MEMBERS PRESENT:  Patti Kem (President), Steve Wornhoff (Treasurer-June 2012), Tom Barth (NC-June 2012, Wendy Hite (Secretary-June 2014), Tom Adams (Co-Chair Governmental Affairs Committee June 2014), Tom Bell (C-June 2013),  Kathy Hensley (Chair Professional Development Committee-June 2012), Fran Wood Osborne (President-Elect 2011-12), Dave Chastain (Chair Fiscal Management Committee-June 2012), Paula Nichols (NW--June 2013), Lisa Waber (E–June 2013), Melissa Lancaster (SE--June 2014), Mary Burton (NE--June 2012), Cheryl Harshman (Past President), Angela Wannemuehler (SW Alternate June 2012) Jane Winkoff, (NW--June 2013), Lynn Gosser ( IAPSS Coalition), Joan McCormick (Co-Chair Governmental Affairs Committee June 2014),

ABSENT:  Denise Bashore (Deputy Treasurer),  Bill Dreibelbis (Chair Membership Committee--June 2012),  Saundra Lange (SW--June 2012)

OTHERS PRESENT:   Luann Purcell, CASE Executive Director, Nicole Norvell IDOE, John Hill IDOE

 

I.   APPROVALS

A. Minutes:  Patti Kem called the meeting to order and asked for a motion to approve the August 2, 2011 minutes. MOTION:  Joan McCormick moved to approve the August 2, 2011 minutes as presented. After a second by Paula Nichols, the motion was unanimously approved. One correction was made in that the IRS mileage rate is 55.5 cents per mile, not the 52 cents as stated.

B. Treasurer’s Report and Claim Docket – Steve Wornhoff presented the ICASE Statement of Cash as of 8-31-11 showing a balance of $272,888.91. The docket of expenses for August was listed. Roundtable balances haven't changed since last month.  The ICASE statement of cash includes income from registration for the Fall 2011 conference but bills haven't been paid yet.  A copy of the 2010-11 budget report and the 2011-12 ICASE budget will be available at the ICASE business meeting for everyone to view.  This is the second year that ICASE has had a nice profit. The cost of conferences hasn't been lowered immediately because three years ago ICASE lost revenue. The registration fee was adjusted for this conference for members who had more than one attendee from the same cooperative. We budgeted very conservatively.  Joan McCormick stressed that attendance may be down in the next year because of the financial climate.  Attendees have been concerned that conferences have been heavily focused on IDOE presentations, but this is currently a primary vehicle to obtain information.  Tom Adams suggested Luann Purcell talk with Patti Kem and Steve Wornhoff regarding the various fee structures.  The tax form has been completed and submitted to the IRS. This is our year to do an informal audit. Steve Wornhoff talked to Dave Chastain, and he is arranging for someone to review the records with him.  This will occur during the Fall ICASE conference. 

MOTION: Tom Barth  moved to approve the docket of expenses as presented. After a second by Cheryl Harshman, the motion was unanimously approved.

Patti Kem received an email from Courtney Cabrera from IDOE. She is inviting ICASE to be participants in a discussion about teacher evaluations for special education teachers.  Margie Labelle, Pam Wright, and Liza Bates are interested in participating in this. Oct. 6th at 12:00 pm is the potential date to meet at IDOE.   Let Patti know if you want another person involved. Angie Balsley from Bremen is involved in the statewide pilot, and she is interested.                 

