ISEAS Cable - Indiana State Universitybaby.indstate.edu/iseas/4-97Cable.pdfLivovich, ICASE Executive Committee Member; Jan Rees, ICASE Treasurer; and, Gwenn Ringger, Northwest Indiana

continued on page 2

Inside . . .Administrators' 3Corner

ISEAS Steering 4Committee MeetingMinutes

ISEAS University 6Forum Focus GroupMeeting at IUPUI

ISEAS CableCableApril 1997 - volume 18 number 4

Supporting Special Education Administrators in Solution Seeking

ISEAS Project • School of Education, Rm 701 • Indiana State University • Terre Haute, IN 47809

Inside . . .

http://www.indstate.edu/iseas/Cable.html

In a plane heading forToronto, where I was to be part ofa conference on inclusion ofpeople with disabilities in theirown homes within the community,I found myself talking as one doeson planes, with a fellow passen-ger. We were both middle-agedwomen with adult offspring. Ellentold me about hers and then it wasmy turn.

“My youngest, Ben, is a treesurgeon in England; next up isDominic, who’s a freelancephotographer in Vancouver, andmy oldest, Kate, is a teacher inWinnipeg.”

“Oh, yes,” said Ellen, “Whatdoes she teach?”

“She’s not a conventionalteacher,” I said. “But I supposeone could say she teaches the artof growing invisible antennae.”Before Ellen’s baffled expressionhad time to become permanent, Iexplained further. I told her whatan interesting and complex womanmy daughter is and how despite,or rather because of, the inconve-niences with which she has tocontend - including quadriplegiaand lack of speech - she is, indeed,a brilliant, full-time (if unpaid)teacher to anyone willing to learn.

As her first student, I toldEllen it took me a while to adaptto her teaching methods. Therewere no lecture notes to be taken,no essays to be written, no exer-cises to practice, no books (be-yond the generic “Cerebral Palsy:How to Deal with your WonkyKid” type) to study. There was,and still is, just this lovely personlying or sitting around and chal-lenging me to help her have a life.

Anyone unable to move much,or to communicate beyond bodylanguage, needs to have enormous

The Art of GrowingInvisible Antennae

by Nicola Schaefer

ISEAS University 6Forum Meeting

ICASE Executive 8Committee MeetingMinutes

An Indiana Learning 10Lab

Department of 11Education News

Federal Update . . . 15

Announcements 23

Resources 24

What Do We Know 25About . . . Studentswith Disabilities and StateAssessments?

Cable — vol. 18 no. 4 April 1997

2

patience when trying to get theirpoint across. So, too, does therecipient of the information. Soone of the first things I learnedfrom Kate was to slow down whenI was “listening”, and to try firstone thing and then another, andanother, until I felt I had under-stood her. Consequently, I alsolearned to watch her expressionscarefully to see what made herdemonstrate different emotions.These emotions included amuse-ment (the trigger for which mightbe me dropping something on myfoot and hopping around cursing,for example), alarm (the approachof a nurse with a needle or a babybrother looming over her with aTonka truck), dreaminess orcontentment (particular pieces ortypes of music, having a massage),interest (when she was young itwas usually food, but when shebecame a teenager this wassuperseded by hairy young men),irritation or disdain (being encour-aged, sometimes with the neces-sity of force, to intake fluids whenshe wanted simply to be leftalone), and pure joy (the appear-ance of a favorite person, per-haps).

A major lesson I’ve learned inlife with Kate is the importance ofbecoming an advocate on herbehalf. Originally a shy personwho accepted the status quo, Igradually realized that Kate hadrights and needs that weren’tbeing addressed, and wouldn’t beunless I got together with the otherparents and, with them, spoke upfor our children. Back in the1970s, when there was literallynothing to assist parents likemyself and our children - inte-grated school, respite care and so

on were but dreams - I remembersaying to a friend, “I’m constantlyputting up my hand at meetings,typing proposals, phoning bureau-crats; I’m becoming nothing morethan an irritant.” “Remember,”said my friend, “irritants createpearls” -referring, of course, to thegrain of sand in the oyster that isthe beginning of the pearl. It was agood thought.

Kate also teaches philosophyand ethics. Had I not known her, Idon’t think I’d ever have appreci-ated my own life as keenly as I do.Nor would I have given as muchthought to ethical questions aboutamniocentesis, abortion, theimplications of the words “qualityof life,” or the frightening knowl-edge that certain individuals aredevalued. By her very being, shehas encouraged me to ponderthese issues and has guided me inmy thinking.

Everything Kate has taughtme sprang from the same root -trying as far as possible to see andfeel life from her point of view.What must it feel like to be stuckin a wheelchair half the time, to beunable to say, “I really fancy aplate of fish and chips and then ameander around the neighborhood,now that spring is here”, to havelittle or no control over what isdone to me or by whom, to bereliant on others for every aspectof my life? I’ve learned to be asempathetic as possible and to tryto sense what’s going on in herhead - in other words, to growinvisible antennae.

During our conversation (Ididn’t do all the talking!), Ellentold me how much she’d learned

from her nephew, who had DownSyndrome. Later she asked mewhere Kate lived and what she didduring the day. I described Kate’sliving arrangement and thenexplained that because there wasno suitable daytime occupation inWinnipeg for her when shereached the age to leave school,she stayed in the Multiply Handi-capped class - or, as I preferred tocall it, Room 107 at Gordon BellHigh School until she was 23.Then, she and three other youngwomen (including Diana Tureski,now also in SWES), spent acouple of years in Project Inclu-sion, an individually designedadult education program at RedRiver Community College. Whena decrease in funding caused thedemise of this initiative, I investi-gated daytime situations for adultswith significant disabilities anddecided that SWES, operated byDASCH, would be best for Kate.Luckily, she was accepted and hasbeen there ever since.

As we headed down toToronto, I told Ellen that over theyears I’ve often popped intoSWES and have noticed withinterest and appreciation the wayit was developed and adheredincreasingly to its mandate ofregarding participants as individu-als, each with their own specificcontributions to make and needs tobe met. I also find it immenselygratifying that, almost withoutexception, the people working inSWES have proved to be amongKate’s most exemplary students.First, they take a real interest in

Art • continued from page 1

April 1997 Cable — vol. 18 no. 4

3

Kate as a person and her methodsof communicating. Second, theyhave learned to adapt to herspecific and complex needs. Andthird, I can rely on them to advo-cate for Kate when necessary. Istressed to Ellen that these goodstaff people take a similar interestin all the participants in SWES,

and I’m sure they have been asopen to learning from them as theyhave from Kate. I think theywould agree that Kate and com-pany are extraordinary teachers.

Nicola Schaefer is a writer andspeaker from Winnipeg,Manitoba, Canada.

CITATION: Schaefer, N.(1996, September). The art ofgrowing invisible antennae.TASH NEWSLETTER, 22(9), 30.

SOURCE: GTE INS Severenewsgroup posting on IndianaSECN 1/2/97. ❒

Art • continued from page 2

ADMINISTRATORS' CORNER

Charlene Green, former director of special education at India-napolis Public Schools and assistant superintendent in Chicago PublicSchools, has accepted a new assignment in Nevada. Charlene is theassistant superintendent of the special student services division of theClark County School District (2832 East Flamingo Road) in LasVegas, NV 89121.

The Position of Director of Special Education is available atNortheast Indiana Special Education Cooperative, 112 South Or-chard, Kendallville, Indiana 46755.

License Required: Valid Indiana Special Education DirectorsLicense (or documentation which signifies eligibility)

Length of contract is 3 years (240 day year) with the followingbenefits: Insurance is fully paid (all but $1.00) and includes: Life,group, health, dental, vision and prescription drugs. An automobile isalso provided

Applications should be received by May 15, 1997 and antici-pated employment date July 1, 1997. Call 1-800-589-5236 torequest application or additional information.

April 14Ann Paetz

MSD Lawrence Township

April 14Connie Manous

East Chicago City Schools

April 16Rebecca Hartley

Division of Special Education

April 21Gary CollingsISEAS Project

April 22Thomas Ryan

Noblesville Schools

Happy Birthday!

Directors: April 21-25, 1997 is School Psychology Week inIndiana... so invite a school psychologist to take you out to lunch!

A link has been created from the Indiana Division of SpecialEducation Web Site <http://www.indstate.edu/iseas/dse.html> calledthe Master Reference Directory. This site contains all of the corre-spondence, documents and information with which the Division hasbeen involved concerning special education issues.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * *


4

ISEASSteering Committee

Meeting Minutes

February 19, 1997

[These minutes are consideredunofficial until approval at thenext meeting on March 19, 1997.]

Members Present: BrettBollinger, Southeast Representa-tive; Phyllis Craig, North CentralRepresentative; Mary Jo Dare,Central Representative; SheilaDecaroli, East Representative;Saundra Lange, Southwest Repre-sentative; Carson Lantis, North-east Alternate; Joan Machuca,Northwest Representative; BobMarra, Director, Division ofSpecial Education; Jeff Young,ICASE Representative

Staff Present: Gary Collings,ISEAS Executive Director andSusie Thacker, ISEAS ExecutiveAssistant

Others Present: MikeLivovich, ICASE ExecutiveCommittee Member; Jan Rees,ICASE Treasurer; and, GwennRingger, Northwest Indiana

The meeting was called toorder at 2:00 PM by Gary Collingsas ISEAS Executive Director.

