Place: Time - Amazon Web Services · 2014-10-13 · AGENDA Steering Committee September 17, 2014 Place: Oakland Marriott City Center Time: 10:00 - Steering Meeting 1001 Broadway Noon

AGENDA Steering Committee

September 17, 2014

Place: Oakland Marriott City Center Time: 10:00 - Steering Meeting 1001 Broadway Noon - Lunch Provided Skyline Room, 21st Floor

A list of the 2014-2015 Charter SELPA Steering Committee members is attached to this Agenda.

El Dorado County Charter SELPA

6767 Green Valley Road, Placerville, CA 95667 Toll Free 800.524.8100 or 530.295.2462 Fax 530.676.4337

ITEM SPEAKER PAGE #

A. Introductions and Announcements Group

B. SELPA Report

• CEO Council Update David Toston/Ginese Quann

• NCSC Update* Ginese Quann 1

• Community Advisory Committee (CAC) 2014-15 David Toston/Ginese Quann

• Mental Health/Sacramento Bee Article* David Toston 3

• ERMHS Guidelines 2014-15* Ginese Quann 11

• MTSS* Ginese Quann 12

• Steering Meeting Planning David Toston/Ginese Quann

C. Program Specialist Report

• Professional Development 2014-15 Meghan Magee

• Forms Update Sadie Pinotti

• Test Information Distribution Engine (TIDE)* Sadie Pinotti 15

• Title 5 Regulation Changes* Crystal Keith 18

D. Questions/Answers

*Denotes a handout included in the packet

List of SELPA Steering Committee Representatives 2014-2015

CMO/JPA/OthersAcademy of Arts & Sciences 1 Academy of Arts and Sciences Fresno Kelly Lambert SpEd Teacher

10 Sites 2 Academy of Arts and Sciences Los Angeles 9-12

3 Academy of Arts and Sciences Los Angeles K-8

4 Academy of Arts and Sciences Oxnard & Ventura

5 Academy of Arts and Sciences San Joaquin6 Academy of Arts and Sciences: Thousand Oaks

& Simi Valley7 Cal Stem San Joaquin8 Valley Prep Academy 6-89 Valley Prep Academy 9-12

10 Valley Prep Academy K-5ACE Charter / NorCal JPA 11 ACE Alum Rock Nancy Garza SpEd Manager4 Sites 12 ACE Charter High

13 ACE Empower Academy (ACE Charter)14 ACE Franklin McKinley

Alliance College-Ready Public Schools

15 Alliance Cindy and Bill Simon Technology Academy High

Alejandra Velez SpEd Director

11 Sites 16 Alliance College-Ready Academy High No. 1617 Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 418 Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 519 Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy No. 720 Alliance Collins Family College-Ready High21 Alliance Dr. Olga Mohan High22 Alliance Gertz-Ressler Richard Merkin 6-12

Complex23 Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy

High24 Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math and Science

25 Alliance Ouchi-O'Donovan 6-12 ComplexAlpha Public School / Norcal JPA

26 Alpha Middle School 2 (Alpha: Jose Hernandez Middle School)

Jessica Stryczek Seneca

2 Sites 27 Alpha: Blanca Alvarado MiddleAltus Institute 28 Audeo Charter Lynne Alipio CFO and Director of

Business4 Sites 29 Charter School of San Diego CFO and Director of

Business30 Laurel Preparatory Academy Wade Aschbrenner31 Mirus Secondary Lynne Alipio CFO and Director of

BusinessASPIRE Public Schools 32 ASPIRE Alexander Twilight College

Preparatory AcademyLisa Freccero SpEd Director

27 Sites 33 ASPIRE Alexander Twilight Secondary 34 ASPIRE Antonio Maria Lugo Academy35 ASPIRE APEX Academy36 ASPIRE Benjamin Holt College Preparatory

Academy37 ASPIRE Berkley Maynard Academy38 ASPIRE California College Preparatory 39 ASPIRE Capitol Heights Academy40 ASPIRE College Academy41 ASPIRE East Palo Alto Charter School42 ASPIRE Eres Academy43 ASPIRE Golden State College Preparatory

Academy

Steering Representative Name and TitleLEA - Charter School Name

El Dorado County Charter SELPA David M. Toston Ginese Quann Kathleen Tourigny Kathleen Hall Kari Armendariz Meghan Magee Sadie Pinotti Alison Rose Crystal Keith Janelle Mercado Robin Smay Sunny Lofton Lisa Donaldson Andrew Lawton Kate Galea Amanda Ramirez


CMO/JPA/Others Steering Representative Name and TitleLEA - Charter School Name44 ASPIRE Huntington Park Charter School45 ASPIRE Junior Collegiate Academy46 ASPIRE Langston Hughes Academy47 ASPIRE Lionel Wilson College Preparatory

Academy48 ASPIRE Monarch Academy49 ASPIRE Ollin University Preparatory Academy50 ASPIRE Port City Academy51 ASPIRE River Oaks52 ASPIRE Rosa Parks Academy53 ASPIRE Summit Charter Academy54 ASPIRE Titan Academy55 Aspire Triumph Technology Academy56 ASPIRE University Charter57 ASPIRE Vanguard College Preparatory 58 ASPIRE Vincent Shalvey Academy

Caliber Schools - 1 Site 59 Caliber Beta Academy Joe Farrell SpEd CoordinatorNatalie Walchuk Founding School

California Virtual Academies 60 California Virtual Academy @ Fresno Amber Verdi SpEd Director3 Sites 61 California Virtual Academy @ Kings

62 California Virtual Academy @ San MateoKylee Luchetti SpEd Teacher

Classical Academies 63 Classical Academy Cori Coffey SpEd Director3 Sites 64 Classical Academy High

65 Coastal AcademyCommunity Learning Center 66 Alameda Community Learning Center Carrie Blanche SpEd Director2 Sites 67 Nea Community Learning Center Katie Struzynski SpEd CoordinatorEducation for Change 68 Achieve Academy Robin Detterman Seneca6 Sites 69 ASCEND

70 Cox Academy71 Epic Charter Enikia Morthel Chief of Schools72 Lazear Charter Academy Robin Detterman Seneca73 Learning Without Limits

Envision Schools 74 Envision City Arts & Tech High Carole Fisher Vice President of SpEd

