Orientation Meeting 56/60 Working Group

June 30, 2007

8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

I. Welcome/Opening Remarks/Purpose: Paul Ban

· Desired Outcomes

i. To gather input to support revision of Chapter 56

ii. Identify areas of agreement or differences re: Draft Chapter 60

iii. Reach a deeper understanding of the rule making process

· Overview: Federal Regulations – power point presented

i. DOE acknowledged the process OSEP used to gather input for the regulations, including SEAC’s comments.

ii. Recap provided of National Rule Adoption process, the Hawaii process and Hawaii Administrative Rules process. (Flow chart in binder materials)

iii. Superintendent will make final decision on a draft (that considers this working group and DOE input) which will be submitted to the Board of Education.

iv. *Questions:

1. A working group participant expressed a desire to have DOE representatives present at the working group meetings to hear and learn from various points of view shared on draft Chapter 60 rules.

2. Why aren’t HSTA union members represented in this working group? (Scheduling challenges associated with vacations, out of state conference participation and preparation for opening of schools made it difficult to find DOE participants. Instead, DES’s were asked to convene focus groups to review the draft chapter 60 rules in their districts).

3. Will there be an opportunity for community members to attend and observe these sessions? (The DES group was informed of this change on the Thursday prior to this Orientation session. The dates or mechanisms for this to occur have not yet been developed. Dr. Ban will convey this to the DES group).

v. DOE will have to track every change to the proposed rules to ensure that the state regulations/rules conform to the Act. If we decide to deviate from the Federal Rules, we must have a clear and compelling reason to do so.

vi. As an additional note SPP – Hawaii is one of 9 states determined to be meeting the requirements of IDEA.

· Welcome: Opening remarks re: group composition: Ivalee Sinclair

i. Ivalee sought to bring a large segment of the community into this process to ensure that a range of perspectives were considered while working toward consensus positions re: Draft Chapter 60.

ii. Community member organization reps from O’ahu and neighbor islands were introduced.

iii. While disappointed that the DOE representation envisioned was not attained Sinclair acknowledged the importance of moving forward.

iv. Proposed that we establish a “Bin” and “Parking Lot” for discussion items to best utilize discussion time re: rule language. Items that pertain more specifically to implementation particulars at the level of guideline language will be noted in the “Bin”. Other items of concern or interest that do not pertain to the rule language or guideline language will be noted in the “Parking Lot”.

· Facilitator and Participant Introductions

II. Facilitator Colburn recapped the meeting agenda and provided clarification on Working Group roles and responsibilities:

1. Each group representative shall speak on behalf of their constituents. Parties should, to the extent possible, consult with constituents re: issues to bring into discussion and should also share information with constituents based upon learning derived from the working group process.

2. To support information sharing and to facilitate improved transparency a web site area will be established on the SPIN website to share information about the 56/60 working group efforts and progress.

3. Group representatives are expected to have reviewed the material scheduled for discussion prior to the meetings. Worksheets will be provided to assist in the draft rule review process prior to each working group session.

4. Consistent representation and participation on behalf of constituent groups is critical.

5. A process (to be described later) will be utilized to address differences of opinion/views re: draft rules.

6. Facilitators will take responsibility to keep the process moving and review session notes for web site posting.

7. Facilitators will query working groups via email prior to each session to gather information that will affect agenda design.

8. DOE support staff will take notes on key points in the discussions.

9. Parties are expected to adhere to discussion ground rules.

ii. Ron Toma, facilitator, reviewed a “Work Group” flow chart describing the general approach for subsequent working group sessions. He also shared tools to assist with interim material review, session preparation, “Hot Button Issues” form.

iii. Due to the scheduling pressures identified, the Friday evening sessions will be cancelled. The Saturday sessions will be lengthened to help make up discussion time. Sessions will run from 8:30-3:30 on scheduled Saturdays with a working lunch.