APPROVALS: MOTION:Minutes from the January 29,1997 meeting were presented.With a motion by Decaroli/second by Young, the minuteswere approved as written.

Mini-Grants: Expenditures to

date of $500 mini-grants:

Central Roundtable $ 0.00East Roundtable 0.00North Central Roundtable 361.82Northeast Roundtable 0.00Northwest Roundtable 0.00Southeast Roundtable 0.00Southwest Roundtable 42.88

Lighthouse Applications: Nonew Lighthouse applications havebeen received to date.

Administrative Study Keyclub(ASK): No applications have beenreceived.

Collings noted that on Fridaymorning, February 21, during theDivision report at the SpringICASE Conference Bob Marrawill discuss the implications ofSenate Bill No. 256. If this bill ispassed, the Department of Educa-tion will be required to conduct astudy of the administration ofspecial education programs and toreport findings to the specialeducation administration studycommittee by October 1, 1998.Collings commented that fundsfrom the Administrative StudyKeyclub (ASK) might be used tooffset expenses for site visits forthe study groups. As it nowstands, the role of the ISEASProject will be to prepare docu-ments and facilitate various taskgroup sessions.

1996-97 Events/Reports:LEASE Academy III: Collingsbriefed the Committee on ameeting he had with Joanne Millerof the Gallup Organization todiscuss the introduction course onthe Teacher Perceiver Process forPhase 1 of ISEAS Academy III.

Miller offered a choice of thefollowing dates: June 16-17 orJuly 31-August 1, 1997. CON-SENSUS: After discussion, theSteering Committee agreed theearlier dates of June 16-17would offer participants infor-mation and insights in theprocess in time for interviewingduring the summer. Representa-tives were asked to give thesedates to their roundtables. It wasalso decided that directors wouldbe given first consideration. Anyunfilled slots would be availableto personnel directors. At thistime approximately 20 participantsare anticipated, with tuition at$195 each, plus travel and over-night expenses for Miller.

Collings also has met withRebecca Libler, chairperson of thedepartment of educational leader-ship, administration and founda-tions at Indiana State University,regarding the Principals Leader-ship Academy. The Academy is aDOE project with Indiana StateUniversity having a contract toprovide services and trainingthrough her department. Liblerwill look into the possibility oftwo or three special educationadministrators participating in thePrincipals Academy each year.Collings noted that Libler hasplans to revive the director ofspecial education licensingprogram at ISU through hereducation administration depart-ment.

Trainers’ Bureau: A surveywill be mailed to directors Febru-ary 24 asking them to list any

continued on page 5


5

members of their staff they wouldnominate to conduct trainingsessions in another district. Thecompleted forms should bereturned to the ISEAS office byMarch 28. A Trainers’ BureauDirectory will be compiled andmade available to directors acrossthe state.

School-Based TherapiesTraining Session: Paul Ash, amember of the IFCEC PlanningCommittee, will introduce the ideaof ISEAS sponsoring a School-Based Therapies Training Topicalduring the 1998 IFCEC confer-ence.

Internet: ISEAS Web HomePage: The address for the ISEAShome page on the Internet web hasbeen shortened to http://www.indstate.edu/iseas.

Conference Sponsorships/Reports: CEC: Salt Lake Citywill be the site for the Interna-tional CEC Convention April 9-13, 1997. The theme for thisyear’s convention is “Celebrating75 Years of Serving ExceptionalChildren”. The selection of anISEAS representative to attend theCEC Convention was tabled untilMarch so that representativescould talk with their roundtables.

LRP: The annual LRP LegalConference will be held May 4-7,1997 in San Diego. JoanMachuca, North CentralRoundtable, will attend as ISEASrepresentative.

Midwest Special EducationLeadership Conference: Theannual Midwest Special EducationLeadership Conference will be

held in Breckenridge, Colorado onJune 24-27, 1997. Traditionally,ISEAS sponsors the participationof the ICASE President-elect.This will be confirmed by theMarch meeting.

University Forum: February7, 1997 Meeting: Members of theUniversity Forum met February 7at the ISDD office at IndianaUniversity in Bloomington toallow special education faculty tojoin in a discussion about person-nel preparation. Five specialeducation directors from Southeastand Southwest Roundtables alsoparticipated. Participants dis-cussed the following two ques-tions in three small groups duringthe morning session: 1) How canIHEs and LEAs work together tosupport first year experienced andlimited license teachers? 2) Howcan IHEs and LEAs work togetherto provide authentic and effectivefield experiences? A Forumbusiness meeting was held duringthe afternoon. Those attendingseem to feel that it was a verypositive and productive day.Copies of the full notes from theFebruary 7 meeting are availableupon request from the ISEASoffice.

Next Meeting: The March 7Forum meeting will be hosted byIUPUI. Members are asked tobring a general educator. TheIPSB Reaction Survey will beused to gather comments.

Other Business: HomeSchooling: Collings reported thatthe ICASE Board did not feel itwas necessary for ICASE to eitherseek a legal opinion regardinghome schooling or bring the issue

to the IAPSS Special EducationCommittee as had been discussedat the January Steering Committeemeeting.

IDEAS Videotape Series:Directors may pick up theirdistrict’s copies of the videotapesat the Division or at the IFCECConference February 20-22 at theRadisson Hotel at KeystoneCrossing. The thirteen-tape seriesis facilitated by Marilyn Friend,IUPUI.

Special Education Law andPractice: The LRP manual“Special Education Law andPractice” has been purchased byISEAS and is available for rota-tion throughout the roundtables.Sheila Decaroli, East Roundtable,has the manual first as it bears onthe K.R. court case in whichAnderson is involved.

“Who are the Children BeingBorn Today”: The video isavailable by contacting the ISEASoffice.

“Look Who’s Laughing”: Thevideo is available by contactingthe ISEAS office.

Next Meeting: The nextmeeting will be held on March19, 1997 (Wednesday) at theISEAS office per the followingschedule:

-8:00 AM - Coffee and Rolls-8:30 AM - ISEAS Steering

Committee-10:30 AM - Division Report

and ICASE ExecutiveCommittee Meeting ❒

ISEAS • continued from page 5


6

ISEAS UniversityForum

Focus GroupMeeting at IUPUI

March 7, 1997

Participants: Cathy Shea(IUS), Sharon Knoth (DOE),Marlaine Chase (UE), Pat Rogan(IUPUI), Roberta Gajewski(IUPUI), Sharon Lingvai Smith(IUPUI), Pat Tefft Cousins(IUPUI), Chris Leland (IUPUI),Alice Cross (ISDD), Mary BethJanes (ISDD), Mary Held (IUdoctoral student),Mary Ann Dudzinski (VU), AnnSmith (ICASE), Jim Murray(ICASE), Jane Swiss (SFC),Richard Abdul (SFC), Lyle Lloyd(PU), Gary Collings (ISEAS)

There were no participantsfrom the faculties of I.U., ISU, orBSU.

After introductions Shea, aschairperson of the UniversityForum, commented on thepurpose of our morning session.Participants are to compare theForum’s 16 criteria developed inJanuary 1996 to the tenIPSB Standards for Teachers ofExceptional Needs. The two listsare as follows:

The ISEAS/University Forumproposes, as criteria to gaugestandards, developed for theExceptional Needs teachingcertificates:

Will the standards...

1. Produce special educationpersonnel capable of deliveringservices in a variety of deliverymodels?

2. Produce special educationpersonnel capable of deliveringservices to a diversity of studentswith special needs, e.g. behavior,hearing, language and communi-cation, vision?

3. Produce special educationspecialists with in-depth expertisefor those students requiringextraordinary services, e.g.behavior, hearing, language andcommunication, vision?

4. Allow for an increaseddiversity of candidates choosing ateaching career?

5. Result in better studentsoutcomes (for students ages 0 -21)?

6. Prepare special educationpersonnel with sensitivity todiversity of all students?

7. Develop teachers whocan identify and use communityresources to enhance educationopportunities for students?

8. Allow for partnershipswith students and families in thedecision-making process, e.g.IEPs and Transition Planning?

9. Be accepted by allstakeholders, e.g. families ofstudents with disabilities, profes-sional and advocate organiza-tions?

10. Require on-going profes-sional development?

11. Promote collaborationbetween General and SpecialEducation?

12. Meet or exceed compe-tencies of professional organiza-tions as identified throughNCATE, e.g. the Council forExceptional Children (CEC),American Speech, Language, andHearing Association (ASHA)?

13. Allow part-time (i.e. lessthan “full load,” evening, sum-mer) students to completecoursework in sequence and overa reasonable period of time?

14. Allow Indiana IHEs toprovide sufficient number ofprograms to meet the demandsfor special education personnel?

15. Increase the number ofindividuals choosing specialeducation as a career?

16. Assure knowledge ofgeneral education curriculum andinstructional strategies?

IPSB Educators of Studentswith Exceptional Needs -Common Core Standards

STANDARD #1 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs is well-versed in thehistory, philosophy, and founda-tions of special education as wellas in current laws and contempo-rary issues in the field and uses ofthis knowledge to enhanceeducational opportunities for allstudents.

continued on page 7


7

STANDARD #2 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs is knowledgeable ofhuman growth and developmentand uses this knowledge toprovide meaningful learningopportunities.