3 Sites 75 Envision Academy for Arts & Technology (EA)

76 Envision Impact Academy of Arts and Technology (Impact)

Flex Public Schools 77 San Francisco Flex Academy Robin Wise SpEd Coordinator 2 Sites 78 Silicon Valley FLEX Academy Jean Southland Head of SchoolFortune School of Education 79 Fortune School Arnold Allen Principal2 Sites 80 Hardy Brown College Prep Margaret Fortune - HB CEO/PrincipalGateway Community 81 Gateway International Michael Gillespie Assistant Heritage Classical Charter Schools of America

82 Temecula Preparatory DiAnne McClenahan Director of Stu. Svs.

iLead Charter Schools 83 iLEAD Lancaster Charter Dawn Evenson Executive Director2 Sites 84 Santa Clarita Valley International Charter Imagine Schools 85 Imagine Schools, Riverside County Deborah Havens SpEd DirectorIngenium Schools 86 Barack Obama Charter Janet Nora SpEd Teacher2 Sites 87 Ingenium Charter Sharon Soeller Resource SpecialistJohn Adams Inc. 88 John Adams Academy Carlos Yniguez Dean of ScholarsKipp Bay Area Schools 89 KIPP Bayview Academy Julie Mattoon SpEd Director10 Sites 90 KIPP Bridge Charter

91 KIPP Heartwood Academy92 KIPP Heritage Academy93 KIPP King Collegiate High94 KIPP Prize Academy95 KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy96 KIPP San Francisco College Preparatory97 KIPP San Jose Collegiate98 KIPP Summit Academy


CMO/JPA/Others Steering Representative Name and TitleLEA - Charter School NameLeadership Public Schools 99 Leadership Public Schools - Hayward Joe Pacheco Director SpEd/ Stu.

Svs.4 Sites 100 Leadership Public Schools - San Jose

101 Leadership Public Schools: Richmond102 LPS Oakland R & D Campus

Learn 4 Life Concept Charter Schools

103 Alta Vista Public Pat Hill SpEd Director

14 Sites 104 Alta Vista South Public Charter School105 Ambassador Phillip V. Sanchez Public Charter

106 Antelope Valley Learning Academy107 Assurance Learning Academy108 Crescent Valley Public Charter109 Crescent View South Charter110 Crescent View West Charter111 Desert Sands Charter112 Diego Hills Charter113 Diego Springs Academy114 Diego Valley Charter115 Mission View Public116 Vista Real Charter High

Lighthouse Community Charter Public Schools

117 Lighthouse Community Charter Kristi Dahlstrom Seneca

2 Sites 118 Lighthouse Community Charter HighMagnolia Public Schools 119 SBE-Magnolia Science Academy Santa Ana Kelly Hourigan SpEd CoordinatorMosaica Education, Inc. 120 Mosaica Online Academy of Los Angeles Tammy Kirkpatrick Head of School2 Sites 121 Mosaica Online Academy of Southern Navigator Schools 122 Gilroy Prep Sharon Waller CEO2 Sites 123 Hollister PrepNorcal JPA 124 Oakland Military Institute College Preparatory

AcademyNikki Arvanitis SpEd Director

2 Sites 125 Oakland School for the Arts Sarah Notch SpEd Administrator

North State Charter JPA 126 North Woods Discovery Jean Hatch SpEd Director2 Sites 127 Redding School for the Arts IIPacific Charter Institute 128 Valley View Charter Prep Jessie Bains SpEd DirectorRocketship Public Schools 129 Rocketship Academy Brilliant Minds Genevieve Thomas Regional Director of

ISD9 Sites 130 Rocketship Alma Academy

131 Rocketship Alum Rock (will be renamed Fuerza)

132 Rocketship Discovery Prep133 Rocketship Los Suenos Academy134 Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary135 Rocketship Mosaic Elementary136 Rocketship Si Se Puede Academy137 Rocketship Spark Academy

Rocklin Academy Charter Schools

138 Rocklin Academy at Turnstone Phil Spears Executive Director

3 Sites 139 Rocklin Academy at Meyers Street140 Western Sierra Collegiate Academy

San Diego Charter School Special Education Consortium

141 Arroyo Paseo Charter High School Cindy Atlas Executive Director of SD SE Improvement Authority

28 Sites 142 Darnall Charter School143 e3Civic High144 Elevate Elementary145 Epiphany Prep Charter146 Empower Charter147 Gompers Preparatory Academy148 Harriet Tubman Village Charter


CMO/JPA/Others Steering Representative Name and TitleLEA - Charter School Name149 Howard Gardner Community Charter150 Innovations Academy151 Keiller Leadership Academy152 King-Chavez Academy of Excellence153 King-Chavez Arts Academy154 King-Chavez Athletics Academy155 King-Chavez Community High School156 King-Chavez Preparatory Academy157 King-Chavez Primary Academy158 KIPP Adelante Preparatory Academy159 Learning Choice Academy160 MAAC Community Charter School161 Magnolia Science Academy San Diego162 McGill School of Success163 Museum164 Old Town Academy K-8 Charter165 Preuss School UCSD166 San Diego Cooperative Charter School167 San Diego Cooperative Charter School 2168 Urban Discovery Academy Charter

Semillas Sociedad Civil 169 Anahuacalmecac International Preparatory High School of North America

Marcos Aguilar Executive Director

SF Five Keys Charter 170 Five Keys Adult School Jennifer Zamora SpEd Coordinator/ TES Contractor

3 Sites 171 Five Keys Charter 172 Five Keys Independence High School

St. Hope Public Schools 173 Oak Park Preparatory Academy Jeff Weiss SpEd Director3 Sites 174 Sacramento Charter High

175 St. HOPE Public School 7Stockton Collegiate International

176 Stockton Collegiate International Elementary Katherine Luu SpEd Contact

2 Sites 177 Stockton Collegiate International Secondary

Summit Public Schools 178 Summit Public School K2 Andy Lichtblau SpEd Director5 Sites 179 Summit Public School: Denali

180 Summit Public School: Rainier181 Summit Public School: Shasta182 Summit Public School: Tahoma

Thrive Public Schools 183 Thrive Public Schools Nicole Assisi CEOTri Valley Learning 184 Livermore Valley Charter Stephanie Pavlenko Resource Specialist2 Sites 185 Livermore Valley Charter Preparatory HighNot Affiliated with a CMO or Org.

