| Attending: | Chigee Cloninger, Steve Contompasis, Ruth Dennis, Linda Duran, Susan Edelman, Peggy Gallant, Michael Giangreco, Liz Jordan-Shook, Patty Prelock, Anita Rogers, Betsy Strolle Gossens, Ann Wright |
| Facilitator: | Michael Giangreco |
| Recorder: | Ruth Dennis |
| Time Keeper: | Steve Contompasis |
| Snack Queen: | Patty Prelock |
Agenda:
1. Introductions
People introduced themselves. Six people who had planned to attend were unable to make the meeting for various reasons. One new attendee learned about the group's activities via the Internet.
2. Reviewed Survey Data
The survey is attached to these minutes in two forms. The data is presented on the actual survey page completed by respondents and is also presented with demographic information and in ranked lists on separate pages. See these data summaries for details. One additional response was received from an occupational therapist after the data had been compiled and organized.
3. Reviewed Survey Comments
There were a wide range of comments made by 26 of 66 respondents. Some people complained that this group is meeting in Burlington. It was clarified that this was initially begun as a local/regional activity in Chittenden County with involvement from interested persons in neighboring counties (e.g., Franklin, Addison). At our first meeting participants suggested soliciting input from a broader audience, which we did. Other comments covered a wide range of concerns such as parental struggles getting appropriate services for their children, lack of personnel in rural areas, funding of services, the need for nursing services, services for people who are deaf, summer services. Some of the comments were optimistic and support of the group's efforts while other comments were skeptical or pessimistic about the prospects of positive change. Others raised broader issues such as concerns pertaining to inequities based on socio-economic class (e.g., availability of services), particularly in more rural areas. Some people offered very specific constructive suggestions (e.g., that the CDCI of VT should have an 800 number so families could call in). Given the fact that many of the comments included information that would allow a person to be identified (e.g., the town they were from, their role), the group agreed that these comments should not be distributed with the survey responses because they could violate a person's privacy/confidentiality. The comments were very helpful in giving a sense of some people's concerns.
4. Discussion: "What Do We Think the Data Mean?"
There was not complete agreement among the group about what the data meant. One person thought the data provided no clear message. Another person thought it did, citing the high mean scores on certain items and the low standard deviations. People also pointed to the "Combined Ranking" (Urgency/Importance/Attainability) to see patterns of what people thought was important. It was mentioned that the 7 categories surveyed were those that had been identified by the larger group at the April 30 meeting and that all of the items were rated in the upper half of the scale used in the questionnaire -- this provides some level of confidence that the 66 survey respondents were generally in agreement with the work group's decisions from April 30 and the subsequent categorization of their comments. It was discussed that the exact response rate could not be calculated because some people distributed copies beyond those sent from the CDCI. It was estimated that response rate could be in the low 40% range.
There were discussions among the group members about differences across the state regarding how people interpret and deliver related services. Information was shared about the document on occupational and physical therapy that had been developed by the OT/PT task force. People also discussed the differences between having therapists employed by the schools versus working as private contractors. Ruth provided information on the "Promoting Partnerships" project as a state supported group that has been providing some training for OTs, PTs, Speech Pathologists, and Audiologists. Patty talked a bit about the role of ASHA (American Speech/Hearing/Language Association) and standards. Michael shared information about a study completed at the CDCI regarding the impact of support services for students with multiple disabilities. Linda expressed concern that related services are not always provided even though they are on the IEP and that parents and schools do not always agree about what a related service is. It was discussed that some school administrators agree to provide services that they do not necessarily believe are necessary, but that it is less expensive than going to due process. People seemed to be in agreement that there is still a significant problem regarding school personnel, related service staff, and parents having a shared understanding about related services, IEPs, inclusion, and related issues. Lack of availability continues to be a problem in some areas, particularly rural. The group discussed attempting to get state and organizational support for any activities it undertakes so that it would have wider dissemination and better credibility. It was stated that any hope of getting VT Dept. endorsement of potential documents, definitions, guidelines would be possible only if the group's work was highly consistent with state and federal laws and well as exemplary practices in the field.
5. Decisions/Next Steps
After some discussion, various proposals were put forward. Ultimately it was agreed that two committees would be established to address two of the seven issues (i.e., Common Standards and Definitions). The committees were asked to make contact with each other during the next month to establish activities. The group agreed that each group should: (1) clarify its goal/intent/direction; and (2) begin fact-finding by collecting information about their issue. This data will be compiled and shared with the larger group at the next meeting. Anyone not in attendance at the June 25 meeting who would like to be involved as a committee member should contact a committee chair person (listed below):
DEFINITIONS COMMITTEE:
Liz Jordan-Shook (Co-Chair)
Ruth Dennis (Co-Chair)
Susan Edelman
Steve Contompasis
COMMON STANDARDS COMMITTEE:
Michael Giangreco (Chair)
Betsy Strolle Gossens
Ann Wright
Patty Prelock
6. Scheduled next meeting: date, time, and place
The next full group meeting will take place at the Health Department, 108 Cherry Street, Burlington on Wednesday, October 29 from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. This time of day was suggested by Peggy to allow for more participation by people who work in schools. Steve will arrange to reserve one of the conference rooms and Ruth has kindly agreed to bring snacks. Please join us.