GOVERNOR’S ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CITIZENS (GACEC)
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING
7:00 P.M., May 19, 2009
George V. Massey Station
Dover, Delaware

MINUTES

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Robert D. Overmiller, Nina Bunting, Jean Butler, Carma Carpenter, Al Cavalier, Helene Diskau, Jane Donovan, Bernie Greenfield, Brian Hartman, Esq., Dave Hosier, Julie Johnson, Chris Laniyan, Chris McIntyre, Bill O’Neill, Jennifer Pulcinella, Jennifer Ridgley, Barbara Riley, Ron Russo, John Ryan, Brandy Smith, Lavina Smith, Martha Toomey.

OTHERS PRESENT: Guests present: Blake Roberts/Client Assistance Program (applicant), Nick Fina, Janae Aglio/DHSS, Vanessa Little/parent and Dennis Rozumalski/DOE. Staff present: Wendy Strauss, Executive Administrator, Kathie Cherry, Administrative Assistant and Susan Hayes, Operation Support Specialist.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Darlene Arena, Michelle Arthurs, Steve Chang (appt. pending), Nancy Cordrey, Janet Cornwell, Karen Eller, Joanna Francis, Lisa Gonzon, Terri Hancharick, Dana Levy, Janet Milnamow, Beth Mineo, Janella Newman, Dennis Rubino, Judy Smith, Melinda Ciccia Tartaglione.

A quorum being present, Chairperson Robert Overmiller called the meeting to order. The agenda was approved as written. There were no comments during the public comment period.

The minutes of the April 21st meeting were approved. The April financial report was also approved. Robert then introduced Dennis Rozumalski of the Department of Education who will present information to Council on the Delaware Grant to Integrate Schools and Mental Health System.

Mr. Rozumalski began his presentation by distributing handouts to all members and introducing himself. His title is associate for Student Services and Special Populations. He supports student counselors, family crisis therapists (FCTs), visiting teachers and homeless coordinators. He also works with services including teen pregnancy and children who have been abused or neglected. He then went on to discuss the Delaware Grant to Integrate Schools and Mental Health System. The Delaware Grant to Integrate Schools and Mental Health System is an eighteen month joint grant between the Delaware Department of Education (DOE) and the Division of Services for Children, Youth and their Families (DSCY&F). The purpose of the grant is to increase the ability of schools to identify and appropriately refer children for mental health treatment, thereby increasing access to services for children and families. Additionally, the grant will be used to identify and increase the availability of community mental health resources. Mr. Rozumalski and Pete Ferrario are the DOE representatives for this program and work with Randall Wimberley, Daniel Smith, Kathryn Nevin and Maureen of DSCY&F. The work of the grant has been divided into three stages:

Stage one – needs analysis - schools will be visited by project team members to gather information (from a few key people) about current practices, to identify strengths and needs of current practices, to gather staff development needs and to administer a brief survey (for pre-and post-data collection).

Stage two – protocols, resources, training aids, and other items will be developed by project members based on information gathered in Stage one in order to address issues found.

Stage three – schools will then be revisited by the project team members to provide training and assistance on the products and the processes developed in Stage two. This will help ensure the capacity for the schools to continue to support children needing mental health services after the grant is complete.

Due to a three month delay in hiring personnel and getting started, the grant has been extended past the original deadline, through the end of May.

Mr. Rozumalski reported that forty-seven schools were visited during Phase one. The team paid close attention to ensure that there was a balance between the number of small, medium and large schools visited throughout the State. The data analysis collected during visits to those schools showed the following needs: information materials on what a mental health condition may look like; lack of mental health providers; Medicaid and CHIPS training; Crisis Response Services; Parent engagement; Private Insurance training; Revision of forms to include translation; and Information about medication.

Mr. Rozumalski discussed examples of how teachers in some situations provoke crises that may not be mental health related. He also talked about the need to get parents to buy in to the idea that the student may need help and how to get the family to be an active part of the therapy.

Chris Laniyan shared information on available resources for individuals who may be deaf or hard of hearing and individuals with visual impairments. Mr. Rozumalski thanked Chris for his input. He hopes to collaborate as much as possible with other groups and agencies.

Stage two involved representatives from the schools, wellness centers, school based family crisis therapists and parents getting together to write and/or review protocols and training aids. The team then went out to other organizations and received information and feedback from groups such as mental health agencies, service providers and various coalitions, such as the Suicide Prevention coalition and Grief Awareness coalition. All of the information collected lead to the creation of the School and Child Mental Health Resources website. Mr. Rozumalski provided members with adhesive label with the web address for the website. The address is www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/cmh.

Mr. Rozumalski continued his presentation with information on the kinds of things available to parents, teachers and other professionals that may be found on the website. There are links to videos and other resources. This lead to discussion on the need for Braille forms, accessible forms for individuals with visual impairments and the need for additional links.