186 Academy of Personalized Learning Patricia Dougherty CEO

2 Sites 187 Albert Einstein Academy Charter Middle Jennifer Berle Education Specialist188 Einstein Academy Shawn Powell Education Specialist

Not Affiliated with a CMO or 189 Bayshore Preparatory Charter Amelia Vincent SpEd Coordinator Not Affiliated with a CMO or

Org.190 Capitol Collegiate Academy Cristin Fiorelli Principal

Not Affiliated with a CMO or Org.

191 City Heights Preparatory Charter Marnie Nair Founding Director


192 Clayton Valley Charter High Eileen Linzey SpEd Director


193 Community School for Creative Education Ida Oberman CEO


194 Dixon Montessori Charter Amy Valenzuela SpEd Director


195 Dr. Lewis Dolphin Stallworth Sr. Charter Gayle Stallworth Executive Director


196 East Bay Innovation Academy Devin Krugman Director of OPS


197 Edison Charter Academy Therron Adams SpEd Coordinator


CMO/JPA/Others Steering Representative Name and TitleLEA - Charter School NameNot Affiliated with a CMO or Org.

198 Eleanor Roosevelt Community Learning Center

Daniel Huecker Director/ Superintendent


199 FAME Public Charter School Cerrene Cervantes SpEd Manager


200 Gateway College and Career Academy Miguel Contreras Director


201 Hope Academy Charter Christine Torrez Director of Programs


202 Iftin Charter Maslah Yussuf Instructional Leader


203 Inland Leaders Charter School Corey Loomis SpEd Director


204 Life Source International Charter Deberae Culpepper Executive Director


205 Lifeline Education Charter Jeanette Andrews SpEd Teacher


206 Mission Preparatory Jane Henzerling CEO

4 Sites 207 Oxford Preparatory Academy Eric Beam Director of Sp. Svs.208 Oxford Preparatory Academy - Chino Valley209 Oxford Preparatory Academy - Los Angeles210 Oxford Preparatory Academy - South Orange


211 Paragon Collegiate Academy Laura Cotney Principal


212 River Montessori Elementary Charter Barbara Bates-Stokes SpEd Director

Kelly Mannion Executive DirectorNot Affiliated with a CMO or Org.

213 Rowland Heights Charter Academy Sudonna Moss Logan Principal

2 Sites 214 San Diego Global Vision Academy Dena Harris CEO215 San Diego Global Vision Academy Middle

Not Affiliated with a CMO or 216 Summit Leadership Academy-High Desert Shannon Brandner Director of


217 Sunrise Middle Anne Allec SpEd Contact


218 Synergy (SBE) Cheryl Townsend Programs Director


219 Temecula Valley Charter School Lois Hastings Principal


220 The Academy Esteban Quiroz Stu.Svs. Coordiantor


221 The Language Academy of Sacramento Isela Mendez SpEd and Intervention


222 The O'Farrell Charter Samantha Pohaku SpEd Director/ Psychologist


223 Urban Montessori Charter David Castillo Head of School

Robin Detterman Contractor/Seneca2 Sites 224 Westlake Charter Danielle Christy SpEd Director

225 Westlake Charter MiddleJaclyn Moreno SpEd Director


226 Yu Ming Charter School Danielle Simons SpEd Coordinator

August 15, 2014 Dear County and District Superintendents and Charter School Administrators:

Update on the 2014–15 Alternate Assessment Since the 2011–12 school year, the California Department of Education (CDE) participated with the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) on the development and delivery of curriculum materials. Since 2013–14, the CDE has also been participating with NCSC on their alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. As approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) on July 9, 2014, California intended to participate in a full field test (100 percent of eligible students) utilizing the NCSC spring 2015 administration. On July 30, 2014, the CDE received a letter from NCSC that confirmed that “only states that plan to administer the test under operational conditions, fully implementing all features of the NCSC summative assessment design, will be able to participate in spring 2015.” NCSC also determined that given its “available resources, capacity, and timelines,” it could not accommodate California’s request. The letter further clarified that no state will be allowed to participate in spring 2015 as a field test, an option that was previously made available in the NCSC project work plan. This decision also affects other NCSC member states that had planned to conduct a small sample field test in spring 2015. Given this response, and the SBE’s direction to explore other alternatives, it is best for California to remain open to all options in an effort to prepare eligible students with disabilities for the future alternate assessment. As a result, California will still participate in the NCSC Phase II Pilot Test this fall. Additionally, CDE and SBE staff continue to explore options for administering a field test for eligible students in grades three through eight and eleven, inclusive, in English- language arts (ELA) and mathematics in spring 2015, as a way to allow all eligible students and their teachers the opportunity to have exposure to a test aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) without the concern that the assessment results will be reported or used, except for initial standard setting or other psychometric purposes. In order to avoid double-testing these students, the state will not administer the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), which was based on the previous state standards in ELA and mathematics. However, as required by federal law, CAPA science assessments in grades five, eight, and ten will continue to be administered until a successor assessment is in place.

1

August 15, 2014 Page 2 Following California’s spring 2015 field test administration, the CDE will evaluate the outcome of the field test, the NCSC operational test, and any other available alternate assessments before making a final decision on how to proceed for the implementation of an operational test in spring 2016. Information on the procedures for the California spring 2015 field test for eligible students will be provided as soon as possible. The state leadership is committed to providing a valid and reliable alternate assessment that is aligned with CCSS for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The curriculum, instruction, and professional development resources created by many California special education educators in collaboration with the NCSC state consortium, and utilized in many California classrooms, can continue to be implemented due to its strong instructional support for eligible students to achieve higher levels of academic standards in ELA and mathematics. If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Lily Roberts, Education Research and Evaluation Administrator, English Language Proficiency and Alternate Assessments Office, by phone at 916-319-0784 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, Keric Ashley, Interim Deputy Superintendent District, School, and Innovation Branch KA:mm cc: Karen Stapf Walters, Executive Director, California State Board of Education

Diane Hernandez, Director, Assessment Development and Administration Division Fred Balcom, Director, Special Education Division California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Local Educational

Agency Coordinators Special Education Local Plan Area Directors

2

mailto:[email protected]

Families of mentally ill children struggle for access to residential treatment By Jocelyn Wiener CHCF Center for Health Reporting Published: Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014 - 12:00 am

The first time Emily tried to kill herself, at age 15, she swallowed the entire contents of a bottle of Prozac, along with some Sudafed and Claritin she found in the medicine cabinet.

“Mom,” she said as they sped to the emergency room that morning in May 2012, “I just want to die.”