STANDARD #3 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs is competent inselecting, administering, andinterpreting a variety of formaland informal assessment strate-gies and utilizes this informationto design, implement, and evalu-ate instruction and to guidestudents in self-assessment.

STANDARD #4 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs recognizes thatoptimal learning relates newinformation to the student’s priorexperiences and knowledge.

STANDARD #5 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs is cognizant of theimportance of an active learningenvironment and designs a settingwhich fosters an enriching,nurturing and safe climate wherediversity and risk-taking arevalued.

STANDARD #6 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs understands thedevelopmental nature of learningand uses multiple approaches andstrategies to provide a variety ofactivities and opportunities tofacilitate student success.

STANDARD #7 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs understands the

importance of teaching appropri-ate social skills and effectivelyapplies and models these strate-gies in interactions with students,families, and colleagues.

STANDARD #8 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs understands reflec-tive practices and the importanceof ongoing professional develop-ment and applies the knowledgegained to promote both studentgrowth and professional outreach.

STANDARD #9 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs is aware of the needto collaborate with families,school colleagues, and the largercommunity to support students’learning and well-being andactively cultivates these partner-ships.

STANDARD #10 Theeducator of students with excep-tional needs demonstrates anawareness of a wide array ofcommunity resources and ac-cesses these services to supportstudents’ needs.

For the focus group discus-sion participants divided into twogroups. Swiss facilitated onegroup that compared the firsteight criteria to the ten standards;Chase’s group compared the lasteight criteria to the ten standards.After lunch representatives ofeach group reported on theconclusions. Participants will bemailed a draft paper from themorning discussion. The sessionended at 1:00 p.m. ❒

ISEAS UniversityForum Meeting

March 7, 1997

[These minutes are consideredunofficial until approval at thenext meeting on April 4, 1997.]

Members Present: CathyShea (IUS), Jane Swiss (SFC),Sharon Knoth (DOE), Mary BethJanes (ISDD), Marlaine Chase(UE), Lyle Lloyd (PU), JimMurray (ICASE), Ann Smith(ICASE), Gary Collings (ISEAS).

Others Present: RichardAbdul (SFC)

Shea asked for a motion toaccept the February 7, 1997meeting minutes as presented.The motion for acceptance of theminutes by Knoth/Janes wasapproved.

Janes took notes on her laptopfrom the morning session reports.Members concurred that the notesshould be incorporated into theIPSB reaction format. It wassuggested this reaction paperformat would be mailed to themorning session participants fortheir review.

Knoth reported that the LREvideotape series has been ap-proved for CRUs by contactingher. She announced in June fiveregional workshops across thestate will be conducted on Disci-pline Strategies. There will befollow-up sessions the next twosummers. Maggie McLaughlin


continued on page 8


8

continued on page 9

from the University of Marylandwill be at DOE on March 21 todiscuss statewide assessment.

Janes suggested that theGrants Notebook, which wasdeveloped to keep Forummembers informed of grantactivities, might be transferredto the Forum web page (http://www.indstate.edu/iseas).

Swiss reported that she hasreceived the Distance Education

file from Littlejohn. Lloydasked that Distance Educationbe discussed at a future meeting.He reported that Purdue will offeran assistive technology one-creditcourse (AUS/EDPS590T)over IHETS the week ofJuly 28. Contact Jenny Towlerin the Division of ContinuingEducation at Purdue for courseregistration information.(Phone: 765/494-7943;FAX: 765/496-2484; E-Mail:

[email protected])

Next Meeting: April 4, 1997ISEAS Office10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

To be Discussed:• Review Standards

Reaction Paper• Distance Education• May 2 Forum Meeting

at ISU ❒


Information from ICASE

ICASEExecutive Committee

Meeting

February 19, 1997

Radisson Hotel - Indianapolis

[These minutes are considereda draft until approved at the nextscheduled meeting.]

MEMBERS PRESENT: DaenaRichmond (President), RussDawson (President-Elect),Jan Rees (Treasurer), GaryCollings (Secretary), Jeff Young(Past-President), Joan Machuca(NW), Carson Lantis (NE), MaryJo Dare (C), Brett Bollinger (SE),Sheila Decaroli (E), Phyllis Craig(NC), and Saundra Lange (SW)

OTHERS PRESENT: Bob

Marra, Tom Doyle, Judy Flowers,Patti Kem, Sharon Henderson,Gwenn Ringger, Susie Thacker

I. ApprovalsA. MOTION: After a

motion by Young/Machuca, theJanuary 29, 1997 ExecutiveCommittee minutes were ap-proved as submitted.

B. Rees presented a compre-hensive balance sheet showing atotal equity of $35,938.50 anddocket of outstanding bills in theamount of $1,704.15. MOTION:After a motion by Dawson/Bollinger, the January 31, 1997Treasurer’s Report and docketof bills were approved as submit-ted.

II. Strategic Plan: 1996-97A. Goal I: Encourage commu-

nication, support, and promotion of

administrators of special education.

No membership report/guidelines were presented.

B. Goal II: Promote theimprovement of the educationprofession.

Livovich reported on thevarious roundtable topical confer-ences which have been completedand are in the planning process.Clarifications were offered for theNorthwest topical in March, theEast topical in April and Central’stopical in June.

Livovich introduced TopicalConference Guidelines - Options Aand B. The primary difference inthe two options was in the distribu-


9

ICASE • continued from page 8

tion of the proceeds. After consid-erable discussion there was con-sensus that the intent was to assurethat no Roundtable would suffer afinancial loss under any circum-stances by sponsoring a topicalconference.

All roundtable proceeds willbe maintained in the ICASEtreasury with a subaccount for eachof the roundtable credits/debits.

MOTION: After a motion byDecaroli/Dare Option B wasapproved with the followingamended language: 10.Roundtables taking part inplanning and implementingtopical conferences will receivean equal amount of 50% of theproceeds from all topical confer-ences. The remaining 50% of theproceeds will be maintained inthe ICASE treasury.

The full text of Option B asapproved is to be made available tomembers through the roundtablerepresentatives.

Livovich and Machuca facili-tated a brainstorming session ofemerging trends and issues aspossible ideas for future topicalconferences. The following itemswere ranked highest: infant andearly childhood, IDEA reauthoriza-tion, agency collaboration, state-wide assessment (gateway),extended school year, behaviormanagement. ACTION: Topicslisted are to be discussed at nextmonth’s Executive CommitteeMeeting.

C. Goal III: Support theacquisition of adequate funding atlocal, state, and federal levels tomeet the needs of children and

youth with disabilities.

Henderson gave a Legislativeand Policy Committee update.Draft proposals for Procedures forSpecial Committees, President’sChecklist for Establishing aSpecial Committee, PracticeRegarding Accessibility for ICASESponsored Activities, and Policyand Procedures on Fiscal Manage-ment were reviewed. MOTION:A motion by Young/Machuca toaccept the revisions in the fourareas was approved.

There was discussion regard-ing clarification of the draft ofIssues and Importance Relative toReauthorization of IDEA. AC-TION: Changes will be madeand presented to the ExecutiveCommittee at the March meet-ing.

D. Goal IV: Encourage thedevelopment of an infrastructure tosupport persons with disabilities intheir local communities.

Bollinger briefed the memberson the February 7 meeting of theUniversity Forum at Bloomington.He stressed the need for localdirectors to let university trainersknow what local districts need andexpect. He encouraged directors toparticipate in other plannedmeetings of the University Forumto address personnel preparationneeds.

E. Goal V: Promote Collabo-ration with Department of Educa-tion and the Division of SpecialEducation.

Marra discussed the results ofthe OHI survey which the ICASEExecutive Committee requested

directors to complete by February7. The data indicated a variety ofmedical conditions with themajority of services falling withinthe resource services. The resultsof the survey will be distributed.The overall growth in specialeducation is approximately 3%each year. Members discussed theloss of students with moderate andemotional disabilities.

Marra noted that SB 256 hadbeen amended to include statewideassessment issues. He will discussthis bill in detail tomorrow afterthe general business meeting.

Marra briefed the members onSB 400 which offers flexiblefunding between agencies. Thisbill proposes new language for athree agency board to replace theDepartment of Health in thegoverning process. Studentsclassified under either CHINS or asdelinquent would no longer bedifferentiated. Cost sharing is alsoproposed. Multi-agency collabora-tion will be needed with localcommunities developing their ownprotocols. Another section of thisbill calls for a cost study to beconducted at the state specialinstitutions.

G. Next Meeting: The nextmeeting will be held on March 19,1997 at the ISEAS Office.

Time: 10:15 a.m. DivisionReport

11:00 a.m. ICASE Executive Committee Meeting ❒


10

In October 1989 the ISEASSteering Committee approved alighthouse application for Dr.Trent Rager, director of the Green-Sullivan Special EducationCooperative, and his LEA superin-tendent, to visit a school district inEverett, Washington. They wereinterested in exploring how Title Iand Special Education programswere being merged to reduceduplication and improve servicesin the state of Washington. Upontheir return they noted that thestate department of education wasone key element in allowing thenecessary flexibility. Unfortu-nately the barriers in Indiana werenot quickly removed. The scene,however, is changing at both thefederal and state levels.

