MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals (text not searchable) HEARING DATE: _January31=2006 ,w WORK SESSION DATES: 9, 2005 ACTIVITY SHEET Education and Cultural Affairs 1772 . TITLE: An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education chbruary 16, 2006 Marchl, 2006 REPORTED ouT DATE: mApril 11, 2006 COMMITTEE REPORT: WOPAM Majority WONTP - Minority 122nd AINE LEGISLATU - SECOND REGULAR Legislative Document No. 1772 SP. 689 In Senate, December 30, 2005 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education (EMERGENCY) Submitted by the Department of Education pursuant to Joint Rule 204. Received by the Secretary of the Senate on December 28, 2005. Referred to the on Education and Cultural Affairs pursuant to oint?Rule 308.2 and ordered printed pursuant to Joint Rule 401. 951% JOY J. Secretary of the Senate Presented by Senator MITCHELL of Kennebec. Cosponsored by Senators: BRENNAN of Cumberland, MARTIN of Aroostook, TURNER Of Cumberland, Representatives: CUMMINGS of Portland, DAVIS of Falmouth, MILLETT of Waterford, NORTON of Bangor. Printed on recycled paper Emergency preamble. Whereas, acts of the Legislature do not .become effective until 90 days after adjournment unless enacted as emergencies; and Whereas, there is an immediate need for the Department of Education to begin implementation of the early childhood special education system, including employment, fiscal management. data management and service delivery; and VVhereas, failure to begin implementation would result in delays or possible disruption of early intervention and special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities and their families; and VVhereas, in the judgment of the Legislature, these facts create an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution of Maine and require the following legislation as immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety; now, therefore, Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: Sec. 1. 5 MRSA Sllb-?8 is enacted to read: 8. Early Childhood Expenses MRSA 7209 Special Education Bgard Only of Directors Sec. 2. SMRSA as reenacted by PL 2001, c. 471, Pt. C, ?1 and affected by ?10, is repealed. Sec. 3. 20-A MRSA is enacted to read: 7mA. Digghilitv. "Disability" has the same meaning as in section 7001. Sec. 4. 20-A MRSA sub-?12, as enacted by PL 1931, c. 693, and 8, is repealed. SEC. 5. 20-A MRSA ?1001, Sllb-?9-B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 424, Pt. A, is further amended to read: 9wB. Disciplinary sanctions for children with disabilities. They retain the authority to sanction an eneeptienal-?sbudent a child with a disability as defined in section 7001, subsection 3 1:5 for misconduct that violates school rules. Notwithstanding the duties of school administrative units as described in section 7202, the school Page lmLR3023(l) board. may authorize ?the superintendent,' principal or assistant principal to enforce . this subsection by allowing the superintendent, principal or assistant principal to suspend an exeeptienal?student a child with a disability up to a maximum of 10 days individually or cumulatively for infractions of school rules. When anmexeeptienalwstudent a child with a disability is suspended for 10 days or less individually or cumulatively within a school year for a violation of school rules, the school board is not required to provide a tutor, transportation or any other aspect of the student's special education program. Discipline of exeeptieaal?umstudeneB children with disabilities must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1415(k). Sec. 6. 20-A MRSA ?4722, Sllb-?3, as amended by PL 2005, C. 446, is further amended to read: 3. Satisfactory completion. A diploma may be awarded to secondary school students who have satisfactorily completed all diploma requirements in accordance with the academic standards of the school administrative unit and this chapter. All.secondary school students must work toward achievement of the content standards of the system of learning results. Exeeptienal students children with disabilities, as defined in section 7001, _subsection 3 l?A, who successfully meet the content standards of the system of learning results in additiOn to any other diploma requirements applicable to all secondary school students, as specified by the goals and objectives of their individualized education plans, may be awarded a I?gh school diploma. Career and technical students may, with the approval of the commissioner, satisfy the 2nd?year math and science, the 2nd~year social studies and. the fine arts requirements of subsection 2 through separate or integrated study within the career and technical school curriculum. Sec. 7. 20-A MRSA ?5201, Sllb-?l, as repealed and replaced by PL 1985, c. 506, Pt. A, ?36, is amended to read: Eligibility to enroll: school year. A person meeting the minimum age requirements of subsection 2 cur section 7001, subsection 2 paragraph A B, subparagraph (1), and who has not reached 20 years of age before the start of the school year may enroll as a fullwtime or, with the consent of the school board, as a -part?time student, in the public elementary and secondary schools where the student resides as defined in section 5202. The school year, for the purpose of this subsection, is defined as starting on July 1st and ending on the following June .30th. Page Sec. 8. 