Doctors at Sierra Vista psychiatric hospital in south Sacramento stabilized the girl after two weeks, then referred her to an adolescent facility in San Francisco, which eventually sent her home.

In the ensuing months, her mother said, she and her ex-husband did everything they could to help their daughter feel better: new medications, therapy, a new high school, an internship.

Just after Christmas that year, as things finally seemed to be improving, the teenager drank carpet cleaner while her mother was running an errand. Paramedics rushed her to a hospital. After this second suicide attempt, doctors recommended she be placed in a high-level residential treatment facility, where she would receive intensive therapy and be monitored around the clock.

Her parents didn’t have insurance to cover such extended care, which can easily run $100,000 a year. So, after some debate, they asked Sacramento City Unified, their local school district, to pay for treatment through a taxpayer-funded program that requires districts to cover the costs of student mental health care.

District officials refused. Emily’s family filed a legal complaint, and agreed to share her story with a reporter on the condition a pseudonym was used to protect her privacy. Earlier this year, a judge ordered the district to pick up the tab for her placement in a residential facility.

The district is now fighting the court order.

Three years ago, the state shifted the responsibility for – and cost of – decisions about residential placement and other intensive treatments for students with mental illness from the counties to the schools. The Legislature set aside $420 million a year to pay for a whole spectrum of education-related mental health services, including residential placements.

In the years since, parents of some of the state’s most emotionally disturbed young people say they are struggling, and often failing, to obtain services they believe will mean the difference between life and death for their children.

3

http://www.sacbee.com/search_results/?sf_pubsys_story_byline=%22Jocelyn%20Wiener%22&link_location=top�

mailto:CHCF%20Center%20for%20Health%20Reporting�

http://topics.sacbee.com/San+Francisco/�

http://topics.sacbee.com/health+services/�

Since the new system went into effect, district placements of students in expensive, high-level residential facilities that specialize in treating emotionally disturbed children have dropped precipitously, according to a survey of more than a dozen of the state’s largest school districts.

The trend is evident throughout the Sacramento region: In San Juan Unified, 25 students were placed in residential treatment in 2009-10 compared with six in 2012-13. In Elk Grove Unified, placements fell from 17 in 2008-09 to three in 2012-13. In Sacramento City Unified, they fell from 29 in 2008-09 to six in 2012-13.

Other large districts in the state report similar declines: Placements in Los Angeles Unified dropped from 208 in 2009 to 158 in 2012. In San Diego Unified, they fell from 52 in 2009-10 to 15 in 2012-13. San Francisco Unified fell from 22 in 2008 to nine in 2013. Oakland Unified went from 24 in 2009-10 to 18 in 2012-13, and last school year placed six students.

The state Department of Education does not specifically track residential placements approved by school districts, instead collecting a broader set of data that includes placements by probation, child welfare and other agencies, numbers that in some communities mask the dramatic decline.

Placements in so-called nonpublic schools – private school campuses that generally include a therapeutic component for children with emotional or developmental issues – declined by 30 percent in a similar time frame, from nearly 14,000 in 2007-08 to 9,700 in 2012-13, according to state data.

Doctors and advocates who specialize in mental illness say the decline in placements is no accident: that districts are taking a narrower view than the counties did of when students should be placed in residential treatment or receive other intensive mental health services.

Statewide, there has been a shift from a “medical” model of providing care favored by the counties to an “educational” model embraced by the schools, said Doug Siembieda, director of special education for Huntington Beach Union High School District and legislative chairman for the California Association of School Psychologists.

Counties used to take an expansive view of the services they could provide to emotionally disturbed children, considering the risks and challenges students and their families faced at home as well as on campus. School districts now make their treatment decisions based primarily on whether children’s mental health needs affect their educational performance, Siembieda and other school and county officials said.

The districts emphasize that they are not legally responsible for addressing mental health problems that emerge off campus, provided students are faring well enough academically. In a recent Humboldt County court case, the attorney representing the school district said the judge’s order requiring the district to pay for residential placement for a troubled student was equivalent to ordering the district to provide a physically ill child with a new kidney.

“If the student is running away from home, do we believe that is an educational issue or is that a home issue that needs to be addressed?” said Carl Corbin, general counsel for School & College

4

http://topics.sacbee.com/child+welfare/�

http://topics.sacbee.com/Humboldt+County/�

Legal Services of California. “If it’s not primarily an educational issue, then it’s not a school district’s responsibility.”

Becky Bryant, director of special education at Sacramento City Unified, declined to speak about Emily’s case. But she and other district officials say the shift in law – and accompanying funding – has allowed them to improve on-campus mental health services. Siembieda said his district, for example, has increased the amount of counseling and established a new mental health center to serve children and families.

The decline in residential and nonpublic school placements, school officials say, may simply be a reflection of improved mental health services on campuses and an increased effort to keep kids in their home communities.

But the fall in placements parallels another trend, as well: Hospitalizations of children and adolescents for mental health reasons increased 38 percent in California between 2007 and 2012, jumping from 34,000 annually to 47,000, according to an analysis of state data. The number of emergency room visits involving suicide attempts among young people increased more than 20 percent statewide during that time; in Sacramento County, suicide attempts among young people increased more than 60 percent.

For parents struggling to keep their children from hurting themselves or others, these numbers represent horror and heartache. Grades and test scores, they say, seem inadequate measures of their children’s mental health needs. How can their children be seen as thriving academically if they’re spending weeks in the hospital following a suicide attempt? Without adequate services, many of these parents are left in a desperate scramble – locking up knives and painkillers, trying to protect themselves and their other children from explosive meltdowns, bracing emotionally for terrifying disappearances.

For such parents, residential placement can come to represent a respite from the madness, a last chance to save a child when nothing else has worked.

Emily’s mother chokes up as she describes watching her daughter struggle, and the enervating toll on their family life. In 18 months, she said, Emily landed in the hospital six different times.

“What (my daughter) needs, I understand it’s super expensive,” she said, “but I think all society is going to pay if we don’t take care of it right now.”

Insurance rarely an option

Doctors, mental health advocates and families generally agree that most children with mental health issues should receive treatment in their homes and communities. Their disagreement with school districts relates to which children require residential treatment or other intensive mental health services, and at what point the districts are mandated to offer it.