Chris McIntyre commented on confidentiality being a barrier to accessing needed information. Mr. Rozumalski commented on the importance of releases of information and the communication that is needed between schools, agencies and parents. Brian Hartman commented on the danger of releasing certain information and how this information may be shared inappropriately or used against the best interest of the student in some instances.

Additional discussion ensued on how the release may be tailored to protect the rights and needs of the student. Mr. Rozumalski mentioned that he will contact Brian for additional input on the release form to make it more targeted.

Questions were asked on the number of students in this group who may have IEPs. That information has not been disaggregated at this point. Comments were made on what confidentiality means.

Mr. Rozumalski encouraged members to play with the website in order to determine if items are missing, or are incorrect and share this information with his office. He then commented on what is left to do. The team will create a search engine which will be tied to a service provider database; keep the website updated; and advocate for more school resources. There is a need for more resources and a better way to match students with available resources. This search engine will be similar to Google, with parameters. He went on to discuss the limited resources and mentioned that Christina School District has cut all elementary school counselors.

Mr. Rozumalski also encouraged members to advocate for funded counselor positions. There are FCTs in fifty-one elementary schools but there is a need for more. This is not the work of teachers. He went on to say that the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) training does help. Wraparound supports are needed. Resources are a major issue and Mr. Rozumalski discussed the role of the website as something that could be similar to the Delaware Helpline and provide a one-stop for information and referrals.

Additional comments were made on the timeline for the final report on the grant, training on the consent and release forms. The report is due in July and Mr. Rozumalski stated that he would send a copy of the final report to the GACEC once it is completed. A comment was made that there is no follow up when kids age out of Child Mental Health (CMH) and move into adult services. It was stated that there are issues with CMH and also with services for foster children.

Robert Overmiller thanked Mr. Rozumalski for his report.

STAFF REPORT

Wendy began her report with information on an Request For Proposal (RFP) from the Developmental Disabilities Council (DDC). The RFP is being advertised on the DDC website and in local newspapers. The DDC will be providing up to $20,000 for a contractor to work closely with disabilities advocacy groups to develop a self-sustaining awareness campaign highlighting the accomplishments of people with developmental disabilities. The deadline for submission is June 19, 2009.

Wendy went on to discuss a letter that was received by Kathie Cherry from the Lower Delaware Autism Foundation (LDAF) and Autism Delaware (AD) in regard to the proposed ten percent cuts to agency budgets which will impact students with disabilities who will be graduating this year and entering adult services. Many vendors who contract to provide services for young adults with disabilities are facing a ten percent cut. Brian mentioned that he had heard this discussed at a recent Division Developmental Disabilities Services (DDDS) and it was stated that the General Assembly had agreed to exempt health related contracts from the budget cuts. This will include contractors like Chimes and residential providers. More information on this will be requested for clarity.

Wendy then updated the group on the Disability History and Awareness Month legislation that is being developed in collaboration with Representative Quinton Johnson. The draft has been reviewed by Brian Hartman also. The House Concurrent Resolution would designate October as Disability History and Awareness Month and encourage educators to provide information and activities to promote greater awareness of disabilities for greater acceptance and the accomplishments of individuals with disabilities. There is no fiscal note with the legislation. Wendy has been having meetings with DSEA and others to gather support for the Resolution. So far, it is seen as a win-win situation for everyone.

Copies of the final report from the Joint Retreat, held with DDC and SCPD are in members’ packets and will be sent out again electronically before the GACEC fall retreat in September.

DOE REPORT

Martha Toomey began her report with information on a presentation from the Delaware Association of School Psychologist (DASP). This group approached DOE requesting support for their effort to
oppose a proposal from the American Psychological Association (APA) which would remove the exemption that allows specialist-level school psychologists to practice in schools. The APA is in the process of revising the Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologist (MLA), a policy document that provides recommendations and guidance to states in regulating the licensing and practice of all fields of psychology which would change the level to Ph.D. In Delaware, specialist-level psychologists currently have at a minimum, a master’s degree plus thirty credits. They must also complete a year-long internship prior to being eligible for certification and licensure. Martha shared a model letter that has been prepared by the DASP and asked that the Council write a letter of support asking that the revisions not be made. Martha also suggested that members go to the National Association of School Psychologists website. There is a lot of information and there is a one click support link on the issue of the MLA revisions. The DASP letter states the following:

If the current form of the Model Act for State Licensure is adopted by state legislatures as proposed by APA, it will lead to:
· Restriction of the ability of specialist-level school psychologists to deliver a full range of psychological services consistent
with their scope of training and practice. Nationally, 75% of practicing school psychologists are specialist-level
practitioners; as of our 2006 membership survey, 70-75% of respondents in Delaware identified themselves as
specialist-level school psychologists.
· A growing shortage of school mental health professionals available to respond to student needs which could result in a
significant disruption of the delivery of school psychological services that are so critically needed by our students.
· Disproportionate effect on women and minorities. Nationally, female school psychologists account for 74% of practicing
school psychologists, and seven out of ten hold non-doctoral degrees. Of the 7.3% of practicing school psychologists
who identify as ethnic minorities, 7 out of 10 hold non-doctoral degrees.
· Restriction of school districts’ abilities to recover costs for Health Related services provided by school psychologists
under school Medicaid reimbursement programs.
· Jurisdictional conflict between the Delaware department of Education, which credentials school psychologists, and the
Board of Examiners of Psychologists, which licenses clinical psychologists.

Questions were asked about the ability of the State to disregard the revisions by the APA and the role of school psychologists in Delaware schools. It was also mentioned that DOE has suppressed the availability of school psychologists because of the lengthy internship requirement for certification. It was requested that Council solicit input from the Delaware Psychological Association for balance and information for a countervailing opinion.

Discussion continued on the competency and coursework for school psychologists and clinical psychologist and the need for additional information in order to determine whether to support the DASP letter. Martha suggested contacting Kathy Hanebutt for additional information. The deadline for comments on this is June 5, 2009. Wendy will contact Kathy Hanebutt and the Delaware Psychological Association and send this information out to the Board for approval to submit a letter of support.

Martha continued her report with information on a program that the DOE has been supporting in the Brandywine School District for over a year. The program is called, “Developing a Social Thinking Program: The Hidden Curriculum”. Martha supplied a copy of the first page of a PowerPoint presentation which was done at the PBS Celebration: Busting the Myths of PBS! on April 23, 2009 by Donna H. Carroll, Ellen Coulston and Jeff Roth. The program works with students with Asperger Syndrome and Higher Functioning Autism and assists them to develop social thinking skills. This is a resource heavy effort, with investment from teachers, therapists and administrators. There has been good on-site coaching, group work with the students and successful outcomes with the students in the program. Martha mentioned that she has spoken with representatives from other districts who are interested in replicating the program in their districts. The program will begin with four schools next year. This is a full school initiative so representatives need to ensure that they have the support of the whole school. DOE will begin to work with the Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS) on this program.

A question was asked on the difference between social thinking and social stories. Martha mentioned that one difference is that this is more than giving a child a script. Students are taught to think differently about different social scenarios. She suggested that perhaps Council could invite Ellen Coulston, a parent in the Brandywine School District to present information on the program.

Additional comments were made on a short video that shows the difference between social thinking and social stories/skills. The video pointed out how the students are taught to think for themselves. It was also mentioned that social stories do not teach students the emotional side of social interactions. These students have to be taught to think and analyze their options before reacting. They learn to think about their reactions rather than just reacting emotionally or impulsively. Martha clarified that this program is available to students who are not on the Autism spectrum.

District progress reports should be posted on the DOE website later this week. Martha will send the link to the reports as soon as they are posted so it can be sent out to Council. Martha went on to discuss the DOE application for funds, which was processed on May 11th for their regular IDEA funds and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars that will be coming in to the districts. A copy of the recommendations from the Governor and Lt. Governor to the districts on how the funds could be spent has been included in members’ packets. The districts are flush with funding at the moment, having received twice as much federal money this year. DOE has also provided many recommendations to the districts, suggesting they spend the additional dollars on self-sustaining items and needed technology.

Robert thanked Martha for her report.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

INFANT/EARLY CHILDHOOD COMMITTEE

Vice Chair Julie Johnson reported for this committee. Janae Aglio, Hearing Program Coordinator for the Department of Public Health Newborn Screening Program spoke with the committee this evening on newborn screening and follow up. She reported on the Newborn Screening Program on the screenings that are performed in the hospital at birth or shortly after the newborn leaves the hospital and the subsequent follow-up if hearing loss is detected. In 2008, 98% infants born were being screened in the hospital. There is a thirty percent decrease, however, in the number of infants who received follow up services. The program is looking at why there is such a decrease in the follow up numbers and develop provisions to improve those figures. The GACEC wrote a letter of support for a grant that was applied for and received. The program is now applying for another grant and will contact Council if another letter of support is needed. Additional funding will assist the program to keep better track of the infants and provide resources for follow up services. The Early Hearing Detection Intervention (EDHI) national guidelines are used. These guidelines require every baby to be screened by one month, diagnosed by three months and interventions are begun by six months. The interventions could involve a number of different options such as amplification, Cochlear implants, or communication modalities.

