SPX Client - CASE

In CASE Volume 49, Number 5 • March–April 2008 President’s Pen

Inside

Disproportionality

In CASE

Dr. Christy Chambers

Policy & Legislation. . . . . . . . . 2 Legal Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Oh Canada! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Global Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . 10 Just In CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

E The Newsletter for the

Council of Administrators of Special Education

Recently I was asked to forecast legal implications of IDEA from a Special Education Director’s perspective. This is an interesting question because we are beginning to develop our work groups to prepare for the next reauthorization of IDEA and yet most states are just implementing new state regulations to comply with IDEA 2004. And, some states do not have final regulations at this time. With that in mind, there are some areas that have risen to the top of the heap because of current and potential legal implications.

I’d like to present my forecast and invite you reply with your thoughts at the conclusion.

Starting with disproportionality, we already have financial implications and I forecast increasing legal implications. Congress has repeatedly stated that current statistics demonstrate disproportional representation of minorities in special education and therefore the belief that the appropriate children are not necessarily being served with federal entitlement dollars is having a negative impact on our efforts to achieve full funding.

And, student by student, if we are not mak-

ing eligibility decisions using bias-free and discrimination-free measures, we can reasonably expect increased challenges to IEP eligibility and services.

Other areas with potential legal implications include- challenges of effectivenesswhat works, delays in processing eligibility referrals to implement responsiveness to interventions processes, methodology claims due to failure to use methodology that is evidence-based and resulting in achievement gains, disagreement what are scientific, research-based practices, and of course achievement gaps and over and under representation of minority groups.

What do you see having legal implications in the field of special education as you gaze into your crystal ball? Won’t you take a moment to share your insights? Please contact me at cchambers@sedom.org and I will be happy to share your thoughts in the next newsletter.

Dr. Chambers is the Superintendent of the Special Education District of McHenry County in Northern Illinois and the current president of CASE, Inc.

A Division of the

Awareness, Advocacy, and Action!

6th Annual CASE Educational Leadership Seminar July 13-16, 2008 The CASE Newsletter is published bimonthly by the Council of Administrators of Special Education and Editor Luann L. Purcell, Executive Director, 1005 State University Drive, Fort Valley, GA 31030.

Subscription rate is free to members of CASE. Postmaster: Send address changes to The Council for Exceptional Children, Suite 300, 1110 North Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201-5704.

LOOK WHAT YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING… What a welcoming group of leaders. I felt this experience was invaluable.

Carol Scanlan, Director of Special Education, PA This year, as in the previous conferences held, The CASE July Education Leadership Conference was superbly organized, strategically relevant and timely on special education issues, great for networking and included special education information to support “credible” advocacy for visits to Capitol Hill-what could be better than these qualities for professional development learning, participation and outreach at a national level?

Carla B. Jentz, Executive Director, The Massachusetts Administrators for Special Education (ASE)

Don’t miss out on YOUR chance to be a part of this practical application of advocacy and professional development!

See insert for more information and REGISTRATION FORM.

In CASE

Special Legislative Analysis To CASE

What’s Happening in Washington?

Myrna Mandlawitz While it seems pretty quiet in Washington, the reality is that there are a number of critical issues under discussion that could impact the education of student with disabilities. Among those issues are the possible implementation of the proposed Medicaid rules, the ADA Restoration Act, and the regular appropriations process. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as NCLB) is still officially on the table, but it is beginning to appear less likely that anything will happen this year.

Budget & Appropriations For several years now, Congress has been unable to reach an agreement on a budget resolution.

However, this year it looks like they will move forward shortly to a conference committee. The House and Senate budget resolutions differ basically by only $3.6 billion, and both versions are significantly higher than the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09).

Once the budget resolution is completed, the Appropriations Committees can move forward. House hearings are already underway to provide information on the needs in the various sectors of domestic spending (education, health, human services, environment, etc.). The appropriators will move forward toward passing bills in both chambers, but it is unlikely that all of the appropriations bills will reach the President’s desk. Since the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill is always contentious, this bill will probably be carried over for action into the next Congress.

Medicaid Rules The moratorium on implementation of Medicaid rules that impact school districts expires on June 30, 2008. In mid-March, Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Tim Murphy (R-PA) introduced H.R. 5613, Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008, which would place a moratorium on seven proposed Medicaid rules until March 2009. CASE, along with over a thousand individual school districts and organizations, has signed on to a letter supporting this effort. Hearings were held in early April, as well, to continue to educate members of Congress on the serious negative impact of these rules, if implemented, on education and health care for our most vulnerable populations.

ADA Restoration Act ADA Restoration Act of 2007 was introduced in the House and Senate in July 2007. Senators Harkin (D-IA) and Specter (R-PA) are the sponsors of S. 1881, and Representatives Hoyer (D-MD) and Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced H.R. 3195. Both bills have been referred to committees of jurisdiction.

Supporters of the bills assert that several recent Supreme Court cases have significantly changed the original intent of and coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act. With a change in

the definition of “disability,” individuals who have epilepsy, diabetes, and intellectual and developmental disabilities, among others, may no longer qualify for protection under the Act. The particular danger for schools in the Supreme Court interpretations of the ADA is the fact that the ADA borrowed its original definition of disability from Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under which many students receive accommodations.