Since the law changed in 2011, school districts have varied widely in what services they provide, said Ken Berrick, CEO of the Oakland-based Seneca Family of Agencies, which provides an

5

http://topics.sacbee.com/health+reasons/�

http://topics.sacbee.com/emergency+room+visits/�

http://topics.sacbee.com/Sacramento+County/�

http://topics.sacbee.com/family+life/�

extensive array of children’s mental health services in Northern California. Some districts work hard to provide such intensive services, while others have become “service deniers,” he said.

If districts don’t pay for services, it’s often not clear who will. Private insurance companies rarely pay for such treatment for more than a few weeks, if at all. It can take months or longer for such placements to be effective.

Most children could potentially forgo residential treatment if they receive intensive one-on-one services in their communities, said Dr. John Lyons, a senior research fellow with University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall.

But for children prone to violence, suicide, self-injury and substance abuse, good residential facilities can prove beneficial, Lyons said. The best facilities provide intensive 24-hour-a-day care and therapy in a structured, nurturing environment that eventually can allow young people to stabilize and return home, he said.

At Family Life Center, a residential facility in Petaluma recently acquired by the Seneca Family of Agencies, the typical day begins at 7:30 a.m. Teenage residents dress, clean their rooms and eat breakfast. At 8:35 a.m., they do chores, ranging from sweeping to weeding to walking the center’s two goats. They receive about four hours of academic instruction plus physical education on weekdays, eat lunch together, and move into therapy sessions in the afternoon. Group therapy takes place three times a week; individual and family therapy at least once each week.

Staff members take the young residents on frequent wilderness outings. Lights go out each night at 10:30 p.m. Staff members check on the residents every 15 minutes. The center employs 80 staff members to serve about 40 young people. The cost is about $100,000 a year per child for residential treatment, plus $30,000 a year for educational services.

Legally, nothing changed in recent years to explain the decrease in residential placements. Schools, like counties in the past, are required to include residential treatment on the list of options they consider in determining the appropriate special education plan for an emotionally disturbed student.

Philosophically, however, there has been a general move away from residential treatment in favor of treating children at home. And, in the case of the schools, the process for determining the need for residential placements also changed.

Before the state shifted responsibility for mental health services to school districts, county psychiatrists would assess students to determine the level of mental health services they needed, including residential treatment. The county was responsible for the bulk of the cost of these services, with schools paying only for the portion directly related to education.

In 2010, after years of state budget shortfalls that often left counties unreimbursed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed funding for the program altogether. That left uncertainty over which entity – counties or schools – was responsible for providing the federally mandated services. The

6

http://topics.sacbee.com/substance+abuse/�

following year, the Legislature changed the law to officially void counties’ responsibilities, instead sending $420 million back to the schools to cover the cost of providing the services.

Education officials argued at the time that schools were better equipped to understand and address the mental health needs of their students. In most other states, schools, not counties, had that responsibility.

Campus services bolstered

Today, school districts determine the level of services they will offer based on an Individualized Education Program, or IEP, meeting, which can include parents, teachers, therapists, district officials and students. If parents don’t like what the district offers, they can file a formal complaint and request a hearing in front of an administrative law judge.

The state does not track how many of these “due process” complaints directly relate to denials of parents’ requests for residential placements. According to data from the State Office of Administrative Hearings, overall mental health complaints related to special education nearly doubled between 2008-09 and 2013-14, from 109 to 216.

If a school district – or judge – determines that a student does need residential treatment or other intensive mental health services, the district must pay. The state parcels out mental health funds to districts in annual allocations, and districts are able to use that money for a variety of special education services. What they don’t spend on residential placement is funneled into other mental-health-related programs in the district.

School districts say money does not factor into their decisions about treatment options, and that the change in law has, in many cases, resulted in children receiving better services and more support within the school setting.

Bill Tollestrup, director of special education for Elk Grove Unified, said his district is now able to offer counseling, in-home support and monthly workshops for students and their families. Fewer children need residential treatment, he said, because the district is responding better to students’ mental health needs.

In 2012, San Juan Unified removed more than 300 students from nonpublic schools and brought them back on campus. Part of what enabled them to do this, district officials say, is La Vista Center, a separate campus for emotionally disturbed students. They are particularly proud of the school’s mental health services, which include four full-time therapists who work with about 100 adolescents. Therapy rooms equipped with couches and therapeutic toys are sprinkled across the Fair Oaks campus.

One afternoon this spring, Sherrie Marlette, the school’s principal, walked down the halls, warmly greeting her students. One young man sat slouched outside his classroom, sobbing. A therapist sat on the ground next to him, speaking softly.

7

“We try to create a space where it’s OK to have a meltdown,” Marlette explained. “Kids don’t want to talk about a problem they had a week ago.”

Marlette has been principal of La Vista since 2005, and says the change in law has allowed her district to increase mental health services. In addition to the four therapists at her school, another four rotate throughout the district. The district also added a clinical psychologist, a social worker and special programs to serve emotionally disturbed students on most high school and middle school sites.

‘Stacked against the kids’

Dr. Joe Mawhinney, chairman of the California Psychiatric Association’s access to care committee, offers a sharply different perspective. Mawhinney, who has worked as a child psychiatrist in the state since 1975, said he increasingly sees districts stonewalling parents who request extensive mental health services for their children, or encouraging them to home-school. He sees increased numbers of children struggling to get crucial services and residential placements, he said, especially those with the most severe mental health needs. Without appropriate checks and balances, he believes incentives are “stacked against the kids.”

“It really is a systematic deterioration,” he said. “There is a whole cadre of kids who are going to be chronically and severely disabled, probably many of them in prison, who are not receiving the type of care they would need to function.”

Daniel Shaw and Rick Ruderman, attorneys with Ruderman & Knox, a Sacramento-based firm that specializes in special education law, said recent court decisions bolster the contention that districts are improperly refusing services. They point to a handful of cases in which the courts have supported their clients’ allegations that their children are not receiving adequate help. They say children are coming to them with much more serious mental health needs than was true before the law changed.

In one of their cases out of Humboldt County, the family of a 15-year-old student sued the Humboldt County Office of Education and Northern Humboldt Union High School District, demanding residential treatment.

According to court documents and interviews with Shaw and the boy’s family, he assaulted his grandparents, who were raising him, on multiple occasions. In 2011, his school suspended him for stabbing a classmate with a pen. He became paranoid and heard voices. He hung out in homeless encampments and traded sex for drugs. Twice, he was discovered passed out naked in an alley. He tested positive for heroin, meth, marijuana and alcohol and spent a total of 11 months in juvenile hall. Police picked him up four times last October alone.