The committee is also working closely with the Newborn Screening Program on the Delaware Hands and Voices program. This group provides non-biased support for families of children who are deaf and hard of hearing. A state chapter of this national organization has recently been started in Delaware. The mission of Hands and Voices is as follows:

Hands and Voices is dedicated to supporting families with children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing without a bias around communication modes or methodology. We’re a parent-driven, non-profit organization providing families with the resources, networks, and information they need to improve communication access and educational outcomes for their children. Our outreach activities, parent/professional collaboration, advocacy efforts are focused on enabling Deaf and Hard of Hearing children to reach their highest potential.

This program will help to guide the families of the newly diagnosed through the system to ensure they receive the services they need. Julie shared flyers that Ms. Aglio shared with the Committee. This group also does the Hearing Aid Loaner Bank which loans hearing aids to children who are unable to afford them for eligible children under the age of eighteen.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

Dave Hosier reported for this group since neither the Chair Karen Eller or Vice Chair Janet Milnamow were in attendance this evening. The group discussed the Edmonton Project and the Vision 2015. The group is looking into doing research into how special education melds with these two programs in Delaware. The group may need some additional resources but not at this time.

POLICY AND LAW COMMITTEE

Committee vice chairperson Brian Hartman reported for this committee in the absence of chairperson, Jean Butler. Brian began his report by stating that the committee reviewed nine pieces of legislation or regulations. There were no changes from the information in the legal memorandum on #3, #5 and #6, so those were approved by Council as a block. Brian then introduced each of the remaining items and commented on the changes that were made to the memorandum that was sent out to Council earlier. Analysis on each item covered was recorded as follows:

12 DE Reg. 1362 Division of Services for Aging and Adults with Physical Disabilities (DSAAPD) Elderly & Disabled Waiver Renewal Application regulations. The Division of Services for Aging & Physical Disabilities (“DSAAPD”) is publishing formal notice of its intent to solicit renewal of its Elderly and Disabled (E&D) Medicaid waiver from CMS. The waiver was initially approved in 1985 and has been renewed several times. The latest renewal would extend from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014.

In March, 2009, the Division provided a pre-publication draft of the waiver to the SCPD for review and commentary. Jamie Wolfe shared some comments with the SCPD on March 22 followed by my March 29 critique. Kyle compiled the comments into a single March 30 memo comprised of twenty-one paragraphs which was submitted to DSAAPD. DSAAPD responded with a letter dated April 14th and a 6-page compilation which reproduces the SCPD commentary followed by the DSAAPD response. The Committee agreed with the comments provided by SCPD and voted to re-submit the important issues which remain “unresolved” with the DSAAPD response (italicized). The Committee infers that its observations will be shared with CMS by DSAAPD. The comments submitted were as follows:

1. GACEC strongly objects to the lack of inclusion of participant direction opportunities. Excluding participant direction from the waiver is obviously disfavored by CMS, is inconsistent with the Money Follows the Person Program, and maintains an outdated model.

DSAAPD shared intention to amend after approval from CMS.

2. DHSS allows ninety days to complete the level of care determination for an existing Medicaid beneficiary. See p. 33 (App. B, Sec. B-6.f.). DHSS could consider a shorter time frame.

DSAAPD opted to retain 90-day standard to “allow for unusual circumstances”.

3. The services menu is relatively “bare-bones” (p. 44 (App. C, Sec. C-1a). There are only five authorized services: adult day services, personal care, respite, personal emergency response systems, and specialized medical equipment and supplies. The scarcity of services deflects persons to nursing homes.

DSAAPD noted it is “willing to consider additional services and supports, but must operate within budgetary constraints.”

4. DHSS disallows the provision of personal care by relatives and guardians. See p. 46 (App. C, Sec. C-1/3 and p. 58 (App. C, Sec. C-2e). This is objectionable. In other contexts (e.g. PAS program), DSAAPD has authorized compensated relative caregivers.

DSAAPD plans to pursue the inclusion of service delivery by relatives and guardians as a component of self-direction when the waiver is amended.

5. DHSS disallows the provision of respite by relatives and guardians. See p. 48 (App. C, Sec. C-1/3) and p. 55 (App. C, Sec. C-2c). This is objectionable.

DSAAPD plans to pursue the inclusion of service delivery by relatives and guardians as a component of self-direction when the waiver is amended.

6. The “Service Definition” of “personal emergency response systems” is unduly limiting. It only allows a PERS if linked to a “response center staffed by trained professionals”. DSAAPD is exclusively adopting a rigid, outdated, and unduly expensive service model.

DSAAPD would like to consider these cost-saving suggestions and can perhaps incorporate changes in an amended waiver application.