20-A MRSA ?5201, sub-?3, 11E, as enacted by PL 1981, c. 693, and 8, is amended to read: E. The eligibility for exeeptienalmstudents a child with a disability is governed by section 7001, subsection 3 Sec. 9. 20-A MRSA ?6202, first as amended by PL 2005, c. 446, is further amended to read: The commissioner shall establish a statewide assessment program to measure and evaluate on a continuing basis the academic achievements of students at grades 4, 8 and 11 in the content areas of the system of learning results established in section 6209 specified by the commissioner. The commissioner may elect to provide for the use of alternative measures of student achievement in grade 11. This assessment applies to students in the public elementary and secondary schools and in all private schools approved for tuition whose school enrollments include at least 60% publiely?funded publicly funded students, as determined by the previous school year's October and April average enrollment. The assessment program must be adapted to meet the needs of exeeptienal-?students children ?with disabilities as defined in section 7001, subsection 3 11A or other students as defined under rules by the commissioner. Sec. 10. 20-A MRSA ?6209, first m, as amended by PL 2001, c. 454, ?3l, is further amended to read: The department in consultation with the state board shall establish and implement a comprehensive, statewide system of learning results, referred to in this section as the "system," no later than the 2002~03 school year. The system, based broadly upon guiding principles set forth in this section, must establish high academic standards at all grade levels in the areas of math; English; science and technology; social studies, including history, economics and civics; career preparation; visual and performing arts; health and physical education; and foreign languages. Only students in a public school or a private school approved for tuition that enrolls at least 60% publicly funded students, as determined by the previous school year's October and April average enrollment, are required to participate' in the system of learning results. The commissioner shall develop accommodation provisions for instances where -course content conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of a student's. parent or guardian. The system must be adopted adapted to accommodate exeeptieaaL-?studeats children with disabilities as defined in section 7001, subsection 2 13A. Sec.11. 20-A MRSA ?7001, as amended by PL 2003, c. 676, and 2, is further amended to read: Page ?7001. Definitions As used in this subpart, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. 1. Agency. "Agency" means an agency, school, organization, facility or institution. 1-A. Disabilitv. "Disabilitv" means: A. For children from birth to under 3 vears of age: (1) Significant developmental delav, as measured bv both diagnostically appropriate instruments and procedures, in one or more areas of coonitive development; phvsical development, includina vision and hearing; communication development: social or emotional development: and adaptive development; or- (2) A diagnosed~physical or mental condition that has a high probabilitv of resulting in developmental delav, with the condition being such that the child needs early intervention services: or B. For children at least 3 years of ace and under 20 years of age evaluated in accordance with 34 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 300.301~311 (2005), as measured hy standardized, normmreferenced diagnostic instruments and appropriate procedures with the delav- or impairment being such that the child needs special education: Significant developmental delavs for a child at least 3 vears of age and under 6 vears of age, at the discretion of the intermediate educational unit or school administrative unit, as defined in rules adopted bv the department in one or more of the following areas: coonitive development: phvsical development, including vision and hearing; communication development; social or emotional development; adaptive development; or (2) At least one of the following: Mental retardation; Hearing impairment, including deafness; Speech or language impairment: Page Visual impairment, includino blindness; jg) Serious emotional disturbance: Orthopedic impairment; Autism; 1h) Traumatic brain injurv: Li) Other health impairment: 15) Specific learnino disabilities; 1k) Deafness and blindness; or (1) Multiple disabilities. luB. Early intervention services. ?Earlv intervention services" means developmental services that are provided. under 11 rvi ion- provided at no cost except where or state law provides for a svstem of Davments by families. including a schedule of slidino fees: are desioned to meet the developmental needs of an infant or toddler with a disability. as identified bv the individualized familv service plan team: meet the standards of the state in which the services are provided: are provided bv qualified personnel; to the maximum extent a ri . are provided in natural environments. includinq the home, and cammunitv settinqs_ in which children without disabilities Qarticipate: and are provided in conformity with an individualized family service plan. individual?whe+~ - fellewing+~ Page ?5}??Qrthepedie?impairments+ ?6}??Emetienal?disability+ 48}??Aueism+ - Netwithstanding??gasagragh?? JL??deesw?net edugation. ?Free appropriate public education" means special education and related services that are provided at public expense. under public supervision and direction and without charge; meet the standards of the department; and are provided in conformitv >with the individualized education program. Intermediate educational units. ?Intermediate education unit" means an entity that meets the definition of intermediate educational unit in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1402, (23) as in effect prior to June 4, 1997 and that is a public authoritv, other than a local educational adencv, under the qeneral supervision. of the department, that. is established for the purpose of providinu free public education on a reQional basis and that provides special education and related services to children with disabilities within the State. An intermediate educational unit is considered a local educational aqencv under federal law. In this State, a local educational aqencv is a school administrative unit. For purposes of this chapter all references to school administrative units include intermediate educational units. ehild??means?a?Pessennwhe+? Page gellewing+* ?1}??Mental??etar?atiea+ ?l9}??9ther?health?impairment4 (l24?mMultiple?disabilitiesr 5. Special education. ?Special education" means classroom, home, hospital, institutional or other instruction; educatiOnal diagnosis and evaluation; transportation and other supportive assistance, services, activities or programs, as defined by the commissioner, required by exeeptienal??students children with disabilities. 6. Special education facility. "Special education facility" means a public or private school, or portion theree? g; a public or 'Drivate school, intended. for use in meeting the educational and related needs of exeeptienal-?students children with disabilities. Page State licensed agency. "State licensed agency" means an institution or facility licensed by the State to provide education, emotional or mental health services, alcohol or drug rehabilitation, boarding care or other child care services to a person between the ages of 5 and 20 years. It includes:? A. Facilities under Title 22, chapter 1661; and B. Community mental health eentess services under Title 34 34?3, chapter 183+ 3, subchapter 3. ehaptes?169l+?and 331~ehapter?l?elr 8. Residential child care facility. "Residential child care facility" is a facility defined in Title 22, section 8101, subsection 4. 9. Special education program. A ?special education program" is a fullmtime or part?time educational program designed to provide an equal educational opportunity to eneeptienal students children with disabilities through the delivery of special education services by qualified individuals. 10. Special education services. "Special education services" are educational services provided by qualified individuals as defined by the commissioner. Special education services shall must be provided by qualified individuals employed or contracted by the school administrative unit. Sec. 12. 20-A MRSA ?7002, as enacted by pr 1981, c. 693, and B, is repealed. Sec. 13. 20-A MRSA ?7003, as enacted by PL 1981. c. 693, and 8, is repealed. Sec. 14. 20-A MRSA ?7004, as enacted by PL 1997, c. 303, is repealed. Sec. 15. 20-A MRSA ?7005, as reallocated by RR 1997, c. l, ?20, is amended to read: ?7005. Spacial education 1. Rulemaking. The commissioner is authorized to adopt rules necessarv for the administration of this chapter and chapters 303 and 305. The department shall identify in its Page regulatory agenda, when feasible, a proposed rule or provision of a proposed rule that is anticipated to be more stringent than the federal statute or regulation, if an applicable federal statute or regulation exists. During the consideration of any proposed rule, when feasible, and using information available to it, the department shall identify provisions of the proposed rule that the department believes would impose a regulatory burden more stringent than the burden imposed. by the corresponding' federal statute or regulation, if such :3 federal statute or regulation. exists, and. explain. in a separate section of the basis statement the justification for the difference between the agency rule and the federal statute or regulation. Sec. 16. 20-A MRSA ?7006 is enacted to read: S7006. Responsibility The Department of Education is designated as the state education aqencv responsible for carrving out the State's obligations under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 United States Code. Section 1400 et seq.. as amended. The department and.-everv school administrative unit. intermediate educational unit. public 'school or other "public agency that receives federal or state funds to provide early intervention or free appropriate public education services to infants. toddlers or children from birth to under 20 vears of ace with disabilities sha om wi he fe 1 Individuals with Disabilities Education 'Act, as amended. and all federal regulations adopted under the Act. Sec. 17. 20-A MRSA C. 303, as amended, is further amended by repealing the chapter headnote and enacting the following in its place: CHAPTER 3Q3 gimme 1411's PISABILITIES Sec. 18. 