The business community would like to maintain the Supreme Court interpretations, which effectively deny the protections of the Act as noted above to many individuals that Congress intended to cover.

Therefore, delicate negotiations are underway to try to reach some compromise that will protect all parties. As with many of the pieces of legislation Congress is negotiating, the time frame for finalizing a bill is unclear.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said the following in the Education Week blog (March 10, 2008): “I just don’t see the Congress passing this legislation if the President is not willing to support it with the resources everyone knows are necessary… This is not the kind of environment… [where] people are going to go out and support what has become the most negative brand in America.” Rep. Buck McKeon, the ranking member of the committee, has also expressed serious doubts that a bill can be passed this year.

In lieu of legislative changes, the U.S. Department of Education has announced some policy changes that they believe will provide more flexibility to local school districts. Recently, Secretary Spellings announced “differentiated accountability.” States meeting four eligibility criteria may apply to use a different accountability model, and up to 10 states will be approved before the start of the 2008-09 school year. The Department defines “differentiated accountability” as an option that will allow states to “vary the intensity and type of interventions to match the academic reasons that lead to a school’s identification.”

In addition, the Secretary has announced that she will shortly propose administrative rules that would require all states to use the same formula to measure graduation and dropout rates under the No Child Left Behind Act. The Secretary said that schools also would be required to disaggregate the data by subgroups. The details of the plan are still under Department review.

Myrna Mandlawitz, president of MRM Associates, LLC, a legislative consulting firm in Washington, DC, represents a number of national associations as a consultant and lobbyist on a broad range of general and special education issues. She has written extensively and presented across the country on special education law and policy and previously served as the Director of Government Relations for the National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

March–April 2008

504 Myths And Realities Third In A Series Of Articles Regarding Section 504 Julie J. Weatherly

H

L EG

A reevaluation under Section 504 must be conducted every three years, just like under IDEA.

 REALITY: A “reevaluation” under Section 504 need only be conducted “periodically.” In addition, formal testing may not be required as part of an “evaluation” or “reevaluation” under Section 504. Most school districts require the review/ revision of a student’s program or plan annually.

 MYTH #10: Every student on medication needs a Section 504 Plan.

 REALITY:

If the school typically stores and administers medication to students during school hours, then there is nothing “special” about the service that would necessitate the provision of a Section 504 Plan. In addition, the medical condition for which the student takes the medication must be analyzed in terms of whether it substantially limits a major life activity within the school environment. In addition, if a student is receiving medication and begins to act out significantly or begins to suffer significant academic difficulty, the fact that a student is taking medication should immediately be considered as a factor in determining the existence of a true disability. In addition, if simple storage and administration procedures are not sufficient to ensure the receipt of medication and a special plan is needed to ensure action on the part of the school, a Section 504 Plan may be necessary. Finally, a Health Plan can very likely serve as a 504 Plan for a student.

in Section 504 Instructional Plans, a school system still may not discriminate against an “otherwise qualified” student with respect to extracurricular and other nonacademic activities and must make reasonable accommodations to such students to ensure their participation.

 MYTH #12: Since 504 Plans are required to

H HH H

 MYTH #9:

UP D L A

AT E H

As mentioned in the first two articles of this series, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) is often misunderstood in terms of its applicability and requirements. As a result, a number of “myths and realities” exist about Section 504.

This article will examine four more of these common myths, followed by a brief discussion of the applicable realities.

be so extensive, the school might as well use its IEP form as the 504 Plan form.

 REALITY: Section 504 does not require the development of an extensive “Section 504 Plan” or, for that matter, any form of written plan. However, it is prudent to document the provision of services under Section 504 and, in most cases, it is probable that Student Support/Child Study Team documentation could serve as such documentation. Though not required by the law itself, most school districts do require the development of a written plan.

Julie Weatherly is the owner of Resolutions in Special Education, Inc. in Mobile, AL, which is a consulting business designed to assist educational agencies in the avoidance of special education legal disputes. In addition, she is a founder of and attorney with The Weatherly Law Firm, LLP based in Atlanta, Georgia and is a member of the State Bars in Georgia and Alabama.

Special Thanks To Our Sponsors During The CEC Convention!

Failure Free Reading: Annual Board of Directors/Member Meeting Spectrum K12 School Solutions: CASE Night Cambium Learning: Dinner - Board of Directors Scholastic, Inc. and IAASE: CASE Showcase Session ASE: CASE Night Favors

 MYTH #11:

Accommodations needed so that a student can play football must be included on a Section 504 Plan. In fact, actual participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities must be included on the Plan.

 REALITY:

Under Section 504, “free appropriate public education” is defined as “the provision of regular or special education and related services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs” of a disabled student as adequately as the needs of non-disabled students are met.

A Section 504 Plan, therefore, addresses instructional and educational modifications and accommodations, not extracurricular and nonacademic activities, unless those activities are necessary for a student to benefit from his/her educational program. Though the issue may not be addressed

I A A S E

In CASE

A New IDEA in LEADERSHIP!