II.   IDOE REPORT – Nicole Norvell

Indiana IEP---The Indiana Department of Education thought they were being transparent and prepared in how they were addressing issues, but Nicole Norvell stated that it is clear they haven't been. Every Friday Anne Davis, Nicole Norvell and representatives from the IT dept. meet with PCG. They bring a list of all the messages they've received on the message board that week to discern what the issues are. They are trying to discern if it's a user error or a system error. When they see system errors, they identify what is the highest priority and give to the programmers to work on the problem.  PCG notifies Nicole about the errors, she approves, then it goes to their programmers to adjust. Sometimes what IDOE thought was a priority is different than what the teachers think is a priority.  For messages sent to the message board they want the district administrators to answer the questions first and then disseminate that information to teachers. The teachers can blame Nicole for the long response time because they want the district administrator questions addressed first. In one week they had 6500 messages, so they had to devise a way to prioritize the questions. Nicole met with PCG this week so district administrators can have the ability to deactivate events in documents.  The old system identified a mechanism for an event to go away.  There was not a system of checks and balances that was occurring.  IDOE needs to insure they are monitoring what is being deleted.  PCG is more sophisticated in that they can generate a report as to what has been deleted and by whom. In IIEP it's not ever gone, but the district administrators can see it. The teacher and other users can't see it. IDOE didn't want to put districts in the position of vulnerability where teachers were deleting events. The only documentation that legal affairs would have would be what events were in the system. However, if the school had other supporting evidence, they would consider that in their determination.  Nicole would like directors to devise whatever system they are going to have at the local level to determine what events are going to be deleted and how to control that documentation.  Some districts have given district administrator rights to IT people. Nicole wanted to make sure we thought through those decisions due to the responsibilities and user rights involved with the different levels of access. There is not a way to delineate who can delete events among the district administrators.  District administrators will have the ability to delete events in a few weeks.  If local districts aren't compliant, IDOE is also not compliant. IDOE wants us to be compliant.  Nicole has met with Jill Slavin from IPS since they have the largest number of users and students.  The first step was the survey to get a handle of what the issues were.  Tom Bell recommended a cross section of users across the state to form a committee to work through these issues.  Wendy Hite asked where Matt Johnson, Jolly Piersall, and  Alisa Stovall were at with this project since they are very knowledgeable in IEP requirements.  Nicole stated that they are involved in these meetings every Friday too. It is okay to email Matt Johnson, Jolly Piersall, and Alisa Stovall to get your questions answered.  Anne Davis and Nicole Norvell read the comments on the Learning Connection every day. They are not going to address these questions individually because once they do, then they will have to address all of the questions.

Patti Kem asked for the proper mechanism to communicate with individuals since the Learning Connection forum has a large volume of questions that it gets overwhelming. Kathy Hensley stressed the importance of notifying people that IDOE will not respond to their questions on Learning Connection since this has been the historical practice with LC.  Kathy Hensley asked if there is any idea of when they will be receiving responses from the message board. Nicole discusses this with PCG every Friday, and it is difficult to get a handle on this because some people get responses quickly and others don't get a response for weeks.  Jane Winkoff asked if we could receive notification when bugs are worked out so we can notify our staff.  Nicole stated that one difficulty is that there are multiple places to gather information.  They are working on developing a mechanism so people know where to go to get information.  IDOE wasn't prepared enough in the beginning because they were crossing lots of lines in this project with IT, Real Time, etc.  Paula Nichols discussed the difficulties with the cooperative structure because there are 6 different RT people to deal with. Directors have to deal with so many different areas.  Being a member of all the different Learning Connection communities is overwhelming because there are so many to monitor.  IDOE is working on this problem.  Having a linear reminder from Anne Davis of what directors have to do is extremely helpful. Examples: time and effort, grant reports, etc. Tom Bell stressed that this committee needs to happen sooner than later.  Getting names to Nicole would be helpful.  Having someone from each roundtable would be helpful as there would be 7 representatives.   

Nicole stated that IDOE has moved to lots of vendors performing job functions.  Sometimes you get to choose which vendor does the job and sometimes you don't.  Patti Kem stressed that our local STN people are very confused as well.  It was never explained to the group why IIEP was connected to Real Time.  The reason the connection was made was because in the old system when a student moved, you could go in and grab the IEP's. Nicole stated when they started to devise the system, legal affairs stated that this was a huge FERPA violation. You could not in good faith devise this system to be like the old.