20-A MRSA ?7201, as amended by PL 1995, c. 95, is further amended to read. ?7201. Policy and purpose The policy of the State for the education. of exeepsiena; students children with disabilities is as follows. 1. Equal educational opportunities. All students shall Imust be* provided ?with equal educational opportunities and all Page school administrative units shall provide' equal educational opportunities for all children with disabilities. the?maximummextent?pesBible? and?sesvieesiwer Psegsamsr eemmissienesr ZWA. Developmental or educational environment. To the maximum extent appropriate: A. Earlv intervention services must be provided in natural environments, including the home and community setting in which children from birth to under 3 vears of without disabilities participate; and B. Children with disabilities at least 3 vears of ace and under 20 vears of ace, includinq children in public or private institutions or other care facilities. must be educated with children without disabilities. Special classes, separate schoolinq or other removal of children with disabilities front the regular educational environment may occur onlv when the nature or severitv of the disabilitv of a child is such that-education in reoular classes with the use ?of supplementarv aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.? diagnosed as must be educated with regular students 3. Students diagnosed as deaf. An-exeeptienai A studentr 'Page lOmLR3023(l) withoup disabilities whenever possible and shall must be educated under the principle of the least restrictive educational alternative environment as set forth in state laws and rules and federal laws and regulations. Parent's right to be a member of the team. Parents, surrogate parents or guardians have the right to be a member of the team whleh that will carry out duties and responsibilities in accordance with rules established by the commissioner. 5. Blind students; Braille instruction. All students may receive instruction. in, Braille reading and 'writing as jpart of their individualized family service plans for children from birth to under 3 vears of age or individualized education plans rams. A student may not be denied the opportunity of instruction in Braille reading and. writing solely because the student has some remaining vision. If Braille is not provided to a child who is blind, the reason for not incorporating Braille in the individualized familv service plan or individualized education plan programs must be documented in the individualized family service plan or individualized education plan program. 6. Participation. in. cocurricular activities. Eligibility for a child with disabilities to participate in cocurricular activities may not be denied solely because the student is enrolled in a reduced course load when the reduced course load is due to the student's eneeptlenality disability, provided?that only if the student is satisfactorily completing the requirements of the educational components of an individualized family service plan or individualized education plan program and is otherwise in compliance with the plan program. If the student is not satisfactorily completing the educational components of an individualized family service plan or individualized education plan program or is not otherwise in compliance with the plan program, the student's eligibility may be determined in the same manner as the eligibility of a neaexeeptieaal??student child without disabilities who is not satisfying the applicable academic standards. Sec. 19. 20-A MRSA ?7202, as amended by PL 2005, c. 446, is further amended to read: ?7202. Duties of school administrative units Each school administrative unit operating schools shall: 1. Identification. Identify all children within its jurisdiction who require early intervention or special education; Page 'Records. Make and keep current records of exeeptienal students children with disabilities, as required by rules established by the commissionerr and institute procedures whieh that guarantee the confidentiality of these records in accordance with state and federal law; zun. Assist advocates for developmentally disabled. Assist the Disab4ed?~in??Maine advocacy agency designated under Title 5. section 19502 in conducting an investigation, pursuant to Title 32 5, section 3554 19505, subsection 4, by providing access to relevank case records, notifying' parents or guardians of these investigations and by requesting parental consent for access to case records by the agency. Parents or guardians may refuse to consent to the examination of these records; 3. Diagnosis and evaluation. Provide edueatienal?diagnesis the evaluations and assessments required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1400, et sea., as amended, to plan and implement an early intervention program for elioible children from birth to under 3 years of age and a special education program for exeeptiena4??studen?s children. with disabilities at least 3 years of age and under 20 years of age within its jurisdiction; 4. Plan. Submit a plan for its earlv intervention and special education. programs to the commissioner for approval in accordance with rules established by the commissioner; 5. Special education and early intervention services. Provide earlv intervention and special education for each eneeptienal?student eligible child with a disability within its jurisdiction and ensure appropriate data collection, training, staff development and direct service provision to eligible children. from birth to under 3 years of age, in accordance with Part of the federal Individuals with. Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1400 et seq.; Diploma requirements. Award a high school diploma to each exceptionalwstudene child with a disability who successfully meets the content standards of the system of learning results, in addition to any other diploma requirements applicable to all secondary school students pursuant to section 4722, as specified by the goals and objectives of the student?s child's individualized education plan program; 6. Compliance. Provide the commissioner with the information the commissioner may require to determine compliance with this chapter; Page Notice of parent's right to be a member of the team. Notify in writing ?the exeeptieaal?~studentls parent, surrogate parent or guardian of their the child with disabilities of that person's right to be a member of the team and place a copy of the notice in the exeeptienal student's permanent records; 8. Facility construction, renovation and repair. Seek approval in advance from the commissioner for construction, renovation or repair, with or aided by public funds, of facilities intended for the education of exeeptienal~?stu?ents children with disabilities, or give assurances that other facilities in the school administrative unit are adequate to meet the needs of those students; 9. Securing parental permission. For the Preteet-ien-uand agency. Conducting pursuant to Title 33 chapter 95; ?ll: A. Assist the agency in its studies; and B. Facilitate access to relevant case records by: Notifying parents or guardians of the study; and (2) Requesting parental consent for the agency to have access to case records: and 10. Department of Health and Human Services; authority to request convening of pupil evaluation team meeting. Notify in writing the individual designated by the Department of Health and Human Services that the Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to request the school administrative unit to convene :a pupil evaluation team meeting and to attend and participate in any pupil evaluation team meetings concerning an exeeptienal??seudent a child with a disabilityi who is aa state ward. The written notice must indicate the time and place of the pupil evaluation team meeting and a copy of the notice must be placed in the exeeptienal?ssu?enth child's permanent record. Sec. .20. 20-A MRSA ?7203._ as enacted 1981, c. 693, and 8, is repealed, . _Sec.-21. 20-A MRSA ?7204, as amended by PL 1983, c. 806, ?64, is further amended to read: ?7204. Duties of the commissioner The commissioner: Page Supportive services. Shall provide, or cause to 'be provided by administrative units operating schools, all supportive assistance and services, as defined in rules the commissioner_ establishes, required. by an?4a?x?n?iu??e?student ?a child, with disabilities so that the student chilrl may' benefit from equal educational opportunities; 2. State plan. Shall make and annually review a state plan for education_ of all children with disabilities in the State. The State's plan. mav not require services that exceed minimum federal requirements. The plan shall must be available to the public on request. The department is the entitv responsible for assigning financial responsibilitv among appropriate agencies as required under- Part of the federal Individuals with. Disabilities Education .Act. 20 United States Code. Section 1401 (8). Section 1412 and Section 1435 and continues to er ur ant Section 1435 as the single ling of responsibility for carrvinq out the general administration and supervision of programs and activities receiving assistance under Part of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the monitoring of programs and activities used to carrv out that Part: 3. School year. May approve early intervention or special education programs for: A. The usual public school year as defined in section 4801, subsection 1; B. An extended school year; or C. Other periods the commissioner determines appropriate; 4. Program approval. Shall approve plans for all e_ar_ly intervention: and special education. programs. The criteria for approval shall must include: A. Requirements for admission; B. Qualification or certification of staff; C. Plan of instruction; D. Adequacy of facilities; E. Adequacy of supportive services; F. Professional supervision; and G. Teachermstudent ratiori Page Due process. Shall: A. Adopt or amend rules to assure and protect the rights of due process for children with disabilities; and B. Inform and train each school administrative unit on exeeptienal??~studentsi the rights of children with disabilities to due process under state laws and rules and federal law and regulations; and 6. Technical assistance. May, on the request of a school administrative unit, provide technical assistance in the formulation of a plan or subsequent report required of all administrative units. Assistance shall Egg Inn: be designed to transfer the responsibility for or actual development of the plan or rEport. Sec. 22. 