Temporary Task Force on Preschool Special Education
Minutes from  September 19, 2007

Co-chairs:   Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner NYSED
Kim Fine, Deputy Director NYS Division of Budget

Attendees: William Combes, Christine Vogelsang, Mary Curtis, Michael Dedee, Robert Frawley, Mary Garrett, Michael Grossfeld, Bradley Hutton, Mark Jasinski, Eddie Lee, Sally McKay, Patsy Yang-Lewis
Absent: Susan Constantino

Observers:  Selena Fischer (Middletown School District), Dr. Darlene McDonough (Middletown School District), Christine Doyle (Middletown School District), Nancy Hampton (Early Childhood Direction Center), Sandy Rybaltowski (SED/VESID), Ellen Burns (Early Childhood Direction Center), Cindy Gallagher (SED), Judi Gerson (Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State), Jozef Kopchick (DOB), Michael Plotzker (SED), Joe Conroy (DOB), Tom Hamel (SED), Julie Marlette (NYSSBA), Theresa Cosgrove (Pitta, Bishop, Del Giorno and Dreier), Jyothsna Buddharaju (DOB), Nelly Odondi (DOB), Ken Crannell (NYSAC), Lisa Mell (Schenectady County), Tom Connolly (ACTS), Gayle Kligman (Kidz Therapy Services/ ACTS), Abbie Schip (Valley Consultant Services), John Calderon (TheraCare Pre-School Services / ACTS), Martha Frank (Whispering Pines Preschool), Jessica Morelli (NYSAC), Brian Bennett (NYSUT), Donna Meixner (Meixner Associates), Alan Stern (Stage Right, Organizational Development), Robert Lowry (NYS Council for School Superintendents), Donna Flynn-Brown (Tri-Valley School), Maggie Kosik (BOCES), Pam Madeiros (NYS Alliance for Children with Special Needs)
 
Facilitator: Rebecca Kennard
Recorders: Sara Silver, Tina Goodwin-Segal and Denise Corbett

Meeting Start up

Becky Cort welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting the ambitious agenda that lay ahead.  She thanked the work groups for their extraordinary effort in deliberating and advancing recommendations to the Task Force.  Kim Fine joined her in acknowledging the hard work that had been accomplished to date and thanked everyone for ensuring broad representation of stakeholder groups through regional forums and participation in workgroups.  She encouraged task force members to pick up a copy of the booklet, “Successfully Supporting All Children in Early Childhood Education Programs” published by the NY Developmental Disabilities Council which is consistent with the Task Force goal of encouraging integration.  She added that it was important to advance realistic recommendations in light of the $3.6 billion gap in the state budget next year.

The minutes of the August 23rd Task Force meeting were unanimously approved.

Governor’s Expectations for Final Report:  Duffy Palmer, Director of Educational Policy
Duffy Palmer thanked the Task Force for its time and effort.  He was aware of the amount of work being accomplished through his read of the various products of the work groups to date.  He affirmed that all Task Force members played a vital role in the process of shaping recommendations because of their expertise in knowing what works and does not work in the educational programming for students with disabilities.  The Governor had selected them because they brought the broadest views to the task and put children first.  He was pleased with the inclusive process used (e.g., the regional round table discussions).  The report outline had been reviewed and the Governor looked forward to receiving a thoughtful product that could shape state policy.  Even though many good ideas are embedded in the recommendations, it was advisable to limit the number of recommendations in the report in light of the cost of implementation.  He also noted that the work of the Task Force not specifically included in the report still would shape policy considerations as the Governor’s advisors have been kept apprised of all recommendations, discussions and deliberations of the Task Force throughout the process. 

Becky Cort reiterated, given preferred limit in number of recommendations,  that the focus should be on selecting recommendations that make a real difference. 

Final Report Format and Outline: Tina-Goodwin Segal 

Tina Goodwin-Segal (MAGI) summarized the report outline (see handout).  It had retained some of the sections that were presented originally, but in discussion with the workgroup chairs, the current format seemed more appropriate. The report would include a brief introduction of the history of special education in NYS, an executive summary and conclusions.  The bulk of the report would be devoted to the recommendations, divided into two categories—those with the highest priority and additional recommendations.  MAGI would take more of an editorial role in crafting the rationale and relevant facts based on recommendations emerging from the workgroup and full task force process.  The report would also include a glossary of terms and an appendix.  Work group chairs were urged to carefully consider what to include in the appendix and to forward appropriate materials to MAGI.  The appended material would need to align to specific recommendations.  Examples of resources might include summaries of the state surveys, regional forum data, and transportation analysis.  Finally, it was agreed that a concise and succinct product would have greater impact than a lengthy report.