The reason for the connection to Real Time was that when the student moved, the STN person goes into claim the person. Thus, there is a legitimate purpose for transferring the student.  It is connected to Real Time because of FERPA. The IDOE was remiss in communicating this information to stakeholders.  Real Time is submitted on Wednesdays, but it can be submitted more than once.  There is lots of misunderstanding regarding this. Karla Carr is the STN person at IDOE.  Mary Burton said there are so many people's hands in the pot.  When a teacher does something incorrectly, it may be the third person down the line that did or didn't do something for the error to occur. All of these groups in the state do not understand the urgency and immediacy of this concern with time lines for IEP's.  The various departments are not communicating with one another. Nicole stated that the IEP program cannot be taken out of the Learning Connection. This was a decision that was made above the IDOE Special Ed Department.  The STN department was very involved in this process from the beginning.  When the system began, they had to get the students to land somewhere.  The easiest way to do that was to take where they had been in ISTART7 and match that to the last Real Time submission in June of 2011.  Part of the problem with the non-public school students is that the IEP needs to land in the school. You have to claim them on RT in order to land in your site. They are not counting against you for AYP, etc.  That mechanism is in place in RT.  What about the voucher students?  Nicole doesn't know about this situation yet.  Tom Bell asked if there are any time lines for these solutions? Communication is the biggest issue.  Right now we are all hanging out there.  We don't have past records, etc.  When will some of this be fixed?  We need to hear some answers on the plan and vision.  Nicole will communicate this information (regarding RT/STN, preschoolers, non pubs, etc.) to the superintendent's list serve.  If there are pieces that are not compliant with Article 7 in IIEP, notify Nicole Norvell.  Cheryl Harshman stated if she could outline each component for us that there are issues on and the status of that piece it would be extremely helpful.  There is no intention from IDOE to pull data from the school for Dec. 1 count.  They will harvest the data for the April 1 count and compare to the DOE-SE.  They will always have to have another system for reporting because IDOE doesn't mandate that IIEP be used. 

The biggest Indicator to focus on is Indicator 13.  They don't do the data pull until the end of the school year for Indicator 13.  That indicator is about the content of what has been written, not simply the compliance time lines.  The DOE-EV and the DOE-TR will still be reported the same way as in the past for the present time. 

90 Minute Reading Block--The IEP trumps the 90 minute block. IDOE wants us to be thoughtful about case conference decisions.  If the student can be involved in the general education classroom for the 90 minute block that is preferred.  If they need pulled out of that service, then provide what the child needs. There is a big lag time from when IEP's were written and when the 90 minute block was implemented.  The 90 minute special education instruction has affected LRE if you are saying that the student will be getting special ed instruction for 90 minutes outside of the general education  classroom.  The I-READ document had errors in it, which is what led to much confusion regarding service delivery.  It is also about what you are defining direct service and direct instruction is.  We all define services differently across the state.  The document has been pulled down from the IDOE website. When the IDOE puts out FAQ's, it is because they've received several questions surrounding many issues.  This is not official guidance.  The intention for 3rd graders was that being in special education doesn't save you from retention.  Are these students getting the other intended interventions that other students are getting?  We don't want our numbers to increase simply to avoid retention decisions.  Jane Winkoff asked when the new document will be disseminated. Nicole didn’t know when it would be available.  We have to be practical when consideration of pulling students during the 90 minute block for services, evaluations, etc.  The retention discussion needs to be documented in IEP's.  Fran Wood Osborne stressed the importance of superintendents also receiving this information  Nicole stated she would request that information be sent to SAMS and PAMS as well.  Joan McCormick suggested doing some presentations at ISBA and IAPSS regarding some of these areas as a joint venture with ICASE and IDOE.  Nicole said if there is something on the Friday update that would be good for superintendents and principals to know, email her about getting that information to them. Tom Barth stated that the crux of the confusion among issues revolve around communication with stakeholders. 