In February 1997 ValreeKinch, director of special educa-tion at Eastbrook CommunitySchools in Upland, providedinformation about their mergedsystem which was launched lastsemester. Their model is knownas the Maximum AchievementLearning Lab (M.A.L.L.). Nowinto their second semester Valreereports that the staff is even moreexcited about the outcomes.

The M.A.L.L. is a model thatJackie Hubbard, an elementaryprincipal, and Valree had theopportunity to observe while at aconference in Texas. It is aservice delivery model that allowsany student in the building toreceive assistance for any purpose.At Eastbrook they have combinedTitle, Special Education,Remediation, and Enrichment

programs into one center thatserves the entire school popula-tion. The M.A.L.L. has become acompletely label free environmentthat children feel privileged toattend. The M.A.L.L. staff worksto modify curriculum to keepstudent in their general educationclasses as much as possible. Theyservice students in classrooms aswell as provide pull-out assistancefor students; however, one of thegreatest advantages to the pull-outservices with the M.A.L.L. modelis that the classroom teachers getto decide when is the best time forthe students to leave the class.

The M.A.L.L.'s goals are to:

1. Service all students.2. Identify student’s individual

needs and provide teacherswith resources to meet thoseneeds.

3. Teach students to be respon-sible learners.

4. Collaborate with teachers tokeep students in the class-room as much as possible.

5. Provide an extended readingand writing program.

6. Provide enrichment services.7. Provide reading remediation.

Teachers use the M.A.L.L. inthe following ways:

• independent study• help with class projects• enrichment opportunities• reading remediation• oral testing• one on one assistance• research via computer or book• reward time

• assistance on classassignments

• peer tutoring• reteach lessons• modify materials• taping textbooks• assessing individual students -

provide learning styleinformation

• highlighting materials (text-books, worksheets, etc.)

• providing supplementalmaterials

• teaching study skills (i.e.planning for projects,organizations, test takingskills, etc.)

• group work• computer time with assistance• creating study guides

This program, which islocated adjacent to the schoollibrary, meets all special educa-tion needs; gives remediation timefor grades K-4, and offers aWriting Workshop for grades 5-6;assistance is also available for anystudent needing general educationmodifications or help.

The program is staffed withtwo certified and threenoncertified personnel. Financescome from Title I Remediation,Special Education. Other sourcesof funding might be Gifted andTalented grants and General Fundmonies.

For additional information,contact Valree Kinch at EastbrookCommunity Schools (765/998-1750). ❒

An Indiana Learning Lab

11


Department ofEducation News

Graduation Examina-tion Procedures for StudentsEnrolled in Special Education— [The following is the text of aFebruary 24, 1997 memo fromBob Marra, director of the DOEDivision of Special Education, tolocal directors as posted on theDivision News & Notes bulletinboard of the Indiana SECN2/25/97.]

As districts begin schedulingAnnual Case Reviews for studentsenrolled in special education, theDepartment of Education isreceiving numerous questionsregarding Indiana’s graduationexamination procedures. Begin-ning with the class of the year2000, every Indiana student mustmeet high education standards inEnglish and mathematics, inaddition to all other state and localgraduation requirements, in orderto be eligible to graduate fromhigh school with a diploma. Tomeet these standards, a studentmust:

receive a score at or above theIndiana Academic Standard on theGrade 10 ISTEP+ test; or

successfully complete allcomponents of the Core 40curriculum as established by the

State Board of Education; or

successfully appeal thestudent’s test results under criteriaadopted by the State Board ofEducation.

Question 1: Must all stu-dents, including special educationstudents, take the ISTEP+ test?

Response: A student isrequired to take the graduationexamination in order to receive anIndiana diploma.

The graduation examination isa part of the ISTEP+ program.Students that have difficulty withthe test on their first attempt willhave four additional opportunitiestwo times in Grade 11 and twotimes in Grade 12 to pass the test.

Question 2: Will testingaccommodations be permitted forspecial education students?

Response: Any identifiedaccommodations/modificationsemployed in performance on othertests and in classroom instructionwould be applied to the graduationexamination. Department officialsare working closely with testpublishers to obtain valid scalescores for special education

students who takes the Grade 10ISTEP+ under accommodatedconditions and to identify anyprocedures that must be followedby schools when administeringaccommodated ISTEP+ tests.

Question 3: What if the caseconference committee believesthat a student is not capable oftaking the ISTEP+, even withaccommodations?

Response: Students enrolledin special education that areunable to take ISTEP+ are stilleligible to receive a certificate ofachievement upon completion ofthe public school educationalprogram.

Question 4: Doesn’t theIndiana Administrative Code(IAC) state that special educationstudents can take minimal coursesand still receive the same diplomaas other students?

Response: No. UnderArticle 7 at 511 IAC 7-13-3(d) itspecifies that: “Students enrolledin special education shall, pro-vided the minimum credit require-ments are met (emphasis added),receive a diploma which is

continued on page 12


12

not differentiated from the di-ploma received by nondisabledstudents.”

Question 5: What is Core 40?

Response: Education,business, labor, and governmentleaders in Indiana have agreed oncourse completion expectationsfor Indiana high school students.These expectations are called Core40 a single, flexible high schoolcurriculum which, except forelective courses, is based on asingle set of agreed-upon compe-tencies. Core 40 includes a seriesof academically challengingcourses in English, mathematics,science, and social studies. Astudent also must completedirected electives selected fromforeign language, fine arts,computers, and technical careerareas.

Question 6: If students do notpass the graduation examinationafter five attempts beginning inGrade 10, how are students’ testresults appealed?

Response: The State Boardof Education’s proposed ruleestablishes the criteria underwhich students may appeal theirgraduation examination results.The Board will conduct six publichearings on the proposed rule atsites across the state from Febru-ary 24, to March 12, 1997.

DOE • continued from page 11

Indiana DOE Quar-terly Report — [Editor’s Note:The Quarterly Report provides

information to the Indiana StateBoard of Education on recentjudicial and administrativedecisions affecting publiclyfunded education. Should anyonewish to have a copy of anydecision noted herein, please callKevin C. McDowell, GeneralCounsel, at 317/232-6676. Fol-lowing are two excerpts from theOctober-December 1996 issue.]

Time-out Rooms

In Rasmus v. State of Ari-zona, 939 F.Supp. 709 (D. Ariz.1996), an eighth-grade studentwith an emotional handicapalleged that his Fourth andFourteenth Amendment rightswere violated by a school’s use ofa locked, windowless time-outroom. The room was really moreof a closet in the school’s alterna-tive classroom. It was approxi-mately 6' X 4' X 8’10" withplywood walls and a carpetedfloor. There was no furniture, butthere was an overhead light, firesprinkler, air vent and viewingpeephole. The door was equippedwith two exterior steel bolt locks.The student had become involvedin an altercation with anotherstudent. A classroom aide sepa-rated the students, directing theplaintiff to remove his jacket andshoes and empty his pocketsbefore entering the time-out room.The student spent approximatelyten minutes in the locked room.The student exhibited no traumawhen he exited the closet. In fact,he was not involved in any otherincidents the remainder of theschool year. The student’sparents were notified the sameday he was confined to the time-

out room. The parents asked theFire Department to investigate. Adeputy fire marshal found that thelocks violated the fire code. Thelocks were removed. The parentsalso initiated a complaint with theArizona Department of Education(ADOE) under 34 CFR 300.660-300.662 of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act(IDEA). Although the ADOE hasdeveloped and disseminatedguidelines for the use of non-aversive behavior managementpractices, including time-outrooms, ADOE’s complaintinvestigator found no IDEAviolations. The court noted,however, that the school violatedmany of the principles in theADOE guidelines for time-outrooms, including the following:

* The student’s individualizededucation program (IEP)contained no provision forseclusionary time-out.

* The written permission of theparents was never obtained.

* Seclusion occurred withoutregard to any specificbehavior managementprogram.

* The school had not devel-oped any policies or proce-dures for the use of thetime-out, deferring insteadto the discretion of the adultpresent.

* The time-out room violatedthe fire code.



13

* The time-out room did notpermit staff to see thestudent at all times nor thestudent to see anyoneoutside.

The school argued that theguidelines should not have legaleffect because they were merelyguidelines which had not beenincorporated into law. The courtnoted that the ADOE referred tothe guidelines and incorporatedreferences to these principleswhen it conducted its IDEAcomplaint investigation. Al-though the court found the ten-minute, time-out seclusion periodto be a de minimus violation ofthe student’s Fourteenth Amend-ment rights such that the schoolwas entitled to summary judgmenton this issue, the court found therewas sufficient merit to the FourthAmendment issue that trial wouldbe warranted. The court notedthat time-out room for indetermi-nate periods without regard to astudent’s age or emotional disabil-ity may be excessively intrusiveand thus may violate the relaxedFourth Amendment standard forschool officials.

For other cases involvingtime-out rooms, see the following:

1. Hayes v. Unified SchoolDist. No. 377, 877 F.2d 809 (10thCir. 1989). The Rasmus courtrelied heavily upon Hayes,distinguishing its facts from theRasmus dispute. The two stu-dents in Hayes had behavioralproblems. The students’ parentwas advised of her IDEA proce-dural safeguards prior to givingwritten permission for the stu-

dents’ placement in a behavioralmanagement program (Personal/Social Adjustment, or PSA,program). At times during theschool year, the students wererequired to stay in a 3' X 5' time-out room. The parent neverchallenged this through IDEA dueprocess nor sought a change ofplacement. Failure to exhaustIDEA remedies precluded thecivil rights action in court. Not-withstanding this, the 10th circuitcourt made the following observa-tions or adopted them from thedistrict court:

* Short-term removals fordisciplinary reasons are not“changes of placement.”

