q. What about just ignoring the law and saying this is what we need for documentation.
• A. You might get either rich kids or no kids. AHEAD has made their national documentation guidelines disappear. We need to change the way we do business.
• Q. Does ETS still need documentations guidelines?
• A. Not sure if they still have them.
• Q. What about other groups like nursing boards, study abroad programs?
• A. Things will change across the board with new regulations.
• Q. How do we figure out the impact of all this now?
• Q. If there is some documentation of disability at some point. Regency of label not that important. Regency of functional evaluation important.
• Q. How does the affect students returning to school?
• A. If documentation is old what about the other pieces. Function and accommodation. If these are not acceptable then we need to ask for something else.
• C. What about medication issues? Who prescribes them? Pediatrician from childhood? Need to know as much as possible.
• A. You always have the right to ask for what you need to be confident in your recommendations.
• Q. Do we need to offer the same accommodations at graduate level as undergraduate?
• A. Yes, but…. Undergraduate more test oriented: graduate schools more performance based in terms of accommodations needed. Example: nursing school time is an issue as in performance in ER. Does the accommodation interfere with the competency being measured is the question to ask?

  Slide 4 from presentation.

  Does disability interfere with major life functions? Summary should provide better information on limitations of life function related to disability.

• C. Good for faculty to work collaboratively with disability professionals and students.
• C. Concern about language “this student would benefit from” as opposed to “this student requires”.
• A. Best language would be “this student has used these accommodations and this is the benefit of the accommodation” What we get may be better than what we have gotten in the past.
• Q. Can we make the Performance Summary from more standardized with things like check-offs?
• A. The regulations won’t do it but Karen will.

Next Step for discussion was about this page on IDEA comments form Stan Shaw.

• C. “Should” should be changed to “must:”?
• A. That’s just in the intro, everything after is much stronger language. Items to be included in the performance summary.
  1. Developed by a member o the IEP team
  2. Historical review of functional and evaluation data
  3. The effectiveness of accommodations.
  4. Specify the data that documents student’s disability
• Q. Does this mean that we would know which texts were performed or just get the data itself?
• A. No, we are likely to just get data. Doubt actual tests will show up. Section 3b. Major life function definition still evolving. Section 3c. Effectiveness of accommodations and supports. Ones actually used not just those recommended.
• C. Students may have chosen not to use the accommodations in high school but colleges may hold them to using the accommodations if they are not doing well.
• A. We don’t want just recommendations. We want what has worked for the student. 4b: Karen says states always can have their law stronger than the federal law but if they do states need to label their regulations as stronger than federal laws.
• Q. How does this impact out of state students coming into CT.
• A. They come with what they’ve got.

  Back page of handout:
  Recommended regulatory language. Right hand column developed by Washington lawyer working with parents’ group. Stan fighting with this language because – Concern with section (i) being that it is too loose with no requirement for documentation of disability. Section (ii) and (iii) are not bad: “essential” is the key word. Section (iv) will definitely be in regulations.
  

• C. Parents come in talking about “modifications”. Post-secondary environment does not “modify” courses.
• A. That language and those were recommendations for employment. Not relevant in this setting.
• C. We “accommodate” not “modify”.
• Q. Recommendations from whom?
• A. Members of the IEP team.
• C. They may not know us or our environment
• A. We can always say “we appreciate this recommendation but it is not going to work here”.
• C. There is real concern about parents stressing “modifications”, algebra 2? My kid can’t do it!

Comments on regulations should go to CT legislators. Pam will disseminate information on how to do this through the listserv. Due date is February 28th.