To Do:  Get Patti Kem a name from your roundtable for this committee by Friday.

Parent Surveys--- John Hill emailed West Ed yesterday regarding a status update.   The intent is that the results be disseminated in the spring.  Last year's survey data will be posted on the new IDOE web page when it goes live in a couple of weeks. 

ICASE would like to be represented regarding discussion with the different types of diplomas, the waivers, etc.  This issue is on Dr. Bennett's radar.  Joan McCormick asked if there is any relationship regarding students who have taken IMAST and then if they have passed the end of course assessments?  There isn't a great deal of data on that yet since IMAST hasn't been around long enough.

Indicator 13--OSEP has posted notification that Indiana is at Meets Requirements for the first time in many years. OSEP has put out a requirement that if you are not at 95% for Indicator 13, you cannot be at Meets Requirements.  There are 36 data points to check on each IEP.  Meeting Indicator 13 is focused on outcomes, and not on paper compliance.  For the present time, that is the requirement.  Last year there were 120 districts who did not meet compliance.  West Ed wasn't the vendor this year. Teresa Grossi's group from the Indiana Resource Center did the evaluation. Of those 120 that were pulled, only 2 were correct. They want to get as many districts the opportunity to correct as possible.  Nov. 9th is the deadline for this.  They did another data pull and 216 districts were out of compliance. They will be notified on Monday, Oct. 3 if they are out of compliance.  Meets Requirements doesn't mean that you didn't have a finding.  In 2008 OSEP issued a letter to all states that indicated what states have to do to correct noncompliance.  There are 2 prongs of correction.  Prong 1 is that anytime you have an individual case, you have to correct it.  Prong 2 of correction states that Indiana has to go in and insure that the systemic issue that lead to the noncompliance is corrected.  For all indicators, IDOE has to verify both prongs of correction.  OSEP will be in Indiana in 2013 for the on site review. There are common errors that will be shared with directors.  They are working on a statewide plan to address technical assistance in transition.

Maintenance of Effort Requirements--If an LEA doesn't make MOE, they have to use state/local funds to pay back OSEP.  Luann Purcell stated that NASDSE, CEC, and CASE are all looking at this.  CASE partnered with AASA to do a survey regarding MOE.  It comes up every time IDEA is reauthorized.   We don’t want to make a hasty decision regarding MOE.  There was a letter to Bill East that stated if you missed MOE that you had to re-pay it, but then the bar re-sets at the lower amount.  Until OSEP retracts that guidance, that is what we have.  There are advocacy groups that have written very scathing letters regarding this. Theoretically you could miss MOE for 10 years and then have nothing for special education.  Where you are seeing it right now is where states have made significant changes where benefits are being paid to teachers. CASE is looking at expansions to the exceptions.  You are not changing the programming, FAPE is still being met, it's just a matter of the way funding is being done.  Charters have the same MOE requirements.                                        

III.  EXECUTIVE STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

A. Governmental Affairs – Tom Adams and Joan McCormick  Co-Chairpersons 2011-2014, (RT Members, President-elect, Past President)

1. Governmental Affairs Committee Information Collection and Decision-making Process.

They met with Dennis Brooks and had a productive meeting.  The short session this year will be very short, very focused. We may want to compile some committees to discuss the legislative fall out. Example, retention of 3rd graders, etc.  Joan stressed that it is important to acknowledge that ICASE and IDOE are working together as partners.

There is an Autism Commission and there are state representatives and senators who participate on it. It was very clear that the legislators were very confused as to what was done in the last legislative session and the impact on students with disabilities.  It was reported that one of the legislators simply proposed outlawing autism. Anne Davis and Nicole Norvell spent a great deal of time explaining autism to them. They also reviewed charter schools and non-public school involvement with students with disabilities with the Autism Commission members.  The charter schools aren't monitored to the levels that other public schools are.  Every time a child from a charter or non-public schools returns to the public school, that needs to be documented.  After ADM count is a key time when students return back to the public schools, as well as December 1 count.  Data will speak volumes to our legislators IF we have that data. 