Despite the grandfather’s appeals for the school district to intervene, the district and county Office of Education maintained that the boy’s emotional issues were not adversely impacting his education, according to court documents. They recommended he attend the local high school and offered a total of three 30-minute counseling sessions to help him transition back to school.

8

In her decision last December requiring that the district and county Office of Education pay for residential treatment, Administrative Law Judge Theresa Ravandi shot down the district’s argument that the teen’s declining mental health and nonattendance at school were “unrelated to the learning process” and that residential treatment was not the school district’s responsibility.

“His unmet mental health needs are intimately related to his disability, adversely impact his education, are inseparable from the learning process, and can only be met in a residential setting,” she wrote.

“They played a game of hot potato,” the teen’s grandfather said. “Nobody wanted to claim responsibility. For over two years they passed the buck. Whatever their damned excuses, (my grandson) was denied services. They could have intervened … Bottom line, nobody wanted to pay for it.”

‘A bright line delineation’

Emily’s mother said she and her ex-husband tried for more than a year to work with the schools to get their daughter the help that she needed.

In meetings with the parents, the district argued its services were sufficient and noted that Emily continued to perform well academically. As of her June 2013 IEP meeting, she was earning A’s and performing well on tests, according to court documents.

But her parents saw their daughter spiraling out of control: using illegal drugs, cutting herself, repeatedly running away and putting herself in dangerous sexual situations. Their insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, twice sent Emily to a two-week hospital diversion program in San Francisco to help her stabilize, her mother said. Emily told her mother she imagined she’d join the ranks of the homeless along Watt Avenue when she grew up.

Emily describes those months like this: “My brain chemistry was going haywire, and I was not getting the help I needed.”

As the months ticked by, her parents felt an added urgency: If they couldn’t stabilize their daughter before she turned 18 – when legally she could make her own decisions – they worried they would lose her completely.

Last September, Sacramento City Unified offered to send Emily to a special day class for emotionally disturbed students on a public school campus for the morning, and to a small for-profit nonpublic school for the afternoon, according to court documents. At each campus, she was to see different therapists: two 30-minute therapy sessions each week on the public school campus, and one weekly individual therapy session and a group therapy session at the nonpublic school.

By October, Emily was back in the psychiatric hospital. After she was discharged later that month, her parents decided to place her in a Utah residential treatment center called Falcon Ridge Ranch near Zion National Park. It seemed like a good place, her mother said, and at

9

$8,000 a month, cost only half as much as similar facilities they looked at in California. She used money from the sale of her home, she said; her ex-husband dipped into his retirement accounts and borrowed from credit cards.

But they knew they couldn’t sustain the payments, she said, and worried about the prospect of bankruptcy. They filed a due process complaint, hoping a judge would order Sacramento City Unified to cover the costs.

On May 23, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Deidre L. Johnson determined that the district had failed to provide Emily with appropriate academic instruction and mental health services.

The judge criticized the district for “that narrow view of a bright line delineation between keeping Student safe at school and having Parents maintain responsibility for her safety outside of school.” She ordered the district to reimburse Emily’s parents, and to cover the cost of residential treatment through the end of this summer.

The district is appealing the decision.

For now, Emily’s parents continue to shoulder the cost of her care. Emily seems to be thriving thanks to the consistency and structure at the Utah facility, including individual and family therapy, equine therapy and daily group therapy sessions, she and her mother said. She has asked to stay longer, her mother said, and hopes to graduate with a high school diploma sometime this fall.

“Treatment is awful,” Emily wrote in a recent email. “It is by far the most uncomfortable, provoking and painful thing I’ve ever had to do. However, those exact reasons have allowed me to heal.”

After this summer, Emily and her family aren’t clear what will happen.

“I think that this has saved her life,” her mother said. “I just pray that it’s enough.”

Jocelyn Wiener is a writer with the California HealthCare Foundation Center for Health Reporting at USC Annenberg. Bee staff writer Phillip Reese contributed to this report.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/24/6649568/families-of-mentally-ill-children.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/24/6649568/families-of-mentally-ill-children.html#storylink=cpy

10

Level Level 1 Level 2Level 3

Site BasedLevel 3

NPSLevel 3

Residential

Description Universal Supports IEP Based ServicesStructured Therapeutic

ProgramERMHS in NPS

Room and Board for ERMHS Services

Special Education Eligibility All Special Education and ERMHS ED ED ED

SELPA Budget $1 Million $3 Million $2.13 Million

Allocation Formula $10 per ADA80% of the lesser of $3000 per

service or $250 per ADA or Budget Request.

80% of Allowed Cost 90% of Allowed Cost 100% of Allowed Cost

Matching (Copay) Amount None 20% of Allowed Cost 20% of Allowed Cost 10% of Allowed Cost None

First Payment 75% in February 50% in January 50% in January 50% in January 50% in January

Final Distribution July July/August July/August July/August July/August

Budget Request*Monday 5:00 November 3

2014Monday 5:00 November 3




2014

Final Expenditure ReportJuly 13 2015

July 13 2015

July 13 2015

July 13 2015

July 13 2015

Expenditure Restrictions a) Staff requiring certification

b) Suppliesa) CDE Certified NPS

b) Pass LCFF Testa) CDE Certified NPS

Disallowed Expenditures

Disallowed Expenditures

Additional Budget Requests after November 3

None

ERMHS Allocation Plan Overview

No facility/rent costs, direct support (e.g. utilities/custodial), or administrative cost

No Indirect

None Case by case review for programs started after

11/3/14. No funding guarantee.

30 days after Master Contract execution

30 days after Master Contract execution* When a deadline (November 1) falls on a weekend, the report is

due on the following Monday.

11

Display version

Definition of MTSS The California Department of Education's definition of Multiple-Tiered System of Supports and a comparison between it and Response to Instruction and Intervention.

The California Department of Education’s (CDE) definition of Multiple-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) provides a basis for understanding how California educators can work together to ensure equitable access and opportunity for all students to achieve the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). MTSS includes Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2

CDE’s Definition of MTSS

) as well as additional, distinct philosophies and concepts.