Recognizing, Using “Content” & “Process” Dennis Hooper* Leaders find it beneficial to understand the distinction between content and process. Being aware of this difference allows you to focus when you need to, yet also step back from the overall systems to evaluate what’s working, what needs improvement, and where further enhancements are possible.

The Questions Associated With “Content” And “Process” Most of us learned in an English class about the six questions that a reporter needs to answer in a thorough news story. They are: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? In any given activity, content is the “what” being addressed. In a meeting, for example, content is the current agenda item – the topic important enough to command everyone’s attention at the moment.

he just stopped the conversation to prevent those with opposing viewpoints from expressing their opinions!”

Sometimes the leader may intend to manage the process, but be pulled into the content by another meeting participant. If the leader expects this may occur, or if the leader wants to participate in the dialogue, arrangements should be made for a different person to serve as process facilitator.

Working “In” and “On” Your Systems Repeated processes are usually called “systems.” We all have systems in our personal and professional lives. We would struggle to function without systems; they provide the structure by which we make progress and keep things in order.

At work, you probably devised some of your systems. It’s likely, however, that some of your work systems existed before you were hired. Further, you may be required to comply with some systems so that your efforts fit well with those of other employees.

As your authority and responsibility grow, you spend more time on process…

The remaining five questions address process: • Why are we having this meeting?

• Who will be invited to attend the meeting?

• Where will the meeting be conducted? Where will people sit?

• When is the meeting? When (in what order) will each agenda item occur?

• How will each agenda item be introduced and handled? How long will each agenda item last?

In organizing the meeting, the leader thinks about both the content (the individual agenda items) and the process (all the other remaining considerations).

Engaging in Content or Facilitating the Process I encourage leaders to clearly choose in advance between participating in the content and facilitating the process.

Attempting to both participate in the dialogue and manage the flow of the meeting creates confusion for the other participants.

Such a leader is subject to allegations of manipulation: “Well,

As long as you are satisfied with the outcomes you are achieving, you typically execute your systems habitually, without even thinking about them.

Ah, but what if you aren’t satisfied?

What if you want something better? Then you start analyzing not only the content of what you are doing, but also the process by which you do it.

Working “in” your systems (focusing on content) is appropriate much of the time. However, little improvement will occur by working “in” your systems. Working “on” your systems will more effectively yield the progress you seek.

Sometimes I call this a difference between “heads down” work and “heads up” work. When you are intensely focused on a particular project or issue, your head is “down.” You are not aware of what others are doing around you. You are oblivious to improvements being made in technology, new laws being passed, or changes being made in the infrastructure.

Leaders do a lot of “heads up” work. You project your operations years into the future, considering alternative directions and developing a strategy to take your organization toward a desired outcome. As your authority and responsibility grow, you spend more time on process, and you look for competent individuals to focus on the content you used to handle.

Because you are an administrator of special education, you spend most of your time evaluating the processes that determine and meet the needs of individual children. Teachers serving the student and the parents of the student tend to focus more on the daily content.

Continued on page

March–April 2008

Oh Canada!

The Ontario Ministry of Education’s Research Strategy Carol Campbell Linda Nicolson The Ministry of Education is committed to developing and implementing policies, programs, and practices that are evidencebased, research-informed, and connected to our three priority goals, namely: •

high levels of student achievement;

•

reduced gaps in student achievement; and

•

increased public confidence in, and support for, public education.

The Research Strategy includes:

ample, to support the implementation of recommendations in Education for All to improve achievements for students identified as having special educational needs, the ministry has provided funding to the Council of Ontario Directors of Education for school board projects across Ontario.

Research is being used throughout this process both to inform evidence-based approaches, to monitor progress and outcomes, and to inform further developments. Evidence gathered indicates the importance of factors such as effective professional learning and collaborative working within schools and the use of a range of instructional strategies including differentiated instruction for learners’ needs, assessment for learning and assistive technology.

•

leading the ministry’s research agenda to support provincial education goals;

•

applying research and evaluation to support evidence-based policy and program decisions and practices;

•

building individual and organizational capacity to access, use and conduct research;

•

fostering research collaboration through networking and partnerships to address priority research needs;

•

communicating information about research activities and findings; and

•

contributing to the provincial, national and international body of research knowledge about educational policies, programs and practices.

Dr. Carol Campbell is the Chief Research Officer with the Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada.. She provides central leadership and focus for research and evaluation across the ministry aligned with the ministry’s strategic directions. Dr. Campbell was also seconded as a policy advisor to the English Government’s Department for Education and Skills. Her responsibilities included establishing a professional development framework for London’s teachers and developing partnership arrangements between government, districts and schools to improve student achievement.

The ministry is working collaboratively with educators, researchers and other key partners to engage each of these groups in connecting research to policy, program and practice. For ex-

Linda Nicolson is Project Lead for the Ontario Research Strategy and has been a spokesperson for Ministry of Education Communications Branch for the Ontario Government in Canada.

The ministry’s Research Strategy is moving forward thanks to the concerted activities of a whole range of individuals and groups.