III. Brainstorm: Topics requiring more time

· The participants met in their respective constituent groups and offered the following topics as “hot button” matters that may require larger blocks of discussion time in subsequent meetings:

· Eligibility and Assessment- new SLD criteria, timelines, DD definition, what kinds of tests will be used

· IEP-short term objectives

· Procedural Safeguards- discipline, continuum of placement, resolution sessions

· IEP- see #2 and amendments and the removal of short term objectives and 2 year IEP’s

· Eligibility and Assessment-see #1

· Procedural Safeguards- see #3, timeliness and notification examination of records and transference of rights

· Discipline- manifestation determination

· Eligibility/ Assessment- RTI, early intervening services

· IEP – short term objectives

· The ability of Chapter 60 to go beyond IDEA. Currently chapter 56 offers more protection will it end with 56 or will the trend to go beyond end.

· Eligibility- timelines, early intervention services

· IEP process- timelines, parents understanding role in the IEP process, transition, ESY,

· Related Services- particularly mental health services, addressing rural areas.

The CCCO will bring hard copies of a compilation of comments from the February informational sessions to the next working group meeting. These compilations can be viewed on the web at www.CCCO.k12.hi.us. The CCCO will also share available information about the stakeholders who participated in the February meetings.

· Questions:

i. Are the guidelines public? In the past they were not. (IDEA 2004 i requires that policies and procedures be made public).

ii. Where will the language for prospective guidelines development be kept/posted? (This language will be tracked and designated for the “bin” to be considered later during the development of the guidelines. The guidelines are crafted after the rules are completed.

IV. Overview of the ‘Aelike Decision Making Process provided by Facilitator Gomes:

· Decision making options for 56/60 working group recapped

· Questions:

i. We may want data to help us make decisions. Will it be available? For example, re: DD, how many kids have this eligibility now? (Facilitators will query participants via email prior to each session to identify prospective areas of concern. This will help the 56/60 planning team prepare materials, briefings, or include resources persons with relevant expertise to support working group discussions).

ii. Is it possible for us to look at other states’ interpretations of IDEA? (The vast majority of states are “holding to just what the regulations state” which may not be that helpful for our purposes. These states are also structured as two-tiered systems. We are a single tier system. The situations aren’t necessarily comparable).

iii. Can we see the regulations of other states to look at how we might be able to use them?

1. Participant comment: If we do look at other states’ rules we should not lay this responsibility on the SPED group; we, as working group members should bring this type of information to future meeting ourselves.

V. General Supervision and Maintenance: Karen Sato and Sandy Nakoa

· Changes from Fed ’97 to proposed Chapter 60 recapped

i. Handouts in binder reviewed.

· Question: If we have questions are there people we can talk to? The following individuals offered to serve as resources to the working group participants:

i. DOE contacts: Sandy Nakoa and Karen Sato: phone at 733-4832 or via email at firstname_lastname@notes.k12.hi.us

ii. Leolinda Parlin- 282-6348

iii. Susan Rocco - 586-8126 or 422-5759

iv. Ivalee Sinclair-988-4962 or 228-3801 or via email at firstname_lastname@notes.k12.hi.us

VI. New Working Group Session Schedule

· Sessions will be convened on Saturdays from 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

· Dates: July 14, July 28, August 11, August 25.

· September 8^th Joint Community and DOE Session proposed

· All comments developed in DOE convened 56/60 sessions will be conveyed to DOE’s SPED section by Aug. 27, 2007.

· All contact information provided by working group participants will appear on the SPIN web site.

VII. Affirmation of §8-60—149(a)(3)(b) and §§8-60-600(c); 8-60-601 to 609

· Working group members were asked to affirm revised language distributed in a hand out. The document (in track changes mode) reflected edits made to the above referenced sections. These were primarily administrative in nature or reflected changes necessary to reflect State of Hawaii specific circumstances.

· Comment- Participants were reluctant to affirm the sections without having an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the content of these sections.

· 56/60 working group members agreed, instead, to address these sections at the next scheduled meeting before proceeding to other selected sections of the draft Chapter 60 Rules.

VIII. Homework: §§8-60-1 through §§8-60-311 and §8-60—149(a)(3)(b) and §§8-60-600(c); 8-60-601 to 609