20-A MRSA sub-?2, as amended by PL 1989, c. 700, Pt. B, ?46 and. enacte?l by c. 857, ?56 and amended Iby PL 2003, c. 689, Pt. B, is further amended to read: 2. Objection to appointments. When anue?eeptienaLWSEHQent a child with a disability is a state ward and the Department of Health and Human Services has notified the school administrative unit and the Department of Education that' the Department of Health and Human Services objects to the appointment of the foster parent as the Surrogate parent, the foster parent may not be automatically appointed to serve as surrogate parent for the exeepeienal?student child with a disability. When an?exeeptiena; student a child with a disability is a state ward and the Department of Health and Human Services objects to the appointment of the foster parent as the surrogate parent, the Department of Health and Human Services shall (recommend to the Department of Education an individual: to serve as Surrogate parent. Sec. 23. MRSA sub-?3-A, as enacted by PL 1997, c. 441, is repealed. Sec.24. 20-A MRSA man-s, sub-M, as amended by PL 1935, c. 797, ?41, is further amended to read: 4. Hearing officers. immunity. The State shall tsain ensure that impartial hearing officers meet the criteria contained in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1400 et seq., as amended. For purposes of the Maine Tort Claims Act only, Title 14, chapter 741, hearing officers, while they are carrying out their official Page 15mLR3023(l) duties as hearing officers, are considered state employees and shall~~be ape entitled to the immunity provided state employees under the Maine Tort Claims Act. Sec. 25. 20-A MRSA ?7209 is enacted to read: S7209. Transition; board of directors 1. Department of Education. During the period from Julv l, 2006 to June 30. 2003. the department shall serve as the lead agency for the statewide system pursuant to 20 United States Codee Sectign 1435. ingluding the identificatign and goordinatign of all available resources within the State for services to eligible children from birth to under 3 years of agea and shall exercise eneral ervisor authori child fin as rovided in 20 United tes Co cti 1412 3 and the provision of a free, appropriate public education to children at least 3 vears of age and under 6 vears of age. The commissioner or the commissioner's designee is responsible for: A. Developing and adopting rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B. Section 619 and Part C, 20 [hated States Code. Section 1400 et seq.: B. Ensuring legal and policy compliance throughout the early childhood special edgcation by reviewing or rf rmin i C. Ensuring fiscal compliance throughout the early childhood special education procram bv reviewing or performing regular audits of program records. 2. Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors. The ?Earlv Childhood Special Education Board of Directors, as established bv Title 5, section subsection 8 and referred to in this section as "the board of directors." is established for the period from Julv l. 2006 to June 30. 2008. A. The board of directors is appointed bv the commissioner and consists of one member of the state board, 2 special education directors, 2 parents of children with disabilities from birth tx) 5 years of ace and 2 representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services, includina a representative of the MaineCare program. B. Members of the board of directors are entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of Title 5? chapter 379. Page l6?LR3023(l) The.board of directors has the followinq specific powers and duties: (1) To administer the provisions of this section; (2) To make recommendations to the commissioner on legislation and rules as may? be necessarv to improve the earlv childhood special education proaram: L3) To ensure .provision of childfind activities as defined in 20 United States Code. Section 1412 (3) for children from birth to under 6 vears of aqe as required bv the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 United States Code, Section 1400 et seg.. as amended; i4) To ensure that eliaible children from birth to under 3 vears of ace receive earlv intervention services as required bv the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 United States Code, Section 1400 et seq., as amended: To ensure that eliqible children from 3 vears of aqe to under 6 years of age receive a free, aggrooriate Dublic education in collaboration with school administrative units whenever possible; (6) To eleov. throuoh the State Intermediate Educational Unit established under subsection 3 and subiect to the apnroval of the commissioner, Brofessional and other staff necessarv to carry out the functions required by this section; and L7) To enter into contracts, leases and agreements in the name of the State Intermediate Educational Unit established under Subsection 3 that are necessary, incidental or convenient to the Derformance of its duties and the execution of its Powers under this section, except that the board of directors shall use a uniform provider contract approved bv the commissioner .and mav not enter into anv contracts or aareements that extend bevond June 30, 2008. 