Collectively, we are focused on using evidence to inform improvements for Ontario’s education system and students.

Leadership Continued from page You may occasionally find yourself explaining to those parents and teachers why certain actions are being taken (or need to be taken). Keep in mind that your perspective is likely different from theirs. Their thoughts are focused on the specific situation that exists, while you are probably considering the overall process of providing appropriate services to the child. Your task may be to expand their focus from the specific content of the current circumstances onto the longer-range process.

Summary Early in our careers, we focus on “content.” It’s the specific activities that we do on each particular day. Most of our time is

spent executing some particular aspect of the work.

As we mature in our careers, we spend more of our time considering the overall “process.” We also focus on process as we plan and lead meetings. We seek balance, ensuring that all the important focus areas will be addressed. As administrators, we have moved from executing the work to facilitating the work of other individuals.

Dennis Hooper is a leadership development coach, working with leadership teams to strengthen organizations. Send your feedback and suggestions to Dennis at dhooper2@juno.com. *Copyright 2007

In CASE

GLOBAL FOCUS

Views On The Nature Of Disproportionate Representation In Special Education Carmen J. Iannaccone Executive Director, Division of International Special Education And Services At the outset of what has been a long career as a professional educator I had the unique privilege to teach in an American urban center elementary school whose student population was virtually 100% African American. My intermediate general education class enrollment was 37 and included some six or seven students who presented sensory, intellectual and severe emotional challenges. I feel certain that each of these students would have proven eligible for special education services had IDEA existed at the time. I had a really wonderful experience overall and believe that I made lifelong contributions to each child’s development and achievement.

What really took me by surprise, however, was the wide variance in learning and behavior exhibited overall by students in my class.

It was during the early 60s that I became both concerned and intrigued by the disproportionate variance or overrepresentation of learning and behavior problems that characterized urban schools in the northeast and throughout cities across the United States. While the dedicated faculty with whom I taught met with some success in assisting and aiding students to overcome their difficulties, the trend toward disproportionate and overrepresentation of African American students requiring differential and intensive instruction and behavior management became increasingly more evident with the subsequent emergence and national mandate calling for special education as a constitutional provision in the education system of the United States.

As we know, many distinguished federal and state commissions have been formed through the years to study the underlying factors that contribute to disproportionate identification and eligibility of particular racial and culturally diverse groups requiring special education services. To date, we have yet to reverse the influences, largely socio economic, that contribute to disproportionate and overrepresented identification of children and youth with disabilities needing special education services.

Where Do We Find Disproportionate Representation In Worldwide Special Education?

Observations of policies and practices around the world give evidence and provide snap shots of the “disproportionality” phenomenon. We may also inform our understanding through comparative analysis, i.e., United States with select countries that represent world regions.

Information and descriptive case studies published by UNESCO, “First Steps: Stories on Inclusion in Early Childhood” (1997) offer an intensive examination of the inclusive education move-

ment that has been steadily evolving through the past fifteen years or so in Africa ( Bamako, Dakar, Dar es Salaam, Kigali and Libreville, Gabon ); the Arab States of the Middle East (Amman, Beirut, Cairo and Rabat); Asia and the Pacific (Beijing, New Delhi, Jakarta), Europe (Taskent, Uzbekistan), Latin America (Brazilia, Brazil; Quito, Ecuador & Santiago, Chile) and the Caribbean.

Perhaps several implications related to disproportionate representation in special education can be drawn from the international inclusion movement and UNESCO’s “First Steps.” In effect, the concept and reality of disproportionate representation in special education is dependent on the respective demography of a particular nation or region. That is, a nation or region’s demography, including its ethnic and cultural homogeneity or heterogeneity, serves to determine proportionate or disproportionate percentages with respect to variables and conditions such as socio economic status, levels of educational attainment, access to appropriate education, rates of literacy, health care, employment, access to justice and court systems, gender, and so on.

Undoubtedly, demographics vary from nation to nation and, in turn, they exert varied influence on trends of disproportionality.

Disproportionate numbers of students from specific racial, cultural and gender groups designated as eligible to receive special education services in the United States have given rise to vociferous human and civil rights criticism for many years, with varied decisions and protections rendered by U.S. courts of law. However, state and local education agencies continue to be challenged legally to defend the process it employs in identifying and allocating educational programs and services for students with disabilities.

An examination of several developing world regions and nations who participated in UNESCO’s case studies and stories on inclusion in early childhood education clearly underscores the commonality that is shared in their demographics. For example, vast poverty and low standards of living are common across these regions and countries. Further, their populations are made up of diverse cultural groups along with the multitudes who have fled or migrated from other regions or countries. Parents often speak languages that differ from the native languages of their new homeland and problems related to culture and identity with parents and the ethnic community are not uncommon. Literacy rates are very low and have devastating effects on the economic, civic and social lives of these individuals and their families. Knowledge and understanding of disabilities or different types of disabilities are Continued on page

March–April 2008

Global Focus Continued from page also lacking which creates barriers to acceptance of families with children with disabilities.

