Participants: Besty Strolle-Gossens, Jules Cote, Liz Robitaille, Stephanie Bissonette, Ruth Dennis, Peggy Gallant, Ron Rubin, Mike Giangreco, Susan Edelman.

Agenda:

• Questions from SDE
  
• Funding & Questions Sections Updates
  
• Registry and Biblio Section Updates
  
• Edit Sections I & II
  
• Planning for Next Meeting
  

1.0 SDE Questions from the SDE brought by Ron:

1.1 Timeline-When is there expected to be finished product? June 1st for the entire document. Sections may be completed and submitted to the SDE prior to June 1.

1.2 Intended audience- SDE sees school personnel as main target. We have targeted school personnel (administrators, teachers etc.,.) as well as parents via parent organizations and a wide variety of providers

2.1 Funding section is developed by Susan which includes general information on a) LEA responsibility, b) potential funding streams for related services, c) specific information about Medicaid process with additional information and sample protocol for communication with parents, physicians and service providers in appendix form, and d) basic information about the proposed changes in Medicaid program as it relates to IEP services. This section will be ready to review at our next meeting.

2.2 Ron shared from his discussions with several SDE personnel and, finally, with Dennis Kane. Dennis wondered about the usefulness of a funding section in document because things change so rapidly. He also had concerns about the target audience and expressed that school personnel would already know all this. The point was made that parents and service providers do not always have accurate information about funding and need to know. It seems that there is a real need for such information. Parent groups will probably really use this. It could go on web pages too for wider access to this info. This may be easier to update this way too. We decided to include it in then have the SDE edit it out if they really felt it was a problem with being accurate and up-to-date.

2.3 Section IV, Frequently Asked Questions, is not finished but exists now in the form of a collection of questions mostly from parents or parent groups or ones we generated. This Section might change a bit re kinds of questions that are included. Many answers are buried in the text of various sections. Parents may find a question and answer format more user-friendly. Ron suggested that maybe there could be a user-friendly subject index. We could also answer the question clearly and then refer to sections. It was decided that this section would focus on family questions, single issues and simple responses with reference to other sections for further information. It was suggested that we consider moving to the end and tying it to an index.

3.1 Ruth made a distinction about how Section VI on Bibliography was going to be set up. It would include any references or recommended reading by topic. Citations used by each section on the text would come at the end of each section.

3.2 Section VII Voluntary Registry- This began as an update of what was in the "blue book" which included PTs and OTs and is based on a listing kept for about ten years. We were able to add SLPs and audiologists in the most recent mailing to update the registry through the use of funds from another project called Promoting Partnerships. In this most recent mailing each person was asked to share and distribute to any and all related service providers. We now have about 50 people who responded to this mailing.

4.1 Definitions (Submit edits to Ruth)


• VT Regs will change after the Federal Regs are out (expected sometime in April) Parts may change. VT Regs will probably take several months to pass. We need to keep an eye out for any changes that come forth.
  
  
• Mike asked about putting a prompt out to SDE folks about the state definition of related services letting them know that the state definition is of concern. We agreed this is a good idea but cannot be tackled as part of this activity.
  
  
• Need correct form of citation for regs
  
  
• p.1- Par 3 - put "federal definition" up in the front of that sentence which introduces the federal definition.
  
  
• p2-Par 1- This is new
  
  
• p2 and throughout - BST- Use "evaluation planning team" instead of BST.
  
  
• p3-par 1 - Separate out assessment and services - and which teams make which decisions
  
  
• p3-par 1- Add "administrative complaint" after mediation
  
  
• p3-par 2- Insert suggestion that services should be evaluated (program evaluation) as best practice.
  
  
• Label FIGURE 1
  
  
• p7-"qualified personnel" Vs "qualified professional" , which to use? Decision is to leave it as "professional". First sentence under "Direct Service" uses "professional" - need to reword this sentence so that it does not appear as a clarification of quote.
  
  
• p7 & 8- The issue of direct vs indirect is still a problem. Professional supervision (PT & OT) is determined by professional practice acts. The supervision as required by education regs requires on-site supervision.
  
  
• p7- Typo in quote at bottom re spelling of "licensure"
  
  
• p8 - "practice acts"- use another word or describe for parents' understanding
  
  
• p9- par1- Move the last sentence to the first and reword the current 1st sentence. "Consultation plans" should be clarified as best practice.
  
  
• p12- separate or in definitions section? Consider adding statement that clarifies that this is a definition as we are using for the purpose of this document.
  
  
• p12-par 2- Edit sentence in middle beginning "Related service personnel may be involved..." Shorten & clarify.
  
  
• p14- par 3- Add "administrative complaint" prior to due process
  
  
• p 14- par3 - Next sentence- reword "and not by any team member in isolation"


4.2 II Guidelines (Submit edits to Mike)


• p4 - numbering to make it consistent and correct
  
  
• p 5-#12- change eg to add direct or make it ie and list them all
  
  
• p6 -#6- replace "logic" with "literature"
  
  
• p8 -#1 - add after educational plan "and state educational standards"


4.3 Discussion re: brochure:


• Ron asked about the timing- We now have the guidelines ready to go as well as definitions (or will have within a week)
  
  
• Differences of opinion exist about the wisdom of putting out the Guidelines without the Definitions. Some feel that the guidelines can stand alone without definitions, others feel that they cannot or should not.
  
  
• Susan suggested that we consider is giving both parts to the SDE and ask them to make the decision letting them know our views about a) the broad target audience, b) the differing points of group members. SDE could add to the fact finding points related to costs involved with brochure production vs document printing and distribution as well as their perspective of timing with other SDE activities.
  
  
• An observation from Betsy- there is no reference to direct or indirect in the guidelines and they could stand alone
  
  
• Mike pointed out that the Definition Sections has caused great discussion and some controversy among us and will likely do the same when it hits the field.
  
  
• Susan noted that one concern is that if the brochure goes, people might not read the longer document.
  
  
• Ruth felt strongly that it should not go out without definitions.
  
  
• Mike pointed out that if we add definitions, it cannot be a brochure.
  
  
• Susan added that the guidelines will be useful in brochure format and do stand alone. However some people are looking for what they are required to do which is answered in the definitions and others are interested in what they can do to make for quality services which is presented in the guidelines.
  
  
• Ron indicated that they already committed to doing a small brochure but if we go with the other part it may not
  
  
• Betsy suggested we focus on how can we get best practices in the hands of more people
  
  
• An informal check on members opinions was done at this time since our meeting time had elapsed and people had to leave: Jules, Ruth & Liz feel definitions and guidelines sections should go together. Ron feels we should wait and discuss this more, when people are not rushed and have time to consider the options and that we should not let SDE decide. Stephanie & Peggy are not sure. Susan is not sure about which would be best to do even though she agrees that the guidelines in a brochure format would be helpful, just not sure about the order of release, and target audience.
  
  
• Consensus was not reached before people had to leave.


5.0 Next Meeting:


Tuesday April 28, 1998
9:00-12:00
Room 443 Waterman

Parking vouchers will be made available to anyone who needs to park in the Visitor Lot.

Mike, Susan & Ruth will meet on 4/15 at UVM to edit the remaining sections. Anyone wishing to give input on sections or to participate in meeting with us is welcomed to do so.