* However, the use of time-outrooms can be challengedthrough IDEA procedures.

* The school’s use of time-outrooms was related to theprovision of appropriateeducational services to thesestudents because:

(a) The use of the time-outroom was rationally relatedto the school’s educationalfunction to teach studentsrather than suspend themout of school;

(b) The students could bedirectly supervised at alltimes;

(c) The location of the time-outroom allowed the studentsplaced there to continuewith their classroom in-struction; and

(d) The school had a policywhich strictly regulated theplacement of students in thetime-out room.

2. Dickens v. Johnson CountyBd. of Ed., 661 F.Supp. 155 (E.D.Tenn. 1987). The court found noconstitutional infirmity with theschool’s use of a time-out roomwhich consisted of a three-sidedcardboard partition which was notattached to a wall and could easilybe removed. The area contained adesk and enabled a student placedthere to see and hear the teacheras well as observe the chalkboard.

Service Dogs

Although most people arefamiliar with guide dogs whoassist blind or visually impairedindividuals, there are increasingnumbers of service dogs whichperform a variety of everydaytasks which their masters cannotbecause of physical impairments.A number of states have passedlaws regarding the accommoda-tions of persons with disabilitiesand their guide or service dogs.Indiana had two such laws. I.C.16-32-3-2 requires people whooperate public accommodations topermit access to individuals withdisabilities and their guide orservice dogs, and further prohibitscharging an additional fee to suchindividuals. This law also permitsaccess to public accommodationsby “a guide dog trainer whileengaged in the training process ofa guide dog. . .” “Public accom-modation” is defined as “an




14

establishment that caters or offersservices, facilities, or goods to thegeneral public.” See theBuchanan case, infra. In addition,I.C. 22-9-6-5 prohibits discrimina-tion against disabled individualsand their guide/service dogs bypersons who rent or lease prop-erty. There have been fewreported cases involving publicschool districts and students whorequire guide or service dogs.

1. Letter to Goodling, 17EHLR 1027 (OCR 1991). TheOffice for Civil Rights, in answerto an inquiry from a member ofCongress, stated that “if notallowing a student to bring aservice dog into the classroomwould effectively deny the studentthe opportunity, or an equalopportunity, to participate in orbenefit from the education pro-gram [of a recipient of Federalfinancial assistance], then therecipient school would be inviolation of Section 504 [of theRehabilitation Act of 1973] andits implementing regulation.”

2. Gaudiello v. DelawareCounty Intermediate Unit, 796F.Supp. 849 (E.D. Pa. 1992),involved a thirteen-year-oldstudent with severe physicallimitations due to spinal muscularatrophy. The student used awheelchair and was slated to bemainstreamed into general educa-tion classes upon entering middleschool. Although this case neveraddresses a significant issuebecause of the parents’ failure toexhaust administrative remediesunder the Individuals with Dis-abilities Act, it does contain somebackground information on the

training and function of servicedogs for mobility-impairedindividuals. In this situation, theservice dog can turn lights on andoff, open and close doors, carrythe student’s books, pick upobjects, bring the telephone to thestudent, and perform a number ofother functions which actuallyenabled the student to participatein more school functions.

3. Clark County SchoolDistrict v. Buchanan, 924 P.2d716 (Nev. 1996), addresses adifferent aspect of service dogsand public accommodations: theextent to which a teacher whotrains service dogs may bring suchtraining dogs to the school whereshe teaches. Buchanan is themusic teacher for an elementaryschool. She is also a volunteerhelping-dog trainer for CanineCompanions for Independence.“Helping dogs, “ as distinguishedfrom guide dogs for the blind orvisually impaired, are trained toperform hundreds of daily func-tions for their disabled masters,most of whom have impairedmobility. Buchanan needs to trainsuch dogs to become acclimatedto a host of environments and torefrain from contact with humansunless directed to do so. Theschool refused to permitBuchanan to bring the dog intoher classroom, asserting that thepresence of the dog would be adistraction to instruction, frightenchildren afraid of dogs, or presenta health risk to children allergic todogs. The school acknowledgedthat it would permit the dog ifBuchanan required a helping dog,and further acknowledged thatstate law precluded the school

from refusing admittance to aperson training a helping dog.But the state law was meant fornon-employees of the school, theschool asserted. The court, inupholding the trial court’s injunc-tion against the school, noted thatthe school district did not attemptto negotiate a reasonable compro-mise with Buchanan; there weremany other animals in otherclassrooms; there were no knownchildren allergic to or afraid ofdogs; another Nevada schooldistrict permits teachers who arevolunteer trainers to bring train-ing dogs into their classrooms;and the injunction requires theteacher to adhere to reasonablerestrictions imposed by the schooldistrict to prevent health prob-lems. The Nevada law makes itunlawful for a “place of publicaccommodation” to refuseadmittance or service to a personwho requires “a guide dog,hearing dog or other serviceanimal. . .” A public school isdefined as a “place of publicaccommodation.” Two separatedissenting opinions believe themajority have expanded themeaning of “admittance orservice” and also believe thestatute was not meant to apply toemployees of the “public accom-modation” who are volunteertrainers. ❒



15

FEDERAL UPDATE . . .

Transition SystemsChange Projects: PolicyRecommendations

The following policy recom-mendations were prepared byparticipants at the 1996 NationalTransition Network AnnualProject Directors’ Meeting inWashington, DC.

The following policy recom-mendations are based on fouryears of evaluation information onthe transition systems changeprogram funded by the UnitedStates Department of Education,Office of Special Education andRehabilitation Services (OSERS).To date, 45 states and the Districtof Columbia are participating inthis systems change program. Therecommendations are also basedon conversations with three groupsof transition systems changeproject directors: (a) states withlarge numbers of youth withdisabilities in their special educa-tion system, (b) states in the fifthand final year of their projects,and (c) other project personnelspecifically interested in suchdiscussions. Each general recom-mendation is followed by specificimplications of the recommenda-tion as they pertain to the transi-tion of youth with disabilities fromschool to life in the community.

1. Develop policies thatpromote coordination and integra-tion of federal and state programsin order to meet the needs of all

youth, regardless of the level oftheir ability.

* Establish common languageand eligibility criteria acrossagencies and programs.

* Approach the developmentand implementation of legislation,policies, and procedures with aview of permissiveness rather thanrestrictiveness.

* Develop incentives forcollaboration including evaluationprocedures and funding initiatives.

2. Direct all current and futurepolicies and programs towards theachievement of youth, regardlessof the level of their ability, livingin the community as full, partici-pating members.

* Ensure that the array ofprograms and services available toyouth address both their academicand nonacademic needs.

* Include youth with disabili-ties in large scale national assess-ments.

* Include youth with disabili-ties in the establishment and use ofstandards.

* Collect longitudinal datathat identify the results of policyand programmatic efforts to meetthe academic and nonacademicneeds of all youth, regardless ofthe their ability level, to live in

their communities as full, partici-pating members.

3. Retain the essential andnecessary procedural safeguardsand incentives that ensure indi-viduals with disabilities andfamilies have access to qualityprograms and services.

* Ensure that future federallegislation and reauthorizationefforts do not eliminate essentialprocedural safeguards.

* Establish effective mecha-nisms for work incentives.

4. Increase the involvement ofpeople with disabilities and theirfamilies in the planning, imple-mentation, and evaluation ofpublic policies, programs, andservices.

* Provide incentives, includ-ing fiscal and staff support, toensure the meaningful involve-ment of people with disabilitiesand their families in the develop-ment, implementation and evalua-tion of policies, programs, andservices

5. Ensure that future fundinginitiatives incorporate strategiesand approaches proven to bringabout needed systems change.

* Require future systems



16

continued from page 17

change projects to implementchange activities at both state andlocal levels.

* Require related agencies toshare authority and responsibilityfor development, implementation,and evaluation or systems changeproject resources and activities.

CITATION: National Transi-tion Network. (1996). TRANSI-TION SYSTEMS CHANGEPROJECTS: POLICY RECOM-MENDATIONS. Champaign, IL:Author.

SOURCE: GTE INSVoced.Transition newsgroupposting on Indiana SECN 3/12/97.

FEDERAL UPDATE . . . continued from page 15

Trends in the Well-being of America’s Childrenand Youth — The followingfindings were published in Fall1996 by the Policy InformationCenter (PIC), Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planningand Evaluation, U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services,Room 438F, Hubert H. HumphreyBuilding, Washington, DC 20201.

The report, TRENDS IN THEWELL-BEING OF AMERICA’SCHILDREN AND YOUTH: 1996,is the first annual report from theDepartment of Health and HumanServices (HHS) to present themost recent, most reliable data onfive key areas in the lives ofchildren and youth. These areas

are: population, family, andneighborhood; economic security;health conditions and health care;social development, behavioralhealth, and teen fertility; andeducation and achievement. Thereport contains two sections. Thefirst is a “quick reference guide”describing national trends forseventy-four indicators of childand youth well-being. All of theseindicators are based on datacollected by the federal govern-ment. For each indicator, tablesand graphics illustrating trends aregiven, accompanied by a narrativedescribing the most pertinentfeatures of the data. The secondsection contains a review of trendsin the socio-demographic charac-teristics of children, youth, andtheir families. The section empha-sizes historical trends, treatinglong-term shifts that in some casescover two centuries.