While national special education policy provisions are increasingly more likely to exist, wide and effective implementation and monitoring are vulnerable at best. Resources, for example, are most often seriously limited for the development and validation of assessment instruments needed to carry out provisions intended to identify young children with disabilities who, along with their families, would benefit from early childhood special education.

It also should be noted that educational programs for students with disabilities funded by both government and non government agencies most often focus on low incidence disabilities, e.g., physical, sensory, developmental and multiple disabilities. High incidence disabilities, e.g., learning disabilities and emotional or behavioral disabilities, more closely reflect the learning and behavioral characteristics of the general population of children and are viewed as less distinguishable.

Is Inclusion An Antidote To Disproportionate Representation In International Special Education?

sounadis and Tsambouniaris (1997), a 1993 New South Wales Australia census stated that high priority groups for funded child care were working parents, those studying or training for work or seeking employment and single parents, whose children constituted 22% of all children in the Census. Other priority groups were parents of children with disability. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) families, children from a non-English speaking background (NESB), and children referred because of risk of serious abuse or neglect. In effect, what we find through these explicit emphases or provisions for specific groups with child care needs; certainly an example of disproportionality based upon high priority groups needing child care.

The authors also noted that since World War II Australia provided a home to 4.5 million people who migrated from some 160 countries, spoke 90 languages and practiced 80 religions. To meet the challenges of a diverse population, the Australian government introduced policies on Multiculturalism at the beginning of 1980, which acknowledged the diverse multicultural nature of Australian society and the importance of maintaining and promoting this cultural and linguistic resource. Unfortunately, mainstream service providers failed to reflect or meet the needs of migrants. Their services were not equally accessible to migrants and the other “special needs groups”, namely people from a non-English speaking or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, those with disabilities and those who lived in remote isolated areas.

For the most part, it appears that inclusive education has proven to be fiscally expedient and administratively feasible for the countries participating in UNESCO’s early childhood education stories on inclusion. While it would be presumptuous to suggest that humanistic principles have not played a role in policy development, it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that most countries have adopted In 1986 (Germanos-Koutsounadis and Tsambouniaris, 1997), inclusive educational provisions largely because of the high cost of the Disabilities Services Act was introduced and Objective 5 of creating and operating dualistic and separatist systems of general the Act states: and special education. Furthermore, given the extreme poverty in many developing countries, inclusive educational programs tend Programmes and services should be designed and administered to lessen the likelihood of deepening the marginalization and segso as to meet the needs of people with disabilities who experience mentation of the population according to conditions of socioecoa “double disadvantage” as a result of their sex, ethnic origin, or nomic status or cultural and linguistic diversity.

Aboriginality. (p.3) For example, it was reported that more than 1,300,000 people with special needs inhabited Chile and approximately 1,000,000 Additionally, the needs of children with disabilities from 0-5 were living under poor conditions (Quiroz- Larraguibel, 1997). In years were to be considered within children’s services programs. response, Chilean law established provisions for public and private Funding was to be allocated through the Special Services Program mainstream education centers that incorporated innovations and curricular adaptations to enable access for individuals with special for programs designed to integrate children with disabilities into needs. It further provided for complementary education in order to these services (see Table 1). assure their “permanence and progress within sociTable 1 ety.” (p.16) As well, ChilPercentage of children attending with special needs ean legislation emphasized Parent with the need for wider coverage Service type Disability At risk NESB ATSI disability and implementation of curCommunity-based long day care 4% 1% 1% 19% 1% ricular innovation, together with coordinated interdisPrivate long day care 2% 1% 1% 15% 1% ciplinary support involving Family day care 2% 0 1% 7% 1% the health, justice and eduEmployer/non-profit centers 2% 0 0 20% 2% cation sectors.

In another report published by Germanos-Kout-

Germanos-Koutsounadis and Tsambouniaris (1997)

Continued on page

In CASE

CASE Monthly Web Research Question Results The Standards Valued by Special Education Administrators The Research Liaison is a member of CASE and appointed by the President as a voting member of its Executive Committee. The liaison has the option to appoint an Ad Hoc committee to assist with the responsibilities of the position. Recommendations from the 2005 CASE Task Force on the Design for the Future included the provision to “establish a recommended research agenda to identify … and document research based practices in special education administration.”

In January 2006 the CASE Executive Committee initiated an informal research council, which was formalized in January 2007 with operational funding as a Research Committee. The Research Committee currently consists of three local directors, two university faculty members, one state director, one local superintendent, and one Canadian representative. As one of their first assignments in 2006, committee members compiled and prioritized a list of field based questions. Beginning in January 2007, the CASE Executive Director included one of the research questions in a Survey Monkey format for monthly broadcast on the CASE listserv throughout the year. Responses from the 12 monthly questions were compiled by the CASE Webmaster and forwarded to the research liaison for analysis. Each member of the Research Committee selected the compiled results from one of the 2007 monthly questions and prepared a summary article for dissemination to the CASE membership during 2008.

The following is the analysis of results from 366 respondents for the December 2007 question. CASE members were asked to select the three (3) standards that distinguish those special education administrators who are effective in providing leadership for special education services from those who are less effective. The list of standards was as follows: 1.