In California, MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on CCSS, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. California has a long history of providing numerous systems of support. These include the interventions within the RtI2

Comparing MTSS to RtI

processes, supports for Special Education, Title I, Title III, support services for English Learners, American-Indian students, and those in gifted and talented programs. MTSS offers the potential to create needed systematic change through intentional design and redesign of services and supports that quickly identify and match the needs of all students.

2

CDE’s RtI

2 processes focus on students who are struggling and provide a vehicle for teamwork

and data-based decision making to strengthen their performances before and after educational and behavioral problems increase in intensity. Please visit the CDE Web site on RtI2 for further information.

MTSS Differences with RtI

MTSS has a broader scope than does RtI

2

2

• Focusing on aligning the entire system of initiatives, supports, and resources.

. MTSS also includes:

• Promoting district participation in identifying and supporting systems for alignment of resources, as well as site and grade level.

• Systematically addressing support for all students, including gifted and high achievers. • Enabling a paradigm shift for providing support and setting higher expectations for all

students through intentional design and redesign of integrated services and supports, rather than selection of a few components of RtI and intensive interventions.

12

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/mtsscomprti2.asp�

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/rtiihome.asp�

• Endorsing Universal Design for Learning instructional strategies so all students have opportunities for learning through differentiated content, processes, and product.

• Integrating instructional and intervention support so that systemic changes are sustainable and based on CCSS-aligned classroom instruction.

• Challenging all school staff to change the way in which they have traditionally worked across all school settings.

MTSS is not designed for consideration in special education placement decisions, such as specific learning disabilities. MTSS focuses on all students in education contexts.

MTSS Similarities to RtI2

MTSS incorporates many of the same components of RtI

2

• Supporting high-quality standards and research-based, culturally and linguistically relevant instruction with the belief that every student can learn including students of poverty, students with disabilities, English learners, and students from all ethnicities evident in the school and district cultures.

, such as

• Integrating a data collection and assessment system, including universal screening, diagnostics and progress monitoring, to inform decisions appropriate for each tier of service delivery.

• Relying on a problem-solving systems process and method to identify problems, develop interventions and, evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in a multi-tiered system of service delivery.

• Seeking and implementing appropriate research-based interventions for improving student learning.

• Using school-wide and classroom research-based positive behavioral supports for achieving important social and learning outcomes.

• Implementing a collaborative approach to analyze student data and working together in the intervention process.

Venn Diagram of MTSS and RtI2

The following figure displays similarities and differences between California’s MTSS and RtI

2 processes. Both rely on RtI2’s data gathering through universal screening, data-driven decision making, problem-solving teams, and are focused on the CCSS. However, the MTSS process has a broader approach, addressing the needs of all students by aligning the entire system of initiatives, supports, and resources, and by implementing continuous improvement processes at all levels of the system.

13

Questions: Phyllis Hallam | [email protected] | 916-323-4630

Last Reviewed: Thursday, July 10, 2014

14

mailto:[email protected]�

Jeremy M. Meyers, Superintendent Empowering Charters to Succeed David M. Toston, Executive Director

El Dorado County Office of Education

El Dorado County Charter SELPA 6767 Green Valley Road Placerville CA 95667 Toll Free 800.524.8100 or 530.295.2462 Fax 530.676.4337

Statewide Assessments & TIDE FAQ

The Smarter Balanced Assessment System is a multistate consortium working collaboratively to develop a student assessment system aligned with a common core of academic content standards for English language arts/literacy and mathematics. On January 1, 2014, the California Assessment of Student Performance & Progress (CAASPP) assessment was established as California’s new statewide assessment system, replacing the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. Definitions

I. Smarter Balanced Assessment System a. The Smarter Balanced Assessment System is a multistate consortium working collaboratively to

develop a student assessment system aligned with a common core of academic content standards for English language arts/literacy and mathematics.

II. CAASPP a. The California Assessment of Student Performance & Progress (CAASPP) was established on January 1,

2014 and is California’s new statewide assessment system underneath the broad umbrella of assessments that the state has identified as the “Smarter Balanced Assessment System.”

III. TIDE a. The Test Information Distribution Engine (TIDE) is the test registration system where local education

agencies are responsible for designating supports and accommodations for students who will be participating in the CAASPP assessments.

What state testing assessments will be provided in 2014-15 school year? 2014-15 will be the first school year of full implementation of the CAASPP assessments.

What accommodations are available for students with disabilities? Students with disabilities may use embedded accommodations and non-embedded accommodations that have been documented in an individual education plan (IEP) or 504 accommodations page. Students with disabilities may also use universal tools and designated supports. For a complete list and description of the universal tools, designated supports, and accommodations that are appropriate for the Smarter Balanced assessment, please review the Smarter Balanced Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines document available on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) website. Where Can I Access the TIDE Accommodations Page in SEIS?

Case managers and/or services providers may access the TIDE Accommodations page in SEIS (Special Education Information System) by completing the following:

Log-in to the SEIS website: https://www.seis.org/index.aspx Locate a specific student who you wish to update his/her TIDE page amongst the “Current Students”

Please note: The TIDE page is available for “Current Students” and “Pending Students” in SEIS.

Open the student’s Future IEP The list of “Future IEP Forms” will appear in the center of the screen (IEP at a Glance, Assessment Plan, etc.) On the right hand side the TIDE page can be accessed by selecting “TIDE Testing Accommodations”.

15

Jeremy M. Meyers, Superintendent Empowering Charters to Succeed David M. Toston, Executive Director

El Dorado County Office of Education

El Dorado County Charter SELPA 6767 Green Valley Road Placerville CA 95667 Toll Free 800.524.8100 or 530.295.2462 Fax 530.676.4337

What Information Do I Need To Complete the TIDE Page? The TIDE Accommodations page shall be completed for each student during an IEP meeting. The SELPA recommends reviewing this form with all IEP team members during the student annual or triennial IEP meeting. If the student’s annual/triennial IEP is not due between now and the 2014-15 CAASPP testing dates; an IEP amendment shall be completed by the IEP team. Once the case manager has gained access to the TIDE accommodations page in SEIS s/he shall complete the following:

Select appropriate testing accommodations for the English language arts and math assessments based on unique, individual needs of the student. Please note: Previously, accommodations were listed on the Statewide Assessment form in SEIS. Be sure to review the accommodations agreed upon at the 2013-14 IEP meeting to ensure information is not overlooked in the transfer of documentation.