Preliminary Recommendations

Becky Kennard led the members in working through the recommendations (see handout on Summary of Preliminary Recommendations).  Members were asked to think about the criteria/decision rules they would use to screen in recommendations into the highest and important categories.  In doing so, they were to provide a rationale for which recommendations go into the categories and which get excluded.  This was an opportunity to advocate for, or object to the recommendations. 

Criteria for screening IN:

• Consider those that result/impact on state policy and /or statutory change
• Consider breadth of impact- what’s best for most children
• Answer our charge- make sure we cover all 3 areas
• Consider what’s practical and can be implemented within a reasonable period of time (include those that take longer if they are good, and propose a plan to get there)
• Consider those that are affordable and fiscally responsible

Next, members were given an opportunity to ask questions for clarification of the recommendations from each work group.

Condensing the recommendations
Following these clarifications, the group was asked to return to the summary sheet and identify recommendations that were duplicative or redundant.  Were there any that could be combined?  Several combinations were suggested.  The resulting groupings were as follows:

B was folded into P
U …………..into O
J……………into A
R…………...into M with W as a strategy
T…………...into Q
E…………...into S
I……………into H

Perspectives on the recommendations
Members were asked to revisit the criteria for screening the recommendations into two categories:  the highest and additional/important categories—the highest being the ones that meet more criteria, and the additional, those that meet fewer criteria but to the same extent.  Becky clarified questions relative to the advocacy activity: that members should give the recommendations the level of importance they wished, that they should be thinking as full Task Force members.  Each member then had an opportunity to name his/her priority recommendations and provide a rationale for why these were important. 
Highlights:

• Inasmuch as the county role needs revision, it is important to note that dependent school districts do not have any additional sources of revenue and will need to draw funding from school-age populations.  Pros and cons should include this point.
• There was opposition to the inclusion of (c) under W: the allocation of 611 and 619 IDEA funds to school districts to offset costs, as providers have come to rely on those funds.
• There was opposition to M: that no data exist to support the shifting of responsibility from counties to school districts; money should be set aside to fund such a study.
• The new rate-setting method does not imply that more money will be available to operate programs – a change in rate setting formula will increase rates for some and decrease rates for others. 
• It was agreed that W (maximizing contributions from all potential payment sources) should be a strategy to accomplish M and that less specificity (particularly the inclusion of 611/619 funds) would help increase acceptance of this recommendations
• Add a piece on cost effectiveness to M.
• There was support for the strategy in M, calling for increased school district responsibility for evaluations, but not if such school district involvement was at the expense of parents’ rights to seek evaluators; others felt that parents have many rights, including the right to an independent evaluation; that the recommendation helps parents get services in a timely manner; the recommendation is aligned to the 5-12 system; agreement was reached to add language to specify parental right to independent evaluation.
• Recommendation X- if it moved up in priority after the polling activity (after lunch), there might be grounds to seek legal counsel to explain the full issue to the Task Force; others felt that the recommendation was beyond the scope of the Task Force.

Polling
Instructions for Dotmocracy Activity
The recommendations were made available on poster board for the dotmocracy activity – those that had been combined into others were noted on the poster board.  The purpose of the activity was to get a sense of the group regarding the status of all preliminary recommendations, to show areas where there was natural agreement, and to isolate the ones that needed further discussion.  Each member was given a set of 10 dot stickers, 5 in red and 5 in blue.  The red dots represented the highest priority recommendations and the blue ones represented the additional recommendations.  Each member was to place only 1 dot per recommendation.  It was not necessary to use all dots.  Discussion was allowed.

Results of the Polling
The following 6 combined recommendations emerged with the highest priority:

The additional/important priorities are listed below:

The remaining recommendations—C, F, V, and X were set aside because they had received few “votes”.

Members of the Task Force were satisfied with the pattern of agreement and the 9 recommendations that had emerged—6 in the highest category and 3 in the important/additional category.  The relative number in each category could be finalized at a later point.

Meeting Wrap Up

The work of drafting the language of these combined recommendations and strategies was left to the work groups chairs.  Task Force members were asked to work with each other (by email) on reviewing and refining the pros, cons, and implementation issues, and to send them to the workgroup chairs by September 28th.  They were urged to be judicious, keeping in mind that less is more.  The scheduled Task Force meeting for October 3rd was cancelled.  Additional work group meetings were also cancelled in light of the progress made today.  The workgroup chairs will turn over the draft language to MAGI, the writers, on October 3rd  for compilation into the report format.  Task Force members should be able to review all parts of the report in draft form by October 17th.

Temporary Task Force on Preschool Special Education:  
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

Source: 1st number refers to the Work Group, the 2nd number in ( ) refers to the page number of the Work Group’s report where you’ll find the full recommendation.

09/17/07