7. DHSS recites that the administration of medication is limited to medical personnel who are professionally licensed. See p. 104 (App.G, Sec. G-3c. This is not entirely accurate. For settings outside of assisted living and nursing homes (e.g. adult day settings), a waiver participant can delegate administration to non-medical personnel. See Title 24 Del.C. §1921(a)(19).

This section of the application applies only to the administration of medication in assisted living and nursing home facilities.

As a follow-up, the Committee recommends that the Council request clarification as to why the Division responded that this section only applies to assisted living and nursing home facilities, or why a section pertaining to such facilities is included in a Home and Community Based Services Waiver application.

Motion to submit comments on 12 DE Reg. 1362 was approved.

12 DE Reg. 1366 DSS Proposed Child Care Program Absent Day Policy. The Division of Social Services (DSS) proposes to adopt some discrete revisions to its regulation authorizing provider compensation for children enrolled in the Child Care Program who are absent during a month.

First, the current regulation authorizes payment for holidays if a child attended at least one day during the month. The amendment clarifies that no payment will be made if the holiday actually precedes the start date of the authorization at that provider’s site. This is ostensibly a justified limitation.

Second, the current regulation has two standards. One sentence authorizes payment for up to five absent days per month. Another sentence indicates that the number of paid absent days is indicated on a DSS authorization form. The amended regulation effectively authorizes compensation for the lower of the following: 1) the specific number of paid absent days listed on each child’s Authorization form; or 2) the number of absent days authorized in one week (up to a maximum of five days per month). For clarity, in Section 11006.4.1, second sentence, I recommend that DSS consider inserting “paid” between “of” and “absent”. Alternatively, DSS may wish to consider the following substitute for the second and third sentences in Section 11006.4.1:

DSS pays for absent days based on the lower of the following: 1) the specific number of paid absent days indicated in each child’s Authorization form; or 2) the number of absent days authorized in one week (up to a maximum of five days per month).

Brian and the Committee recommend sharing these observations with the Division.

Motion to share observations on 12 DE Reg. 1366 was approved.

12 DE Reg. 1363 DSS Proposed Child Care Subsidy Program Special Needs regulations. The Division of Social Services proposes to revise its standards applicable to eligibility for its child care subsidy program based on special needs.

First, the Division is deleting all four examples which appear in the current regulation. The Division may wish to consider retention of some examples. Examples 2 and 3 could be retained since one addresses the special needs of a caretaker and the other addresses the special needs of a child. In other contexts (e.g. Section 11003.9.3), the Division includes eight clarifying examples which are instructive to agency workers and applicants.

Second, DSS is deleting a cross reference on waiver of fees: “See section 11004.7 to determine eligibility for waiving the parent fee.” Since children with special needs are considered a priority under 45 C.F.R. 98.44(b), DSS may wish to consider retaining the cross reference to facilitate positive eligibility determinations.

Third, the regulation contains the following sentence: “If the parent/caretaker meets the need criteria as listed in 11003.8, the family will not be eligible for Special Needs Child Care unless the child requires care that cannot be provided in a regular day care.” This is not accurate. For example, parents do not have to demonstrate that a 13-18 year old child’s needs cannot be met in a regular day-care setting. See “Children with Special Needs” section. Moreover, it may not be age-appropriate to place a 16-17 year old in a “regular day care” even if a day care were willing to mix populations.

Brian and the Committee recommend sharing these observations with DSS.

Motion to share observations on 12 DE Reg. 1363 was approved.

Senate Bill No. 64 (Dental Care for Pregnant Medicaid Beneficiaries). This bill was introduced on April 7, 2009. As of May 11, it remained in the Senate Finance Committee. A fiscal note is expected. This bill is identical to House Bill No. 123 with H.A. No. 1 introduced during the 144th General Assembly. Consistent with the May 11, 2007 SCPD memorandum, the GACEC endorsed the predecessor bill. The legislation authorizes both urgent and preventative dental care for Medicaid beneficiaries who are pregnant or who become pregnant while receiving assistance. In its May 24, 2007 letter, the Council included the materials documenting the benefits of dental care for pregnant women and offered the following commentary:

First, research suggests that periodontal disease may be a significant risk factor for pre-term, low birthweight babies. Second, pregnancy causes hormonal changes which increase the risk of developing gum disease. This is commonly referred to as “pregnancy gingivitis”. Third, pregnant women are at risk of developing “pregnancy tumors” which arise from swollen gums.

Brian and the Committee recommend endorsement of the current bill accompanied by the same background materials. The Committee also recommended noting a technical oversight, i.e., the parentheses before and after the numeral “12" in line 3 are omitted.

Motion to endorse Senate Bill No. 64 was approved.

Senate Bill No. 68 (DSTP Replacement). This bill was introduced on April 9, 2009. As of May 11, it remained in the Senate Finance Committee.