On the whole, the quickreference guide presents data fromthe 1970s to the 1990s althoughsome data are presented forperiods prior to the 1970s, as aresome projections into the 21stcentury. The report shows that thenumber of children under ageeighteen has varied widely:between 1950 and 1960, thenumber of children increased from47.3 to 64.2 million, then rose to69.6 million in 1970, and fell to63.7 million in 1980. It is pro-jected that the number of childrenwill rise to 73.6 million by theyear 2010. The report also pre-sents data on children as a percent-age of the population. For

example, in 1950, childrenconstituted 31 percent of thepopulation; by 1960, the propor-tion had increased to 36 percent.However, by 1990, childrenconstituted only 26 percent of thepopulation. As well as presentingdata for the population as a whole,the report gives information onthe racial and ethnic compositionof U.S. children and on immigrantchildren.

Data on economic security isalso presented, including charts ontrends in mean family incomes,children in poverty, child supportnonpayment, the impact of cashand near-cash transfer programson poverty, and welfare receiptand dependence. Another sectionof the report presents data onhealth conditions (such as infantand child mortality, teen motorvehicle accident, homicide, andsuicide deaths, general healthconditions, and abuse or neglect).It also examines health care forchildren, including data on healthinsurance coverage, prenatal care,and immunization. The socialdevelopment and behavioralhealth of all children and fertilityof teenagers are also representedin the data, as are education andachievement.

There are both positive andnegative trends reported. On thepositive side, the rate of fullimmunization for two-year-olds


17

continued from page 18

has increased while the infantmortality rate continues to decline.Teen births for those aged fifteento nineteen declined between 1991and 1993, although the teen birthrate is still higher than it wastwenty years ago. In education,mathematics and science profi-ciency has increased, while theproportion of children who watchsix or more hours of television aday has decreased. However,negative trends are also apparent.For example, the mortality rate forminority youth has increased, ashas the proportion of childrenliving in single-parent households.The poverty rate for children andyouth has increased and the rate ofchildren living in extreme povertyhas increased dramatically.Finally, for many indicators ofwell-being, minority children andyouth fare much worse than theirwhite counterparts.

The second part of the reporttraces changes in the socio-demographic characteristics ofchildren, youth, and their familiesover a long historical period. Insome cases, it goes back to thefirst Census of the United States,taken in 1790. The section, titled“Population Change and theFamily Environment of Children,”discusses demographic issues suchas population size and composi-tion, the geographic distribution ofthe population, marriage anddivorce, childbearing and familysize, life expectancy and mortality,and household size and composi-tion. The report notes that, overthe past 150 years, there have been

major changes in several areas thatdirectly affect children’s lives.The revolutionary shift to non-farm work by fathers, the dramaticreduction in the size of the averagefamily, and great increases in theaverage level of schooling have allaffected children’s family environ-ment. More recently, increases inmothers’ labor force participation,and in mother-child families withno father present in the home havealso contributed to vast changes inchildren’s life situations.

The report maintains that: afundamental cause driving theseseemingly disparate changes wasthe desire of parents to improve,maintain, or regain their relativesocial and economic status com-pared with other families, whenconfronted with changing andoften uncertain, difficult, orprecarious social and economicconditions. (pg. 251)

Finally, the report discussesusing children as the unit ofstatistical analysis. It notes that,although it may seem apparentthat research on children should beconducted in this way, untilrecently most studies have usedparents, adults, or families as theunits of statistical analysis. Thereport suggests that existingdatabases, such as censuses,registration systems, and surveys,should be re-analyzed usingchildren as the unit of statisticalanalysis. One effort to do so is theBureau of the Census’s plannedannual Survey of Program Dy-namics (SPD). Data from this and

other efforts will help to informpublic policy debate on welfareand health care reform, as well asother areas of public interest.

This report was sponsored bythe Office of the Assistant Secre-tary for Planning and Evaluation.Section I was produced undercontract by Child Trends, Inc.Section II was written by DonaldJ. Hernandez of the United StatesBureau of the Census. The report’sproject officer, Matt Stagner, maybe reached at 202/690-5653.Copies of the report’s executivesummary only (PIC ID No. 6170)are available from the PIC. Copiesof the full report are availablefrom the Government PrintingOffice (stock number 017-022-01336-6) at a cost of $26.00. Call202/512-1803.

SOURCE: GTE INSEd.Personnel newsgroup postingon Indiana SECN 12/16/96.


Factors that Influencethe Performance, Develop-ment and Supervision ofParaeducators in InclusiveClassrooms — Nationwideschool boards, superintendents,principals, teachers, and parentsare seeking ways to better serveand improve the quality of educa-tion for all children and youth who


18


have disabilities, who come fromdiverse cultural and ethnic heri-tages, who have limited Englishproficiency, or who may haveother special needs that place themat-risk. This article is concernedwith an important but under-recognized issue confronting thefield. It is the need to developpolicies, standards and infrastruc-tures for improving the employ-ment, placement, preparation andmanagement of paraeducators(paraprofessionals, teacher aides/assistants, transition trainers/jobcoaches, occupational, physicaland speech therapy assistants) ininclusive classrooms and othereducation settings.

It has been more than 40 yearssince teacher aides were intro-duced into classrooms to enableteachers to spend more time inplanning and implementinginstructional and related activities(Gartner, 1971). The duties ofteacher aides are no longer limitedto recordkeeping, preparingmaterials, monitoring students inlunch rooms and study halls, ormaintaining learning centers andequipment. In today’s schools theyare active participants in allcomponents of the instructionalprocess and the delivery of otherdirect services to children, youthand/or their parents. As a result,they have become “technicianswho are more accurately describedas paraeducators just as theircounterparts in law and medicineare designated as paralegals andparamedics” (Pickett, 1989) .

Continuing efforts to reshapeeducation systems and practices toprovide individualized, inclusiveeducation services for studentswith disabilities and other specialneeds have led to differentiatedstaffing and the redefinition ofroles and duties for all teachers.These changes are particularlyapparent in the duties of specialeducators. In addition to theirduties as diagnosticians of studentneeds, planners of age and abilityappropriate curriculum activities,facilitators of learning and asses-sors of student performance andprogress, teachers have becomefront-line managers. These newadministrative duties requireteachers to confer regularly withearly childhood, elementary andhigh school teachers and relatedservices personnel in order to planfor and coordinate efforts toeffectively include children andyouth with disabilities into generaleducation. In addition, teachersfrequently serve as the primaryliaisons between the school andhome in order to involve parentsin all aspects of their child’seducation.

An added dimension to themanagement functions of teachersare their responsibilities fordirecting and integratingparaeducators into the servicedelivery team, providing on-the-job coaching to paraeducators andassessing their performance(French & Pickett, 1995; Pickett,Vasa & Steckelberg; 1993;Putnam, 1993).

The move toward differenti-ated staffing across program linesin various education settings hashad a profound impact on thenature and complexity of the rolesof paraeducators (French &Pickett, 1995; Passaro, Pickett,Latham and HongBo, 1994;Pickett, 1994; Hofmeister, 1993).Paraeducators increasingly areexpected to work at higher levelsof independence and to activelyparticipate in the delivery ofeducation and related services. Ininclusive classrooms and transi-tional programs serving childrenand youth with disabilities, underthe direction of either a specialeducation or general educationteacher, paraeducators: instructindividual and small groups ofstudents; assist with functionalassessment activities; administerand score standardized tests;collect and record data aboutstudent performance and behavior;and provide information aboutcommunity resources and servicesto parents (Passaro, Pickett,Latham, & HongBo, 1994;Pickett, Faison Formanek, 1993;Snodgrass, 1992).

While all of the issues de-scribed above affect paraeducatorsemployed in all general, specialand compensatory educationprograms, there is one concernthat is unique to paraeducatorsemployed to facilitate the inclu-sion of children and youth with



19


disabilities into general education.It is the practice of assigning aparaeducator to work one-to-onewith an individual student who hasa disability This practice, createdin the early 1980s during theinitial stages of the movement tounify general and special educa-tion, inhibits rather than fosteringinteraction between students withand without disabilities, andincreases reliance on an adult(s)rather than helping the studentachieve independence. Informalinterviews with teachers andparaeducators and observations inclassrooms conducted by theauthor of this article have identi-fied the need to reassess thisapproach. These interviews andobservations seem to indicate thatassigning paraeducators to theclass/program rather than directlyto the student makes the programmore flexible, helps to insure thatthe teacher spends more time withthe student with disabilities,enables the team to provideindividualized assistance to otherstudents who can benefit from it,and removes barriers that mayexist between students because ofthe constant presence of an adult(the paraeducator) (Pickett, 1996).