Educational Vision … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by developing, articulating, implementing, and evaluating an educational vision that is shared and supported by the greater school culture.

This standard was selected by 233 members (63.7%).

2.

School Culture … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture that is shared and supported by the greater school community.

This standard was selected by 93 members (25.4%).

3.

Management … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by managing operations and resources to provide a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

This standard was selected by 105 members (28.7%).

4.

Communication and Collaboration with Communities … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by practicing open, two-way communication and using collaborative strategies that respond to diverse community interests and needs.

This standard was selected by 190 members (51.9%).

5.

Acting with Honesty, Fairness, and Professional Ethics … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by personally demonstrating and promoting honesty, fairness, and professional ethics.

This standard was selected by 168 members (45.9%).

6.

The Political, Social, Legal, Economic, and Cultural Environments … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by understanding, responding to, and influencing larger political, social, legal, economic, and cultural environments.

This standard was selected by 33 members (9.2%).

7.

Instructional Program … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by providing leadership in curriculum development, learning assessment, instructional supervision, and program evaluation conducive to student learning, staff professional growth, and district accountability.

This standard was selected by 224 members (61.2%).

8.

Policy Implementation … one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by recommending Continued on page

March–April 2008

Web Research Continued from page and implementing policy that guides district operations.

This standard was selected by 59 members (16.1%).

9.

Other: (write in option) one who guides, facilitates, and supports the success of all learners by…

Of the 15 respondents who wrote in an option to the eight standards, the following items were mentioned: classroom experience, building relationships, conflict resolution, staff training, due process proceedings, and a proactive approach.

Of the 39 respondents who chose to make additional comments, many expressed the difficulty in making a forced choice by selecting only three standards. Those commenting often added a fourth choice. In most cases, however, their additional choices ended up being one of the four top ranked standards. The one comment that “all of the defined standards should be the hallmark of special

education administrators” seemed to summarize the perception of many. Most commentators agreed that all of the standards are important, if not interconnected, and the responses may vary with the geographical settings and administrative structures in which we work.

In summary, our snapshot survey taken in December 2007 would seem to portray special education administrators who are effective leaders as those who embrace an educational vision, practice the art of communication and collaboration, exhibit professional ethics, and are insightful in the delivery of instructional programs.

Submitted by Gary D. Collings, Ed.D. gcolling@gte.net, Executive Director, Indiana Special Education Administrators’ Services (ISEAS) Project

GLOBAL FOCUS Continued from page It is interesting to note in the above table the high percentages presented under the column NESB which refers to Australian born children from non-English speaking background. Also notable are the much lower (compared with those representing NESB) and more proportionate percentages (compared with children with Disabilities and Children at risk) of children referred to as ATSI or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Although we don’t have exact census data needed to establish a valid determination of the degree to which disproportionality or overrepresentation of children is evident, it appears safe to assert that the NESB, and to a lesser extent the ATSI, groups are disproportionately represented in the percentages attending day care centers in New South Wales, Australia.

Granted, the disproportional percentages of children with special needs attending services in New South Wales Australia represented in the NESB percentages are likely the direct result of explicit multicultural policies introduced and implemented by the Australian government in 1980.

However, these policies explicitly consider the unique needs of children who present disabilities in conjunction with their familial non English speaking backgrounds and accordingly warrant greater access to special services.

A Closing View In conclusion, the phenomenon of dis-

proportionality or overrepresentation will continue to challenge world societies seeking to strengthen educational policy and practice related to social, economic and political justice. In turn, it will be a challenging responsibility for educational leaders, teachers, students, and communities to implement such policy and practice effectively. Assuredly, the process of identifying learners with disabilities, and the need for special education and services will require a renewed commitment to the development of creative approaches to understanding, resolving and/or managing factors that contribute to one group or another’s diagnosis and need for special education services. Evidence of such efforts are currently underway both in the United States and abroad with respect to responsiveness to intervention research and development.

We may very well acknowledge that the Australian case study targeting special education services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ASTI) and Non English Speaking Background (NESB) student represents a form of viable and constructive disproportionality. On the other hand, how much longer will we as a civilized world society tolerate and remain largely impotent in taking decisive action on the negative conditions of social-political and economic justice that contribute to this social-economic-political-education phenomenon?

Through acknowledgement that these

conditions reside largely outside the context of formal education, the probability of reversing increasing trends associated with disproportionate representation in special education and educational performance is more likely. By the same token, embarking on short term approaches of expedience, such as much of inclusive education and its proliferating permutations, will only give the illusionary impression of washing away or somehow neutralizing variant learning and behavior needs of children and youth with disabilities,

References Koutsounadis-Germanos, V. & Tsambouniaris, M. (1997). The ethnic child care family and community services co-operative: Inclusive early childhood education programmes in New South Wales, Australia. In UNESCO (Ed.), First steps: Stories on inclusion in early childhood, (pp.1-12).

Paris, France: UNESCO Special Needs Education Division of Basic Education.