Consistent with recent newspaper articles, there is widespread support to replace the current eleven-year old DSTP. As indicated in the April 14 News Journal article, the new system would be a “computer-adaptive, growth model test” ...which “will bring quicker results, earlier teacher intervention and increase student motivation.” The article also notes that the new system is expected to be cheaper than the DSTP which cost the state more than $10 million last year.

As noted in the April 15, 2009 Dover Post article, Senate Bill No. 68 is part of the legislative package to improve the educational system from the Governor. Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the Department would conduct assessments of students in at least grades 2-10 at least twice annually - once within thirty days of the onset of the school year and once at a time determined by the Department of Education. The alternate assessment option in current Title 14 Del.C. §151(g) is retained (lines 21-30).

The reference to “at least two annual assessments” (line 5) is significant since it appears likely that up to four (4) annual assessments are envisioned. For example, the March 5 News Journal article describes the proposed assessment system as follows:

The first is a summative test - a comprehensive, end-of-the year exam that would be used for federal, high-stakes purposes such as school accountability ratings.

The second is a benchmark test that would be administered at the beginning, middle and end of the year for immediate feedback on how a student is doing on a particular subject. The benchmark test would adjust to the student’s ability, so when a child is struggling, the difficulty of the questions decreases and when the student is excelling, the computer system switches to harder questions.

The April 14 News Journal article presents a similar description:

The task force is seeking test-makers for two exams. The first is a comprehensive, end-of-the-year exam that would be used for federal, high-stakes purposes such as school accountability ratings. The second is a benchmark test that would be administered at the beginning, middle and end of the year for immediate feedback on how a student is doing in a particular subject.

The articles therefore suggest that four separate tests would be administered - a summative test and three benchmark tests. This is much more “robust” assessment system than the DSTP.

Brian and the Committee recommend endorsement by the Council, accompanied by the following observation.

It would be preferable to substitute “shall” for “may” in line 21. This would clarify that districts must have an alternate assessment system in place, i.e., it is a requirement and not an option. Line 23 already affirms that the “alternate assessments must be developed and used..no later than the 2010-2011 school year” and the current law requires an operational alternate assessment system now. See Title 14 Del.C. §151(g) [requiring that alternate assessment be in place no later than July 1, 2001]. The substitution of “shall” for “may” would remove any ambiguity that the alternate assessment system is discretionary.

Motion to endorse Senate Bill No. 68 was approved.

Senate Bill No. 67 (Teacher Compensation). This bill was introduced on April 9, 2009. As of May 11, 2009, it remained in the Senate Finance Committee. There is a fiscal note. This bill is part of an education reform package of legislation described in the attached March 11 and April 15, 2009 Dover Post articles.

Under current law, teachers are eligible for bonuses based on completion of additional professional development classes, securing certifications, and accepting additional responsibilities within schools. Given the current budget situation, these bonuses have been suspended. See synopsis, final sentence.

This bill would authorize bonuses for teachers based on an assessment of measured student progress. A supplemental bonus would be available for teachers qualifying for the student achievement bonus while employed in a “high-risk” school. The bonuses would be in an amount
between 2%-6% of base salary (lines 12-13, 27-29). Ten percent (10%) of overall funds would be awarded to “schools that have demonstrated the most objectively measured progress on student assessment tests” for distribution as bonuses to educators within the school (lines 39-45). The bill would only be implemented upon appropriation of specific funds and restoration of funds to resume bonuses for completion of professional development classes and securing certifications. The Department of Education would develop regulations based on standards outlined in the bill.

Brian and the committee recommended Council not take a position on the bill but share its observations and concerns with policymakers. That decision was based on the following observations.

First, by providing bonuses to teachers based on academic performance, there may be an unintended incentive to get rid of or “dump” a student who is struggling academically.

Second, on line four, it would be preferable to strike “….efforts to improve” and insert “…. improvement of the …”, so (n) would read as follows: “…of this section a teacher paid in accordance with this section shall earn an additional salary supplement for objectively measured improvement of the academic performance of his or her students during the preceding year.”

Third, the criteria for designation of a “high risk” school includes those with a disproportionate percentage of low income students (i.e. enrolled in free or reduced lunch program); and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students; and transient students. It would be preferable to insert the following (underlined) amendment in line 25: ...English is not a first language, whether schools have a disproportionate percentage of students with disabilities, and whether schools have a disproportionate level of transiency among their student population.” Students with disabilities typically require accommodations, individualized attention, and related services to achieve educational progress. The presence of an educational disability identified through rigorous DOE regulations would inferentially have as much influence on educational achievement as poverty, limited English proficiency, and transiency. Moreover, without such a provision, there is a financial disincentive for teachers to opt to be special education instructors. This would exacerbate the current problem with recruitment and retention of special education teachers.