2.  Communication with and on behalf of the Membership, Roundtable Representatives, and Executive Committee--No report

3.   Process for Development of Future Platforms--No report

B. Membership Committee Report- No report

C.   Fiscal Management Committee Report- No report                                                                                                                               

D.   Professional Development Committee Report – Kathy Hensley

Fall 2011 Conference--One breakout session was added to address questions with legislative issues.  Anne Davis and Nicole Norvell will be present as well as Will Krebs.

Spring 2012 Conference--No report                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

IV.   SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

 A.        President’s Appointments – Patti Kem           

 1.  Licensing Focus Group – No report

 2.  IASP/ISHA Best Practices Task Force – No report

V.         SUPPORTING the MEMBERSHIP – Patti Kem

A. Identifying and Addressing Membership Needs

IAPSS Coalition of Organizations – Lynn Gosser--No report

B.  Improving/Facilitating Communication

1.Roundtable Topical Proposals – No report.

2.Roundtable Reports

Central--Tom Bell had to leave before the report.

East--Lisa Waber stated they will meet tomorrow for the first time.

NE-- Mary Burton requested $500 for roundtable funds for refreshments at roundtable meetings for the 2011-12 school year.  MOTION: Cheryl Harshman made the motion to approve $500 for the NE roundtable to use for refreshments for their meetings. Kathy Hensley provided a second.  The motion was unanimously approved. 

SW--Angela said they will meet tomorrow for the first time. 

Fran Osborne stated that John Helfen from Gibson Pike Warrick retired in June 2010 and asked about the process for honorary members when they retire.  When directors retire, as long as they've been a member for the last 5 years they are made an honorary member.  ICASE executive committee votes to award honorary membership.

MOTION: Fran Wood Osborne made the motion to grant honorary membership to John Helfen.   Mary Burton provided a second. The motion was unanimously approved.

SE--Melissa Lancaster stated they have met once and will meet tomorrow.

NW--Paula Nichols said their first meeting is tomorrow.

NC--Tom Barth--IIEP was discussed.

VI.    PROMOTING/ADVANCING the ORGANIZATION

A.  Examining Organizational Structure

1. Revision of Strategic Plan – No report

B.         Strengthening National Connections

1. CASE Membership/Executive Committee Updates –                                                                                                                                                                             Luann Purcell provided a brief update on CASE.  The national conference is in Williamsburg in November.  CASE Webinar information was presented.  The first 2 webinars have to do with the CASE leadership series. Lucky 21 #4 (RTI) will be mailed to you on Friday. Lucky 21 #5 (discipline) will be mailed in January.  Luann suggested at state conferences, a drawing can be held to pay for someone to attend a CASE national conference CASE has 3 conferences a year.  The conference in January will allow you to participate virtually. CASE is partnering with the University of Central Florida, and Alexa Posny will also be there. It will be in Orlando. 

You can obtain CASE membership online. Joan McCormick asked if there are states that do multiple memberships? There are several states that are part of the umbrella organization where they join the big organization, CEC, CASE, GCASE, and GALE, etc. There are 7 states that have an executive director paid position.   

C.    Promoting State Partnerships – Patti Kem

1.      Liaisons - Members Designated by the President

a.  ASK----No report

2. Appointees – Selected by Other Organizations

a.  DOE/OELD Advisory Board--No report

b.  State Advisory Council--No report                      

VII.   OTHER BUSINESS  

MOTION:  A motion to adjourn was made by Cheryl Harshman.  Kathy Hensley provided the second. The motion was unanimously approved. 

VIII.       NEXT MEETING:    October 13, 2011, Hamilton Boone Madison 10:00 a.m.