Quiroz-Larraguibel, E. (1997). Special education needs in early childhood care and education in Junji (Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles) of Chile. In UNESCO (Ed.), First Steps: Stories on Inclusion in Early Childhood, (pp.15-21). Paris, France: UNESCO Special Needs Education Division of Basic Education UNESCO (1997). First steps: Stories on inclusion in early childhood education.

Paris, France: UNESCO Special Needs Education Division of Basic Education

In CASE

10

Just In CASE… CASE Events at the CEC CONVENTION WERE A BIG HIT! This year’s CEC conference in Boston proved to be one of the best!

The Annual combined Member/ Board of Directors meeting started off with a great breakfast, sponsored by Failure Free Reading. With over 70 in attendance, the room was filled with conversation and excitement!

During the meeting, several units were recognized for increase of 5% or higher in members for the year, for Outstanding Achievement in various areas, and as an overall Exemplary Unit. The units from the following states/provinces were given a certificate for an increase in membership of 5% or greater: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ontario, Utah, and Vermont. Congratulations on your increased membership!

In addition, two membership awards were given to the Unit with the highest percent increase and highest number of increase. Alabama CASE received the highest percent increase and IAASE (IL) received the highest number of new members.

The Unit Awards that are given based on the information provided by the units in their Annual report were announced as follows: Membership Development - Michigan CASE Professional Development - Minnesota CASE Communications - Indiana CASE Legislative - Virginia CASE Awards - Illinois CASE For each of the unit winners, the president or designee gave a brief description of what their unit did in the particular area to be given this distinction. Accepting the Membership Development Award was Laurie VanderPloeg from MAASE/Michigan. Jeff Jorgeson accepted the Professional Development award on behalf of MASE, the Minnesota CASE unit. The Communications Award went to ICASE/Indiana and was accepted by Tom Adams. Joan Anderson and Mary Lou Walls accepted the Legislative Award for VCASE/Virginia. The Illinois CASE unit, IAASE, received the Outstanding Achievement Award for their Awards program. Sue Ireland accepted the award on behalf of IAASE. The highest unit award, the Exemplary Unit Award is given to the

unit demonstrating an outstanding performance in all five of the areas.

Bonnie Kitchens accepted the 2007 Exemplary Unit Award on behalf of the Kentucky CASE Unit! Way to go KYCASE! As always, the CASE Booth was a huge hit! Special THANKS to GA CASE (G-CASE) for their contribution of the “case” to give away to those visitors to the booth who completed one of our forms. The winner of the CASE “case” was Jenny Kurzer (NC). Those CASE members who volunteered to help at the booth were: Terry Allee (MO); Jeffi Jessee (MO); Gary Collings (IN); Debbie Gay (GA); Gina Scala (PA); Bonnie Kitchens (KY); Mary Pat Publicover (NJ) ; Laura Mohr (SC); Kathy Buck (VT); Laural Jackson (AK); Lemoyen Apostle (AL); Kirk Allen (UT); Pamela Houston-Powell (ID); Debbie Smith (SC); George Wilson (MO); Phyllis Wolfram (MO); Emilie Anderson (MT); Laurie VanderPloeg (MI); Kathy Blake (CA); Tom Collins (GA); Diane Bruening (AZ); Tom Adams (IN); Liz Fleming (MA); Stephanie Davison (MO); and Carolyn Holmes (GA).

The CASE Showcase session took a surprise turn when IL Attorney, Teri Engler became ill and was unable to come to Boston. CASE President, Dr. Christy Chambers took Ms. Engler’s topic, developed it further, and did an outstanding job of presenting to the packed room of 300+ participants! Scholastic, Inc. and IAASE were the sponsors of the Showcase and were pleased with the results of Dr. Chambers’ “pinchhitting!”

CASE Night at Fenway Park was a huge success! With almost 200 persons in attendance, this was the biggest crowd for CASE Night since we reinstituted it in Baltimore 4 years ago! The Spectrum K 12 staff enjoyed handing out souvenirs as did the MA CASE Unit, ASE. The ASE chocolates shaped like lobsters were not only adorable, but great tasting! The Spectrum K12 foam hand glove helped get everyone in the mood for CASE being # 1! The food was great and the tour of the park was educational as well as fun!

Be sure you start planning now on attending the CASE activities at CEC next April 1-4, 2009 in Seattle!

CASE Calendar of Events July 13-16, 2008

6th Annual CASE Educational Leadership Seminar, Hilton Arlington Towers, Arlington, VA Contact: Luann Purcell, Executive Director, 478-825-7667, email lpurcell@bellsouth.net or web site: www.casecec.org

November 5-6, 2008—NOTE CHANGE OF DATES

CASE Board of Directors Fall Meeting, Myrtle Beach Marriott Resort and Spa at Grand Dunes Myrtle Beach, SC Contact: Luann Purcell, Executive Director, 478-825-7667, email lpurcell@bellsouth.net or web site: www.casecec.org

November 6-8, 2008—NOTE CHANGE OF DATES

19th Annual CASE Fall Conference, Myrtle Beach Marriott Resort and Spa at Grand Dunes Myrtle Beach, SC Contact: Luann Purcell, Executive Director, 478-825-7667, email lpurcell@bellsouth.net or web site: www.casecec.org

March–April 2008

11

2007 Selznick Award Winner Dr. Christy Chambers

2007 Administrator Winner Dr. Jan Schrum

Dr. Christy Chambers was nominated for Harrie M. Selznick Award, by the Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education (IAASE).