There are a number of resources available to assist local education agencies through this process: CDE’s Smarter Balanced Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/access.asp CDE’s Three Testing Matrices for CAASPP, CAHSEE, CELDT and PFT

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ai/ What Is The Difference Between The Types of Accommodations?

I. Embedded a. Digitally delivered in online testing platform.

II. Non-embedded a. Furnished by the local education agency.

III. Universal Tools a. Available to all students based on student preference and selection.

IV. Designated Supports a. Available to all students who can benefit from them, including English learners, struggling readers,

and student with attention difficulties. b. Requires a recommendation from a teacher who is knowledgeable about the student.

What Happens If The Accommodation Is Not Listed On the TIDE Page? Should a student need access to an accommodation for the CAASPP which is not available, the local education agency’s CAASPP Coordinator shall complete the CAASPP Accessibility Support Request Form at least ten days prior to testing.

The form is located on the CAASPP website: http://californiatac.org/administration/forms/

The TIDE Page Is Complete—Now What? Once the TIDE Page has been completed and agreed upon by the IEP team, the local education agency shall:

I. File a copy of the TIDE page with the student’s special education files, as it is now a legal part of the student’s independent education plan (IEP).

II. Provide a copy of the TIDE page to the local education agency’s CAASPP Coordinator. The CAASPP Coordinator will then request each accommodation individually to the State.

Revised: July 2014/EDCOE Charter SELPA

16

Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines

Usability, Accessibility, and Accommodations Guidelines 4

Universal Tools

Embedded Breaks, Calculator, Digital Notepad, English Dictionary, English Glossary, Expandable Passages, Global Notes, Highlighter, Keyboard Navigation, Mark for Review, Math Tools, Spell Check, Strikethrough, Writing Tools, Zoom

Non-embedded Breaks, English Dictionary, Scratch Paper, Thesaurus

Designated Supports

Embedded Color Contrast, Masking, Text-to-speech, Translated Test Directions, Translations (Glossary), Translations (Stacked), Turn off Any Universal Tools

Non-embedded Bilingual Dictionary, Color Contrast, Color Overlay, Magnification, Read Aloud, Scribe, Separate Setting, Translation (Glossary)

Accommodations Embedded American Sign Language, Braille, Closed Captioning, Text-to-speech

Non-embedded Abacus, Alternate Response Options, Calculator, Multiplication Table, Print on Demand, Read Aloud, Scribe, Speech-to-text

F igure 1: Conceptual Model Underly ing the Smarter Balanced Usabil i ty , Accessibi l i ty , and Accommodations Guidel ines

The Conceptual Model recognizes that all students should be held to the same expectations for instruction in CCSS and have available to them universal accessibility features. It also recognizes that some students may have certain characteristics and access needs that require the use of accommodations for instruction and when they participate in the Smarter Balanced assessments. These Guidel ines present the current universal tools, designated supports, and accommodations adopted by the Smarter Balanced states to ensure val id assessment results for al l students taking its assessments.

17

New Academic Year Ushers In Special Education Regulation

Amendments

Author: Kyle Raney, Attorney at Law

On July 1, 2014 several changes to the California special education regulations [California Code of

Regulations, Title 5, sections 3001–3088.] went into effect. Though most of the changes consist of

minor tweaks to conform the regulations (many of which have not been updated since December 1987)

to existing state and federal special education laws, others are substantive and therefore more significant.

Overall, the updated regulations seek to:

- Repeal outdated subdivisions;

- Delete redundant references;

- Update eligibility criteria to reflect changes to the federal requirements;

- Update service provider requirements for all qualified providers; and

- Update language to promote consistency in the regulations.

Some of the more important changes include:

- Assessment and Reassessment (Section 3023): the term “reassessment” has been added to be

consistent with Education Code section 56381 which adds the provision for reassessments of special

education students if either the local educational agency (“LEA”) or parent requests a re-evaluation of a

student based upon academic achievement and functional performance. The former regulation was

limited to initial assessments related to a determination of special education eligibility and services. Use

of the term “handicapping” has been replaced with “disabling”.

- Standards for Related Services (Section 3051): reference to the term “designated instruction and

services” has been deleted because the Education Code provides that the term means “related services.”

Thus, it was redundant to use the term “designated instruction and services and related services.”

Language was also added to provide the necessary guidance that entities or individuals providing related

services must meet federal regulatory personnel qualifications.

- Eligibility Criteria (Section 3030): traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) has been added as a special

education eligibility category. Also, the eligibility criteria for specific learning disability (“SLD”) has

been amended to permit an IEP team to consider whether a pupil has a severe discrepancy between

intellectual ability and achievement or if the pupil fails to make sufficient progress in “response to

intervention” or demonstrates a pattern of strengths or weaknesses in performance and/or achievement.

18

- Autism (Section 3030): the determining factors describing “autistic like behaviors” have been

deleted in favor of “characteristics often associated with autism” including “engagement in repetitive

activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily

routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.”

- Deletion of Hughes Bill Regulations (Sections 3001 and 3052): Last year, Governor Brown

signed AB 86, which essentially required the California Department of Education (“CDE”) to repeal the

“Hughes Bill” regulations pertaining to Behavior Intervention Plans. Because of the repeal of the

Hughes Bill, the definitions of “behavioral emergency,” “behavioral intervention,” “behavioral

intervention case manager,” “behavioral intervention plan,” and “serious behavior problems” have been

deleted, as have all references to the term “functional analysis assessments”.

- Staff Qualifications – Related Services (Section 3065): the word “handicapped” has been

replaced with “impaired” to represent current word usage by the CTC when issuing credentials. In

addition, this section clarifies Education Code section 56363(b)(1), which permits Speech-Language

Pathologists Assistants to provide Speech and Language and Remediation Services with Business and

Professions Code section 2320(i), which requires Speech-Language Pathology Assistants to be under the

supervision of a Speech-Language Pathologist.

o A definition of music therapy has also been added to this section including the qualifications of

individuals who may provide such therapy. Music therapy is considered a valid related service to

provide as determined by an IEP team.

- Extended School Year (Section 3043): the maximum number of instructional days allowed for

ESY has been removed. The minimum number of days however (20), has been preserved.

*Note, this list is not intended to be exhaustive. Please contact Girard & Edwards with your questions.

19

Documents

Place: Time - Amazon Web Services · 2014-10-13 · AGENDA Steering Committee September 17, 2014 Place: Oakland Marriott City Center Time: 10:00 - Steering Meeting 1001 Broadway Noon