Issues connected with theemployment, assignment, prepara-tion and management ofparaeducators are for the most partafterthoughts in the public policyarena. Despite increased utiliza-tion of paraeducators and in-creased emphasis on theinstructional nature of their rolesand responsibilities, few State

Departments of Education, andlocal education agencies areworking together to 1) developskill and knowledge standards thatrecognize the evaluation in theroles of paraeducators; 2) setstandards for competency-basedtraining and career developmentfor paraeducators; and 3) establishcomprehensive systems of profes-sional development forparaeducators that include on-the-job coaching, in-service trainingand access to post-secondaryeducation for paraeducatorsinterested in becoming teachers(Pickett, 1996b).

Further compounding thecurrent situation is the fact thatteachers are not prepared at eitherthe undergraduate or graduatelevel to direct the work ofparaeducators and, therefore, inmost districts management andassessment procedures andstandards are informal, or in fartoo many cases, non-existent(French & Pickett, 1995; Pickett,Vasa & Steckelberg, 1993).

To address all of these issues,State Departments of Education,local education agencies, facultyin two and four year personnelpreparation programs, unions andparents need to join forces for thepurpose of finding more effectiveways of tapping the resources ofparaeducators in differentiatedstaffing arrangements, as well assetting standards for their employ-ment, preparation and supervisionand establishing infrastructuresthat will assure the availability of

opportunities for professionaldevelopment.

References

French, N.K. & Pickett, A.L.(1995). THE UTILIZATION OFPARAPROFESSIONALS INSPECIAL EDUCATION: ISSUESFOR TEACHER EDUCATORS.Position paper prepared for theTeacher Education Division of theCouncil for Exceptional Children.

Gartner, A. (1971).PARPAPROFESSIONALS ANDTHEIR PERFORMANCE: ASURVEY OF EDUCATION,HEALTH AND SOCIAL SER-VICES PROGRAMS. New York:Praeger Publishing

Hofmeister, A. Paraprofes-sionals in special education:Alternatives to casteism. UTAHSPECIAL EDUCATION, 14 (3),1993

Passaro, P, Pickett, A.L.,Latham, G & HongBo, W. Thetraining and support needs ofparaprofessionals in rural specialeducation settings. RURALSPECIAL EDUCATION QUAR-TERLY 13 (4) Fall, 1994.

Pickett, A.L. (1996). ASTATE OF THE ART REPORTON PARAEDUCATORS INEDUCATION AND RELATEDSERVICES. New York: National



20

Resource Center for Paraprofes-sionals in Education and RelatedServices, Center for AdvancedStudy in Education, The GraduateSchool & University Center, CityUniversity of New York.

Pickett, A.L. Paraeducators ininclusive education programs; Theneed for performance, professionaldevelopment and managementstandards. IMPACT ON IN-STRUCTIONAL IMPROVE-MENT - 25(1) Winter, 1996.

Pickett, A.L. (1989). RE-STRUCTURING THESCHOOLS: THE ROLE OFPARAPROFESSIONALS.Washington, D.C. NationalGovernors Association.

Pickett, A.L. (1994). PARA-PROFESSIONALS IN THEEDUCATION WORKFORCE.Washington DC: National Educa-tion Association

Pickett, A.L., Vasa, S.F &Steckelberg, A.L. (1993). USINGPARAEDUCATORS EFFEC-TIVELY. Fastback #358,Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta KappaFoundation.

Putnam, J.W (1993). COOP-ERATIVE LEARNING &STRATEGIES FOR INCLU-SION: CELEBRATING DIVER-SITY IN THE CLASSROOM.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes,Publisher.

Rubin, P & Long, R.M. Whois teaching our children? Implica-

tions of the use of aides inChapter I. ERS SPECTRUM.Education Research Service.Spring, 28-34, 1994.

Snodgrass, A.S. (1991).ACTUAL AND PREFERREDPRACTICES OF EMPLOY-MENT PLACEMENT, SUPER-VISION AND EVALUATIONOF TEACHER AIDES INIDAHO SCHOOL DISTRICTS.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Idaho, Moscow.

CITATION: Pickett, A. L.(1996, September). Factors thatinfluence the performance,development, and supervision ofparaeducators in inclusive class-rooms. TASH NEWSLETTER,22(9), 7-8.

SOURCE: GTE INS Severenewsgroup posting on IndianaSECN 11/5/96.



People with Disabili-ties: Federal ProgramsCould Work Together MoreEfficiently to Promote Em-ployment — Released in Sep-tember 1996, this report is theresponse of the United StatesGeneral Accounting Office (GAO)to a request for a study from theHonorable Harris W. Fawell(Chairman, Subcommittee onEmployer-Employee Relations,Committee on Economic andEducational Opportunities, U.S.

House of Representatives). Thefollowing excerpts present textfrom the cover letter to theChairman; background informa-tion on the issues identified; andthe results of the study in brief.

The term “we” in the follow-ing refers to personnel at the GAOwho performed the study.

Over the past decade in theUnited States, attitudes aboutpeople with disabilities havechanged significantly. A growthin public awareness of the capa-bilities of people with disabilities,a new emphasis on their inclusionin society, and a movementtoward strategies promoting theireconomic self-sufficiency reflectthis changed view. These changesin attitudes have influencedseveral recent major legislativeinitiatives: the Supported Em-ployment program in 1986, theAmericans with Disabilities Act(ADA) in 1990, and the amend-ments to the Rehabilitation Act.Although these initiatives aredesigned to help promote theemployment of people withdisabilities, they have not repre-sented a substantial overhaul ofU.S. disability policy. Instead, asexperts have noted, they haveadded to or expanded an alreadyexisting program structure, partsof which have been in place formany decades.

Because these legislative


21



initiatives have raised concernsabout the ability of federal pro-grams that target people withdisabilities to work together, youasked us to examine and describethese programs, emphasizing thosethat relate to employment. Spe-cifically, we focused on thefollowing questions:

1. Which federal programstarget people with disabilities, andhow many of these programsprovide employment relatedservices?

2. To what extent are informa-tion, eligibility, and servicescoordinated under these pro-grams?

3. What does availableevidence suggest about theeffectiveness of federal programsin promoting employment amongpeople with disabilities? (p. 1)

To accomplish these objec-tives, we integrated evidence fromthe literature, from analyses of themost current available databases,and from interviews with consum-ers and public and private organi-zations. We identified the rangeof federal programs, their fundinglevels, and the services theyprovide through a review offederal statutes and regulations,consultations with agency offi-cials, and information from avariety of sources — agencyreports, budget documents, theCatalog of Federal DomesticAssistance, the most currentexpenditure data (fiscal year 1994)

available from the ConsolidatedFederal Funds Report, and ourprevious reports. Using theeconomics and social scienceliterature, combined with evidencefrom available databases, includ-ing the 1990 census and the 1993National Health Interview Survey,for example, we identified charac-teristics of the population ofpeople with disabilities andgathered information on employ-ment barriers posed by theirspecial needs. However, we didnot independently verify data thatwe received from public or privatedatabases. We also intervieweddisability experts, consumers,service providers, and publicofficials at the federal, state, andlocal levels to help determine howfederal programs address thesebarriers to employment. Our workwas completed between April1995 and July 1996 in accordancewith generally accepted govern-ment auditing standards (pp. 1-2).

BACKGROUND

In the last ten years, theCongress has expanded federalefforts to promote employment forpeople with more severe disabili-ties by creating new programs,expanding existing programs, andproviding employment protec-tions. In the past, social attitudestoward people with mental retar-dation or psychiatric conditionsoften labeled them as unemploy-able outside of institutions orsheltered workshops and thusunable to benefit from job trainingor vocational rehabilitation.

However, recent advances inassistive technology, particularlyin computers, have made manypersonal limitations less prohibi-tive barriers to work. Voicerecognition software, for example,allows those who do not have useof their hands to produce docu-ments on a computer. In addition,the development of supportedemployment, in which ongoingon-the-job support is provided topeople with disabilities through ajob coach, has demonstrated thatmany people previously consid-ered unemployable could workalongside people without disabili-ties. In response to these develop-ments, the Congress has creatednew programs to promote theincreased use of assistive technol-ogy and to provide states withfunding specifically designated forsupported employment. In addi-tion, the Congress has amendedthe Rehabilitation Act tostrengthen the requirement thatstates serve individuals withsevere disabilities (p. 4).

In 1990, the Congress pro-vided educational and employ-ment protections to people withdisabilities. For example, ADAprohibited employment discrimi-nation on the basis of disability bystate and local governments andmany private sector employers, aslong as the person was qualifiedand able to perform the essentialjob functions “with or without


22

reasonable accommodation.”Similarly, in the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act(IDEA), the Congress mandatedthat all children with disabilitiesbe provided a “free, appropriatepublic education,” and courtsinterpreting the law have requiredthat this education be provided inthe “least restrictive environment.”This provision emphasized a clearpresumption that children withdisabilities should bemainstreamed — that is, taught inregular classrooms when possible(p. 4).

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The federal government fundsa broad range of services to assistthe millions of people withdisabilities. This effort is diffuse,however, with federal assistanceprovided through 130 programs in19 federal agencies. For many ofthese programs, service deliveryfilters down to numerous publicand private agencies at the stateand local level. In fiscal year1994, the federal governmentspent over $60 billion on 60programs targeted exclusively topeople with disabilities. Inaddition, people with disabilitiesbenefited from between $81billion and $184 billion in spend-ing through 61 partially targetedprograms. These partially targetedprograms gave special consider-ation to people with disabilities,even though they serve a muchbroader clientele (p. 2).