This award is the highest CASE honor.

Dr. Chambers serves as the Superintendent of the Special Education District of McHenry County (SEDOM), a special education intermediate district in Northern Illinois with a budget of $30 million that provides special education programs, services, diagnostics and professional development in 18 districts in the county. McHenry County is a growing county with a pupil enrollment of approximately 57,000 and 8,000 students with disabilities. Dr. Chambers has served in this position for five years.

Dr. Chambers has prepared graduate and undergraduate students to teach students with disabilities by serving as an instructor in educational foundations, school law and disability methods at the Northern Illinois University and St. Francis University in Joliet Illinois.

In 2000 Dr. Chambers was the recipient of the CASE Outstanding Special Education Administrator Award. In 2002 she was the recipient of the Illinois Council for Exceptional Children’s Meritorious Member Award and in 2007 she was the recipient of the Larry Vuillemot Leadership Award. This award is for career leadership and contributions to the field and is among the most prestigious awards given by the IAASE. For 33 years, Dr. Chambers has been an active member of Council for Exceptional Children and CASE. Through those years, she has served in nearly every leadership role possible, including the serving as the current President of CASE. In the summer of 2007, Dr. Chambers had the opportunity to participate in an international conference focusing on making the impossible possible through family partnerships. As a result of this experience she has brought families into the deliberative planning process for McHenry County.

This initiative is being designed with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for students and families by working together not only in school but also in the community. Families are taking the lead in the family focus work group and are participating on a steering committee with the goal of improving programs and services.

The hallmark of Dr. Chambers’ career has been her efforts to redesign special education programs and services in special education joint agreements in Illinois. As a result of her risk taking and her belief in servant leadership, the capacity of 90 schools in her current joint agreement has been increased resulting in hundreds of students now being served in their home schools. There has been a 60% reduction in the number of students with disabilities receiving their services outside of their home school which results in both the students and their families being more involved in their local schools and communities.

Dr. Jan Schrum was nominated for the CASE Outstanding Special Education Administrator award by the Georgia Council of Administrators of Special Education (G-CASE). Dr. Schrum was the 2007 recipient of the Lillie Muncus Award, the highest award presented by G-CASE. Dr. Schrum began her career as a speech language therapist in 1981 in Wayne County Georgia.

She stayed in Wayne County for 13 years before moving to Long County Georgia where she spent two years as a speech language therapist and then in 1996 became the Assistant Superintendent. In 2000 she became Director of the Costal Area Georgia learning Resource Services (GLRS) which encompasses 18 rural Georgia School Systems.

As a GLRS Director, Dr. Schrum has effectively implemented numerous projects that have had a direct impact on increasing the achievement of students with disabilities as well as at-risk and struggling general education students. She has also worked tirelessly to assure that students with disabilities are served in the least restrictive environment. Dr. Schrum has championed the cause of reducing the disproportionate number of minority students being identified for special education services.

Dr. Schrum is described as one of the most concerned, enthusiastic, and dedicated educational leaders for students with disabilities in Georgia. Her compassion for the needs of students with disabilities combined with her knowledge of educational program planning make it possible for those with whom she works to exceed in their endeavors to improve student achievement. Her words and actions always speak volumes regarding her concern for what is best for children.

CASE Award Winners

Left to Right Joan Anderson, Mary Lou Wall,(VA) VCASE- Legislative; Jeff Jorgensen (MN) MASE- Professional Development; Sue Ireland, (IL) IAASE - Awards; Laurie VanderPloeg,(MI) MAASEMembership Development; Tom Adams,(IN) ICASE- Communications; Christy Chambers, IL-Harrie N. Selznick Award; Betty Muntz and Bonnie Kitchens, KYCASE- Exemplary Award.

CASE Executive Committee 2006-2008 Dr. Christy Chambers, IL, President Steve Milliken, NE, Past President Dr. Emily Collins, GA, President Elect Gerald J. Hime, CA, Finance Committee Chair Greta Stanfield, KY, Secretary Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, MA, Journal Editor Dr. Mary Kealy, VA, Policy & Legislation Chair Vacant, Publications & Product Review Chair Nan Records, MN, Professional Development Chair Dr. Terry Allee, MO, Membership Chair Debbie Gay, GA, Unit Representative Dr. Gary Collings, IN, Research Liaison

CASE Staff Dr. Luann Purcell, Executive Director Robin Smith, Administrative Assistant

CASE, Fort Valley State University

1005 State University Drive, Fort Valley, GA 31030-4313 1-800-585-1753 Email: lpurcell@bellsouth.net Web Address: www.casecec.org

Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. Evans Building 1005 State University Dr. Fort Valley Georgia 31030 NONPROFIT US POSTAGE PAID MAIL SORT MACON 31201