Fourth, for similar reasons, the Committee recommends adoption of the following (underlined) amendment at line 8:

The Department of Education shall designate ...the criteria that shall be used to determine whether a teacher shall be entitled to this supplement, provided....(c) that to the extent that the criteria are based on student assessments, the assessments shall only be those that show students’ academic progress, including progress under portfolio or alternative assessments authorized by Section 151 of this title, over the course of a school year, ...

By exclusively focusing on “academic” assessment, the bill could be construed as excluding consideration of student progress based on alternate assessment for children with severe disabilities. The amendment would clarify that “academic” performance is broad enough to cover progress demonstrated through an alternate assessment of life skills which may not meet traditional notions of “academics”. Otherwise, there is a financial disincentive for teachers to be instructors of students with the most severe disabilities.

Motion to share observations on Senate Bill No. 67 with policymakers was approved.

House Bill No. 120 (Student Expulsion Discretion). This bill was introduced on April 7, 2009. It was reported out of committee on May 7 with one amendment. The Committee reviewed and discussed the following observations.

As background, News Journal articles on April 3, 2009, April 4, 2009 and October 9, 2007 question the viability of “zero tolerance” policies in schools. As the preamble to House Bill No. 120 recites, many states are abandoning “zero tolerance” policies as ineffective and counterproductive. The bill, which is designed to discourage rigidity in expelling students for some offenses, is therefore well intentioned. It implements this intention by authorizing school board discretion in determining the “terms” of expulsion for firearm and deadly weapons violations. However, the bill ostensibly conflicts with federal law and would otherwise have negligible effect on expulsions.

First, the bill is very limited in its application. It only applies to students convicted of possession of a firearm or deadly weapon in a school zone concomitant to the sentence. The current statute [Title 11 Del.C. §1457(j)(4)] recites as follows:

In the event that an elementary or secondary student possesses a firearm or other deadly weapon in a Safe School and Recreation Zone in addition to any other penalties contained in this section, the student shall be expelled by the local School Board or charter school board of directors for a period of not less than 180 days unless otherwise provided for in federal or state law.

The bill does not apply to students expelled pending a delinquency adjudication or conviction. The bill does not apply to expulsions based on possession of weapons which the Attorney General’s Office declines to prosecute. The bill does not apply to violations of a school code of conduct (which may include for automatic expulsion based on zero tolerance) for non-weapons offenses. Finally, H.A. No. 1 limited the effect of the bill further since it deletes the authorization of the Board to “determine the expulsion is not appropriate” and only gives the board discretion on the length of the expulsion. See, e.g., the Committee Report, which recites as follows: “The committee found that this legislation would help to give local school boards the right to determine the length of expulsion in necessary circumstances as described above.” The impact of the bill is therefore very limited.

Second, the bill conflicts with federal law in the context of possession of firearms. Under the federal Gun-free Schools Zone Act, the mandate for a one year expulsion for possession of a firearm can be modified by the chief school officer, not a school board. For this reason, the Delaware DOE implementing regulation [14 DE Admin Code Part 603, Section 1.0] reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

1.1 A student who is determined to have brought a firearm to school, or to have possessed a firearm at school, shall be expelled for not less than on year.

1.2 Modification of the expulsion requirement may be made on a case by case basis by the chief school officer. Any modification to the expulsion requirement must be made in writing to the Department.

The federal law authorizes modification of the mandatory one-year expulsion only by the chief school officer. The attempt by this bill to deflect such discretion to the school board is ostensibly foreclosed by the federal law in the context of firearms.

Based on these observations, the Committee described the bill as rather anemic in effect. It would authorize a board to limit the length of an expulsion after conviction for possession of a deadly weapon (apart from a firearm) in a school zone.

Brian and the Committee recommended sharing these observations with the bill sponsors with the caveat that the Council would be happy to collaborate in preparation of more comprehensive legislation to address “zero tolerance”. While well intentioned, House Bill No. 120 conflicts with federal law and will have negligible impact on zero tolerance and expulsions.

Motion to refrain from endorsing House Bill No. 120 and offer to collaborate on legislation to address “zero tolerance” was approved.

House Bill No. 139 (CHIP “Buy-in” Option). This bill was introduced on April 30, 2009. As of May 8, it remained in the House Health & Human Development Committee. Upon introduction the bill was earmarked with a fiscal note. That designation has been removed. House Bill 139 was well summarized in a May 1, 2009 News Journal article. CHIP eligibility is currently limited to households with income below 200% of the FPL. This bill would allow households with income above the cap to “buy-in” to CHIP through payment of a premium to be determined by DHSS. According to the article, the premium is expected to be approximately $110 per month. DHSS would also establish co-pays and deductibles (lines 17-19). The article includes the interesting observation that “no insurance companies in the state allow parents to buy coverage for only children, and instead require the purchase of an entire family plan, which is often prohibitively expensive.”