The majority of federal continued on page 23


expenditures were associated withincome maintenance and healthcare programs. In 1994, programsthat focused specifically onemployment assistance constituteda relatively small proportion of alldisability programs (26 of 130)and received a relatively smallproportion of total federal fundingfor such programs (from 2.5 to 4percent). A larger number ofprograms and a greater share offederal dollars, however, weredevoted to programs that provideemployment-related services suchas transportation, accessiblehousing, and independent livingservices (pp. 2-3)

Our review suggests thatprograms helping people withdisabilities do not work togetheras efficiently as they could toshare information about theirprograms and overcome obstaclesposed by differing eligibilitycriteria and numerous serviceproviders. Because people withdisabilities often face multiplebarriers to employment, includinginsufficient job training, lack oftransportation, and employerdiscrimination, they may requireservices from more than oneprogram to make employmentfeasible. However, each programhas its own eligibility require-ments and applicants must oftenestablish eligibility separatelybecause no effective mechanismexists to promote or ensurecoordination. Similarly, becauseservices are often not coordinatedamong programs, people withdisabilities may receive duplicate

services or face service gaps(p. 3).

Although the general lack ofcoordination suggests that pro-gram efficiency could be im-proved, scant evidence exists forevaluating the effectiveness ofthese programs, either individu-ally or collectively. Despite thesize of the federal commitment,few programs are required togather the outcome data necessaryfor reliable program evaluation.Many of the 26 employment-focused programs that we identi-fied have had little or not formalevaluation in recent years. Thedifficulties associated withcomparing data from differentprograms also hinder evaluationefforts. In many instances,service providers track differentconsumer information, usedifferent eligibility criteria, andhave different rules on confidenti-ality. Therefore, without improv-ing coordination, imposingrequirements on data collectionmay not necessarily facilitateevaluation (p. 3).

Past federal efforts to reorga-nize and restructure servicedelivery have succeeded onlymarginally, compared with moremodest, local initiatives. Federalagencies have an opportunity tolearn from some recent state andlocal efforts to improve thecoordination of programs helping


23


people with disabilities. Somestate and local programs reportedimproved service delivery, alongwith reduced program costs, thusproviding resources that could beredirected toward improvingservices or evaluating programperformance (p. 3).

CONTACT: United StatesGeneral Accounting Office.Washington D.C. 20548.

CITATION: Joyner, C.(1996, September). PEOPLEWITH DISABILITIES: FED-ERAL WORK TOGETHER

MORE EFFICIENTLY TOPROMOTE EMPLOYMENT.Washington, DC: United StatesGeneral Accounting Office.

SOURCE: GTE INS Ed.Personnel newsgroup posting onIndiana SECN 10/29/96. ❒

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Memorandum — To:Individuals, Groups, State Agen-cies, and Organizations Interestedin the Development of the Strate-gic Plan and the State Plan for theVocational Rehabilitation ServicesProgram and Supported Employ-ment Services

From: Bobby L. Conner,Director, Division of Disability,Aging, and Rehabilitative Servicesand Rita Martin, Deputy Director,Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Re: State Plan DevelopmentPublic Hearings

Date: March 7, 1997

The Division of Disability,Aging, and Rehabilitative Ser-vices, Vocational RehabilitationServices invites you to providecomments and suggestions prior tothe development of the StrategicPlan and the State Plan for theVocational Rehabilitation Servicesprogram and Supported Employ-ment Services. We are asking youto share your thoughts with us aswe shape the Vocational Rehabili-

tation program activities forfederal fiscal year 1998. Topicswhich may be discussed include,in part, community based employ-ment for people with disabilities,consumer choice, transitionservices, rehabilitation technology,and outreach procedures foridentifying and serving individualswith the most severe disabilitieswho are minorities.

Five public hearings will beheld throughout the state toprovide an opportunity for com-ments. All hearing sites areaccessible and include the avail-ability of an interpreter for indi-viduals who are deaf or hard ofhearing. Attached is informationabout the dates, times, and loca-tions of the public hearings.

All comments made at thepublic hearings will be taperecorded. Preparation of com-ments in writing is not required,but would be helpful. If you areunable to attend any of the public

hearings, we invite you to forwardyour comments and suggestions inwriting directly to the CentralOffice.

Written comments affectingthe development of the State Planand Strategic Plan must be submit-ted no later than Monday, April21, 1997.

The mailing address is:Division of Disability, Aging, andRehabilitative Services, Voca-tional Rehabilitation Services, 402W. Washington Street, RoomW453, P.O. Box 7083,Indianapolis, IN 46207-7083

REGION I VALPARAISO

Date: April 9, 1997 (Wednesday)Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.Location: Valparaiso PublicLibrary, 107 E. Jefferson Street,Meeting Room A



24

REGION II MARION

Date: April 9, 1997 (Wednesday)Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.Location: Marion Public Li-brary, 600 South WashingtonStreet, Room B

REGION III INDIANAPOLIS

Date: April 11, 1997 (Friday)Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.Location: Indiana GovernmentCenter South Training Center,Room 5, 402 West WashingtonStreet

REGION IV TERRE HAUTE

Date: April 10, 1997 (Thursday)

Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.Location Vigo County PublicLibrary, 1 Library Square, LowerLevel (between Poplar and Walnuton 7th St.)

REGION V COLUMBUS

Date: April 11, 1997 (Friday)Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.Location: Bartholomew CountyPublic Library, 536 5th Street,Meeting Room 1 - Lower Level

All hearing sites are wheelchairaccessible. Interpreters for peoplewho are deaf or hard of hearingwill be provided.

Announcements • continued from page 23

RESOURCES

Input Sought on NationalTeaching Standards — The

Closing the Gap has longbeen a state-of-the-art center fortechnology for people withspecial needs.

Closing The Gap, Microcom-puter Technology for People WithSpecial Needs is now on-line.http://www.closingthegap.com

The website includes samplesfrom Closing the Gap’s ResourceDirectory, articles from thenewsletter, an online ResourceLibrary with searchable textincluding an early childhoodsection, and information aboutthe 15th Annual Conference.

Teacher Evaluation: AComprehensive Guide to NewDirections and Practices —

This book by Kenneth Petersonpresents research-based recom-mendations for changes in teacherevaluation, both formative andsummative, which are predicatedon the belief that a direct correla-tion exist between teacher evalua-tion and school reform. Theauthor and his contributingcolleagues believe that goodevaluation requires the participa-tion and control of teachers.

By focusing on the expertiseof master teachers in the process,by recognizing the varying needsof teachers at multiple stages, andby acknowledging that educa-tional practice is not confined tothe classroom, the author refo-cuses the evaluation process toinclude professional growth andactivities within and external to

National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards is seekinginput on new standards forteachers of:

* Exceptional needs* Vocational education* English as a second language

Comments received will beused to develop final standards,which are used to devise theassessments given to teachers whoapply for board certification.

For more information, callGlowena Harrison: 202/463-3980.❒

the school district.

The book also examinesissues involved in hiring, tenuredecisions, and the impact thatreforming teacher evaluation mayhave on the district’s entirepersonnel evaluation system. Italso covers teacher testing, the useof portfolios in evaluation, theidentification of appropriateobservers, tools for improvedevaluation, and the creation ofmeaningful reports to administra-tors and parents.

Published in 1995; 304 pageswith index; $35 softcover.

Contact: Corwin Press, 2455Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA91320. ❒


25

What Do We Know About...Students With Disabilities And State Assessments?

* 49 states have in place, or are developing, state assessment systems

* Approximately 85% of students with disabilities are capable of participating in the generaleducation assessment, but less than 50% typically do

* Most states have written guidelines about the participation of students with disabilities in assess-ments, and about the use of accommodations, but local IEP teams may not know about theseguidelines or what they say

* Accommodations are often controversial – one state may recommend the use of an accommoda-tion that other states prohibit

* 18 states now require students to pass exams to receive diplomas; in all but 5 of these statesstudents with disabilities must pass the same exam

* Even when students with disabilities participate in state assessments, their scores may be ex-cluded from reports of student performance

* Alternative assessments for those students unable to participate in the general assessment areneeded. Currently, Kentucky and Maryland have alternative assessments in place. Texas isdeveloping one.

* Twelve federally funded research efforts are now underway to investigate how state accountabil-ity systems can include students with special needs. New projects will be funded next year.

* Accurate participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessments are difficult toobtain due to lack of information on which students participate, and how states determine whichstudents are eligible for participation. At least 30 states indicate they cannot find or identifystudents with disabilities in their states’ assessment databases.

* New federal requirements under LASA and IDEA (pending) promote higher rates of participationin assessments by students with disabilities.

The National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been studying these and othercharacteristics of state assessments since 1990. It has developed a set of criteria that identify howto maximize the participation of students with disabilities in state and district accountability systems(Synthesis Report 25) and a policy brief on alternative assessments for students with disabilities. Acomplete list of publications is available from NCEO, 350 Elliot Hall, 75 East River Road, Minne-apolis, MN 55455.

Source: CASE Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 4. January - March 1997.

Documents

ISEAS Cable - Indiana State Universitybaby.indstate.edu/iseas/4-97Cable.pdfLivovich, ICASE Executive Committee Member; Jan Rees, ICASE Treasurer; and, Gwenn Ringger, Northwest Indiana