CT AHEAD

Contents

Membership Meeting Minutes

Date: April 8, 2005
Location:
Chair: Pamela Starr

Attendance:
Barbara Maddaloni
Barbara Mackay
Mark Myers
David Ryan-Soderlund
Lynne Langella
Pamela Starr
Laurie DiGalbo
Mark Brown
John Jarvis
Deborah Frattini

The meeting was convened at 9:14 a.m. by Dr. Starr.

Members of the group introduced themselves and were welcomed by Dr. Starr.

Agenda

Dr. Starr discussed the agenda and indicated that it would be difficult for us to either discus the changes to IDEA any further or to make any decisions about revising the documentation guidelines for post-secondary disability support professionals until be have a clearer sense of the regulations and how they will affect the demands on secondary schools and what those schools will be required to provide.

Treasurer's Report:

Barbara reported that we currently have $4,811.00 in the CT-AHEAD account. She also indicated that we have three new members:

Briarwood College
Tunxis Community College
Middlesex Community College

Update on 501c3 Status:

David contacted Jane Thierfield-Brown at UCONN Law School who said that there were not too many people who were able to volunteer the kind of time that it would take to complete the application for 501 (c) 3 status for CT-AHEAD. Various other options were discussed for how to accomplish this either on a pro bono basis or for pay. Options included using one of the Internet sites that provide this service or finding a willing law student. John Jarvis will contact Dean Scully at Quinnipiac Law School to find a volunteer. Failing that the group moved and voted to spend up to 500 dollars from our account to pay for this to be completed.

By-Laws Discussion:

There was initial reminder to the group that if we become part of New England AHEAD we will lose our separate identity as CT-AHEAD. Still no interest on anyone’s part in joining New England AHEAD. Peter discussed the background of the by-laws saying that the current version incorporated elements of the old by-laws, parts of by-laws from other organizations and some standard boiler plate language for non-profit organization by-laws.

One of the remaining questions was the definition of a quorum for meetings. It was decided to define a quorum as six (6) members.

With this one change there was a motion to accept the by-laws which was voted on and passed unanimously.

Peter will send the revised by-laws to Dr. Starr. This was one of the concerns that National AHEAD wanted addressed before we became members. With this satisfied we will be members of National AHEAD next year.

Dues Discussion:

There was some discussion about the amount of the dues. One of the things that drove the increase in dues was the need for money to cover interpreter expense at any conferences that we might present. Also, there was a need for honoraria for speakers at conferences and meetings. No great drop in membership was noted after dues were increased. David said that he has updated the membership list and that many people on the list were unaware of their own status. We have had a practice of mailing information out to everyone on the list.

Marketing Discussion:

There was discussion about sending information about CT-AHEAD to every Connecticut college, special education department and guidance office in CT as well as admission personnel. Pm volunteered with David and Laurie Novi to look at marketing of CT-AHEAD over the summer.

Website Discussion:

We will be moving the Website from Southern where it was free. Hosting services will cost us 55 dollars per year. Steve Robillard is the webmaster for our site. We will run the listserv through the site and there is recognition that there is a lot more that we can do with the website. Still listed as www.ctahead.org. Pam will send a thank you to Suzanne Tucker for the past help. We will keep an updated member list on the website. The Treasurer will send notification to the President of new members and then the President will send the names to the webmaster.

Other discussion on website included putting links on our website to other disability related websites such as UCONN’s master list for disability support contacts at all CT Colleges and Universities. This list is maintained annually.

Membership Discussion:

We then moved into a discussion of member versus non-member and what the difference is or should be. People remain on the list even if they have not paid their dues and still get all the information that members get. . There was discussion of the need for a membership committee to examine the issue or perhaps one of the officers taking it on as an individual project. We don’t really have a good idea of how big an issue it is at this point. The consensus was that this was a bridge we could cross if we have a big conference next year and then we can look at different charges for different status people. One proposal that came out of the discussion was to look at the possibility of a conference on the IDEA changes once the regulations have been finished.

Discussion on IDEA:

There was some further discussion on the changes to IDEA and the issues of older students who are returning to school. They will still need updated information regardless of IDEA changes. There may need to be two sets of guidelines for different categories of students. Regardless of age the initial diagnosis of disability needs to be a full evaluation. School systems will be looking at what they need to do. Karen Halliday is chairing a committee to develop a standardized plan/form for schools to use. CT Dept of Ed is currently feeling that the changes to IDEA are not very helpful because there will not be enough information about the student to do good planning. We may get good functional information but not necessarily good information about specific disabling conditions. There are however currently two laws that may end up in conflict with each other- the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and IDEA. Different requirements for meeting participation and other areas. The issue is really primarily about Learning Disabilities because of some of the uncertainty around this diagnostic category and the difficulty of demonstrating the disabling condition associated with LD. There is apparently some concern in Washington about the new IDEA because it is perceived as potentially discriminatory against children from lower SES districts. ETS will probably hold the line on requiring disabling conditions because they are a high stakes tester and it is important for them to have as clear documentation as possible. Quinnipiac will be holding the line on three years as the oldest documentation. There was discussion about how students will need to provide documentation of disability for praxis exams or licensure as they move forward anyway and are we doing them a disservice to not insist on the same level of documentation as they enter post-secondary environments?

There are still places that you can find that will do low-cost, means tested, testing for about two to three hundred dollars. IT is not true that BRS will pick up the cost of testing. They are [primarily looking at employment and not higher education except as the training may be necessary for employment. The language about parents being able to request testing and school districts being required to provide it is now gone from IDEA. Parents can however have testing written in to the formal transition plan to do testing at the end of the school year. One of the ironies of the changes is that people with primarily medical diagnoses and people with LD are now on an equal footing because there is now no funding source for LD either.

Discussion on BRS Interagenct Agreement:

There was a lengthy discussion of the interagency agreement that governs how much colleges will be responsible for funding of testing and how much BRS will be responsible for. We will revisit the issue at the next meeting but CT-BRS has told the national RSA that CT is unable to comply with the requirement for BRS to have a cooperative agreement with the colleges because the CT colleges cannot agree on the language of the current agreement. Mark will bring this up at the next meeting as there are some meetings that will be happening over the next few weeks that may provide more information. There was discussion of how the issue might be forced to resolution by a lawsuit brought by CT-AHEAD because there was a strong feeling that the community colleges need the agreement to clarify the matter. BRS is waiting to hear back from RSA about what needs to happen next.

Nominations of Officers:

David Ryan-Soderlund was proposed as President
Peter Love as Secretary
Barbara Mackay as Treasurer
There were no nominations for President-elect.

The slate of officers was voted in unanimously.

Discussion of Future Meeting Dates:

We will be meeting alternating between the first and second Friday of the month to allow participation from UCONN.
Meeting dates will be:
October 14th, 2005
December 2nd, 2005
February 3rd, 2006
April 14th, 2006

Discussion of Speakers for the Next Meeting:

Proposal for Hank Lerner from LDA CT and Beryl Kaufman from CCALD to do a panel presentation on the impact of IDEA
Proposal for a speaker from the deaf community to discuss some of the special concerns particularly around written English.
Proposal for a speaker on assistive technology such as Amy Morton. It was noted that Southern has a highly developed assistive technology lab and that perhaps we could have our December meeting at Southern.

Meeting Conclusion:

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks and accolades for Pam Starr for her service as President of CT-AHEAD. Meeting adjourned by consensus vote at 11:16 a.m.