SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

Minutes – December 12, 2008

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Jen Alvior (for Jasmine Williams), Debbie Cheeseman, Phyllis Dekok, Mary Ellis, Gabriele Finn, Martha Guinan, Henry Hashimoto, Barbara Ioli, Steve Laracuente, Rachel Matsunobu, June Motokawa, Lynn Murakami-Akatsuka, Kristy Nishimura, Barbara Pretty, Susan Rocco, Tricia Sheehey, Jan Tateishi, Tina Winquist (for August Suehiro)

EXCUSED: Brendelyn Ancheta, Paul Ban, Sue Brown, Debra Farmer, John Hinkle, Tami Ho, Kaui Rezentes, Ivalee Sinclair, Dr. John Viesselman, Duane Yee, Shawn Yoshimoto, Cari White,

ABSENT: Shanelle Lum, Judy Tonda

GUESTS: Jean Johnson, Lily Matsubara

TOPIC	DISCUSSION	ACTION
Call to order	Vice Chair Steve Laracuente called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Chair Ivalee Sinclair was unable to attend due to a previous engagement with the Superintendent.
Introductions	Steve asked members to introduce themselves to guests Jean Johnson & Lily Matsubara, as well as August Suehiro’s designee, Tina Winquist, and Jasmine Williams’ designee, Jen Alvior.
Announcements	Lynn Murakami-Akatsuka announced that she will be leaving SEAC to focus on the 2009 Legislative Session, and another departmental representative for the Developmental Disabilities Division, Connie Perry, will be joining SEAC in January 2009. Tricia Sheehey announced that the Special Education Department at the University of Hawaii is offering a new cohort focusing on early childhood education, special education and family resources.	Persons interested in the new teacher cohort are asked to contact Tricia for a flyer.
Part C to Part B Transition Survey Results	Jean Johnson, former SEAC member and Associate Professor from the Center on Disability Studies (CDS) shared the results of a study conducted to help determine the feasibility of expanding eligibility for Part C services from the Department of Health’s Early Intervention Section to 3-5 year olds with developmental disabilities. The option of expanding Part C services was offered to states in the 2004 IDEA Amendments. Because the majority of funds appropriated by the 2008 Legislature to study the issue were not released by the Governor, the survey was restricted to parents whose children were receiving preschool services from the Department of Education under Part B of IDEA. Highlights of the survey included: A high response rate of about 50% A majority of families ready to move to DOE at age 3 A satisfaction rate of 84% with preschool services. The survey results represented about 1/4 of children enrolled in preschool special education and did not address Part B eligible children who were not attending DOE preschools. Survey recommendations included 1) making no changes in current policy unless there is significant further study and adequate funding to support any changes, and 2) having SEAC review the data and family comments in order to determine how preschool services can be more inclusive and responsive to family needs.	Jean will forward the PowerPoint presentation to Susan Rocco for dissemination to members. Jean directed members to the CDS website for survey data— www.cds.hawaii.edu/3to5.
Independent Study of States’ Use of the Part C Option under IDEA	Lily Matsubara, who has her Masters in Early Childhood Education, reported on a follow-up study she conducted for CDS to determine how other states were handling the option to expand early intervention services under IDEA 2004. The vast majority of states did not pursue the option—some states stating that lack of funding was a barrier. A handful of states already serve 3-5 year olds under Part C.
Comparative Study of Preschool Transition in Massachusetts and Hawaii	Lily also conducted a comparative study of preschool transition in Massachusetts and Hawaii—both states serving the largest percentage of children under early intervention and having similar lead agencies and eligibility criteria. Massachusetts serves a high percentage of children in DOE preschool while Hawaii ranks much lower nationally. The study yielded three significant differences between Hawaii and Massachusetts regarding how transition is handled: Massachusetts offers inclusive education to all preschoolers with disabilities and uses a lottery to serve preschoolers without disabilities; Hawaii has fewer options for inclusive preschool and no mandate; Massachusetts has two sets of mandated standards for early childhood education while Hawaii has one set of standards and no mandate for teachers to adopt the standards; Massachusetts uses a “Turning Three” workshop conducted by a family advocacy organization to empower preschool parents to take a lead role in the transition process; Hawaii’s early intervention care coordinators typically lead parents through the process. Questions/Comments by Members Q. How were families selected for interview? A. Families were suggested by organizations and, if willing, included in the survey. C. Honolulu District does a fair job of preparing early intervention families for preschool through its transition fairs. C. Most parents in Hawaii don’t know if Part B preschool options are inclusive and have no expectation that their child be educated with non-disabled peers. C. Because of funding cuts, Hawaii’s ability to serve infants and toddlers under early intervention may deteriorate. C. Early intervention is critical for Deaf children who need to be exposed to language as soon as possible. C. A problem in Hawaii is that many preschool teachers have not had early learning training. Q. Is the low number of Hawaii’s children in special education preschool an indication of private school placement? A. We have no data on where the children are going after early intervention.
Feedback on the APR/SPP Process	Steve asked for feedback from members on their participation in November on APR Work Groups. Comments included: The group on Monitoring and 618 Data did not get the data ahead of time making it hard to absorb and comment on at the meeting. The group on Disproportionality presented data that contradicted what we get at the school and district level. when group members made recommendations, it appeared that the Department had already set its course of action. The group on Parent Involvement was sent materials a week before, so members had a chance to review and be more comfortable with the information presented. An APR meeting at a hotel earlier in the year was extremely frustrating because there was too much noise and confusion to solicit good input; it appeared to waste the work group members’ time and the Department’s money. In the workgroup on Alternate Assessment and LRE, a SEAC member pointed out a discrepancy in the Department’s data and their contention that attendance at an inclusion workshop resulted in increases in inclusion the following year, but the comment was not included in the report; there was also no connection in the reporting between numbers included and the quality of the inclusion. In the work group on transition issues (i.e. graduation rates, drop-out rates, post-school outcomes) the group spent the whole time reviewing data, but discrepancies in the data were not addressed; the group asked for another meeting but the meeting dates offered conflicted with most members’ availability and only 4 of 20 (and no family members) were able to attend the second meeting; the group was emailed later to ask permission to drop an indicator due to budget cuts. In the work group on due process issues, all the data appeared perfect, so the group talked story the whole time. In the work group on Suspensions, there was confusion about the way districts are interpreting “interim alternative educational settings” resulting in no IAES placements being reported to OSEP; an earlier agreement of the group to look at short-term suspensions was revoked. Suggestions included: Giving SEAC an opportunity to view the report before it is submitted; Sharing data and action plans from all groups with all APR members to broaden community awareness; Putting the data on the internet where it can be viewed by the public with lots of time for feedback and follow-up; Asking the Department to include comments from SEAC and the community in its report to OSEP; and Sharing insights and suggestions with the Superintendent at the next quarterly meeting.
Review of 11/14/08 Minutes	The minutes were approved without correction.  Barbara Ioli commented that the Hawaiian petroglyph for the family might be a more fitting symbol to use in the booklet on alternate dispute resolution.	The minutes were approved as circulated.