The Committee recommends the GACEC strongly endorse the proposed legislation and submit one recommendation for amendment consideration.

The bill refers to “family” applications for CHIP eligibility (lines 4, 6, 9, and synopsis). In contrast, two of the exceptions to the three-month uninsured status requirement are limited to a parent (lines 12 and 14). Many children are being raised by grandparents; other relatives; or non-relative, court-appointed custodians. Compare Title 14 Del.C. §202. The State CHIP regulations do not ostensibly limit eligibility to parent applications. See 16 DE Admin Code 18300, 1844, and 16240. Cf. 16 DE Admin Code 18200.3 which recites as follows:

A child who has a family member who works for a public agency within Delaware and is eligible to participate in the State health benefits plan with an employer premium subsidy is not eligible for DHCP. Family member is defined as the parent of the child or the individual who has legal custody of the child.

The sponsors of this legislation may wish to consider expanding the reference to “parent’ in lines 12 and 14. One option would be to refer to “parent, custodian, or relative caregiver as defined in section 202 of Title 14 of the Code”. Alternatively, a more encompassing reference would be “parent or other member of the family budget unit”. Compare 16 DE Admin Code 16240 applicable to the CHIP:

The budget unit is composed of various adults who are legally/financially responsible for each other and various children (related or unrelated) for whom the adults have legal responsibility or for whom the adults have accepted parental-like responsibility.

The latter option is preferable since the unemployment or loss of insurance of persons whose income is counted towards the 200% FPL cap in the budget unit affects the family’s ability to provide child health insurance.

For clarification in line 13, the word ‘or’ should be added after the semicolon.

Motion to strongly endorse House Bill No. 139 was approved.

House Bill No. 132 (Absentee Voting). This bill was introduced on April 22, 2009. It was reported out of the House Administration Committee on April 29. As of May 11, it awaited action by the full House.

For background, the Committee reviewed an April 24 News Journal article. The bill is designed to facilitate the absentee voting process for several groups of individuals, including the following:

1) persons “absent from this State because of illness or injury received while serving in the armed forces of the United States”;

2) citizens temporarily residing outside the territorial limits of the United States”;

3) persons “in the public service of the United States or of this State”; and

4) persons eligible to vote under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

The bill would authorize the county departments of election to send absentee ballot applications, federal post card applications, and federal write-in absentee ballots by electronic transmission. Qualifying voters would be authorized to submit ballots electronically.

Since the bill would facilitate voting by injured veterans undergoing rehabilitation out-of-state, as well as other citizens temporarily living abroad, Brian and the Committee recommend endorsement.

Motion to endorse House Bill No. 132 was approved.

ADULT TRANSITION SERVICES COMMITTEE

Committee Vice Chair John Ryan reported in the absence of Chair Terri Hancharick that this committee had nothing to report.

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Bernie Greenfield reported that a resignation has been received from Melinda Ciccia Tartaglione. Melinda recently had a baby girl, Sabrina Rose, and regrets having to resign from the Council due to difficulties following the birth of Sabrina Rose.

A notice on attendance has been sent to Darlene Arena. Darlene has contacted the office and stated that she intends to begin attending meetings again. Bernie went on to announce new members. Carma Carpenter, Beth Mineo, Janella Newman, Brandy Smith, Lavina Smith, and Nina Bunting have all been appointed by the Governor. The membership committee has also approved applications received from Blake Roberts and Mila Wells. These two applicants will be submitted to the Governor for appointment.

Motion to accept the resignation of Melinda Ciccia Tartaglione and send a letter was approved.

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

Robert reported for this committee since the Chair Judy Smith was not available. The group is getting closer to completing the GACEC Personnel Manual. Hopefully it will be put out for Council approval in June.

CHAIR REPORT

Robert began his report by listing those members who had called or e-mailed to say that they would be unable to attend this evening.

Robert, Wendy, Kathie and Susan met with Secretary Lowery of the Department of Education recently. Representative Quinton Johnson and Ann Phillips of the Family Voices program also attended the meeting. The group discussed several issues. The meeting went very well. Robert came away from the meeting feeling that Secretary Lowery very much intends to work hand in hand with the Council to accomplish our goals.

Responses have been received to a number of GACEC letters and may be found in the Letters and Responses binder on the cart in the back of the room. The letters and responses are in date order, beginning with the most recent at the beginning of the book. If you would like a copy of any of the responses or the letters, please see GACEC staff.

Ron Russo stated that he is happy to be back. He received a phone call from Bernie Greenfield in regard to his membership and is looking forward to continuing to work with the Council.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:31p.m.