• Q. Is the implication that if colleges don’t keep to the same standards, will there be more students with disabilities applying and asking for accommodations.
• A. No. You are still in control.
• C. Concern from facility about the realty of the disability already. How will new performance summary affect this?
• A. Stan still wants us to be confident in what you tell faculty based on the new summary and other data.
• C. May not be standardized information.
• Q. How does CT-AHEAD incorporate this new information into our practices? We should be looking at this as an organization to help each other with it.
• C. From Karen H. CT-AHEAD guidelines too stringent a few years ago. Now need to be even less so because of changes in the law.
• C. They were guidelines not requirements. Useful but in no way have diminished what is offered to individual students.
• C. Some higher education institutions have interpreted them stringently. Stan - may need to revise. AHEAD has put documentations guidelines aside because too many schools are interpreting them too stringently.
• Q. Should we be contacting other groups?
• A. All of you should weigh in on this with comments. Concern over those groups that think special education getting too big a piece of the pie. In thinking about other groups, pick your organization carefully.
• C. Some towns have Special Ed PTAs.
• C. Maybe speak to head of CT PTA?
• A. Likely to have no clue about IDEA.
• Q. Does CT PTA deal with Special Education?
• C. All the research done in this area of LD and then this law throws us back to the dark ages. Stan: Decisions made on political basis not education of research. Stan will have the regulations with him at the UCONN conference/meeting in Portland, Maine in June.

Stan Shaw and Hank Lerner finished at 11:02 a.m.

Meeting continues:

Pam – Introductions of Members

Treasurer’s Report from Barbara – $4,422 on board

Currently 38 members from 20 colleges.

How to proceed with getting recommendations to legislators?

Start with the three areas in the three tiered approach to performance summary.

Letters of support.

If we get the language too watered down in the regulations we will be in trouble?

Do we simply want to stay that we support San’s recommendations Generally?

But why and what is the most important things for us as post-secondary professionals?

Talking points for standard letter from CT-AHEAD to be used by members on their letterhead.

Emphasize connection between employment and higher education. Critical to build bridges with secondary school is why we are interested in this process.

“Students with disabilities fastest growing minority in higher education” – possible lead off sentence.

Include National Organization on Disability statements/report on higher education and disability?

RECOMMENDATION:

Letter from CT-AHEAD to be drafted by Pam.

Preamble statement to include differences between IDEA and ADA. We feel that this language comes closest to bridging the gap between the two.

Why are the data important in documentation? Why data?

Evidence-based data important to clear definition. Important to emphasize the word “effectiveness”. “Essential” to child’s success not just “would benefit from”

Unanimous resolution to support Stan’s language.

1. Fastest growing minority population Why we care.
2. Effectiveness of accommodations
3. Not drain the economy (need better language
4. Bridging the gap between secondary and post-secondary
5. Importance of data, including relevant evaluations as part of documentati8on of disability and functional limitations

Letters should be going to CT legislators

Email nothing. Use snail mail directly to legislators or fax letters.

We need to be sure that we are clear about the different demands of secondary and post-secondary and that is why it is so important to have clear and accurate data.

Section (iv) from recommendations. We still need to actually see the evaluations themselves so that we can make judgments and decisions about how they derived the recommendations.

IDEA still requires comprehensive evaluation for initial determination of disability.

What is at issue is not his initial evaluation only subsequent evaluations.

Suggestion: Provisional accommodations pending further evaluations to be done by colleges themselves.

How about 2% of parking tickets as fund for LD evaluations.

This may bring up the need to identify potential professional development training needs for CT-AHEAD next year to put together on how to deal with less data and less documentation.

Membership meeting finished at 12:02.

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING:

Present: Pam Starr, David Ryan-Sunderland, John Jarvis, Peter Love

Started at 12:02.

By-Laws:
Need to write to AHEAD to say that we are going through with revisions to by-laws.
By-laws will go out on listserv for comments
Return date of March 2 for comments
Letter from Pam to listserv to accompany the by-laws.

Next meeting agenda for April.
Point of discussion: how to approach revised Documentation Guidelines – set up task force?
Annual meeting:
April meeting
Nominations of Officers – Pam to send out email requesting nominations.
Elections at meeting.
Presentation – John will talk to Dr. Lerner about coming back to present again.
Pam to talk to Amy Norton about adaptive technology presentation if Dr. Lerner cannot do it.
Adjourned at 12:30

Copyright © 2003-2004 CTAHEAD. All rights reserved.