3. State Educational Unit. For the period from Julv l, 2006 to June 30, 2008, the State Intermediate Educational Unit is established as a bodv corporate and politic and as a public instrumentalitv of the State for the ournose of conductinq child find activities as provided in 20 United States Code, Section 1412 (3) for children from birth to under 6 Vears of ace, coordinatino the 'Drovision. of early intervention Page l7~LR3023(l) services for elioible children from birth to under 3 years of age and 'providino a free, appropriate public education. to elioible children at least 3 years of ace and under 6 years of ade. 4. Director of early childhood special education. For the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008. the commissioner shall appoint a director of early childhood special education. The director has the following powers and duties: A. To administer the State Intermediate Educational Unit established under subsection 3. The director shall develop operatino policies and establish oroanizational and Operational procedures; B. To develop statewide policies and procedures for carrying out federal and state laws and rules relatino to childfind as defined in section 7725. early intervention services and the provision of a free. appropriate public education to children from birth to under 6 vears of ace; and C. To provide trainino in federal and ~state laws, regulations, rules and policies relatinq to child find as provided 511 20 United States Code, Section 1412 (3). earlv intervention services and the provision of a free; appropriate public education to children from birth to under 6 years of ace and to conduct reqular file reviews to determine compliance with federal and state laws. reoulations, rules and policies and conduct trainino and Drovide technical assistance where deficiencies are found. th. at and i ng_s_11_b_se.c..t_i_on 4, paraoraph A, school administrative units that are willinq and able may assume responsibility for the children with disabilities within their iurisdiction prior to the fall of 2008, if the unit?s prooram is approved by the commissioner. 6. Repeal. This section is repealed June 30, 2008. Sec. 26. as amended by PL 1987, c. 395, Pt. A, ?73, is further amended to read: S7251. Local early intervention and special education programs A school administrative unit. may establish an appropriate early intervention or special education program. Sec. 27. 20-A MRSA as enacted by PL 1987, C. 395, Pt. A, ?74, is amended to read: Local early intervention and special education services Page school administrative unit may offer or contract for early intervention or special education services. Sec. 28. 20-A MRSA as enacted by PL 1987, c. 395, Pt. A, ?76, is amended to read: Early intervention; special education programs; approval Speeial Early intervention and special_ education programs may' be established for the delivery' of earlv intervention and special education services to exeepeienalustudeats children with disabilities in accordance with section 7204, subsection 4. A An early intervention or special education program may be offered by a school administrative unit, an approved. private school or a state licensed agency. All early intervention and special education programs offered by approved private schools or state licensed agencies shall must: 1. Supervision. Be provided under the supervision of the school administrative unit responsible for the education of the exeepeienalwmseudent child with a disabilitv enrolled in the program; 2. Description. Be described in a master contractual agreement between the agency or private school and the commissioner; and 3. Approval. Be approved in advance of the enrollment of any exeepeienal?studene child with a disabilitv. Sec. 29. 20-A MRSA as enacted by PL 1987, c. 395, Pt. A, ?76, is amended to read: Early intervention: special education services; approval The commissioner shall adopt or amend rules to define allowable early intervention and special education services and the qualifications of individuals who provide early intervention or special education services. Each school administrative unit, approved private school or licensed state agency providing early intervention or special education services shall submit a report at such time and in such form as the commissioner may require. Sec. 30. MRSA ?7253, as enacted by PL 1981, c. 693, and 8, is amended to read: ?7253. Regional programs; approval Page l9mLR3023(l) Two. or more school administrative units may enter into cooperative agreement to provide regional early intervention or special_education programs and support services. 1. General criteria. Programs and services. established through this agreement shall must meet the requirements set forth in section 7204, subsection 4. 2. Special provisions. A program shall must specify that: A. One of the school administrative units shall??sesve serves as fiscal agent: B. No requirement exists for separate budget approval and taxation;_and C. School construction may not be proposed for early intervention or special education purposes. 3. IPlan. A plan for a regional program shall?be is subject to approval by the commissioner prior to its implementation. The plan shall must specify: A. The objectives and functions to be performed by the regional program; B. The method of fiscal operation and cost sharing; C. The method of entering into and 'withdrawing from the agreement; D. The method of administering the regional program; E. The method of involving parent and community participation; and F. The school administrative unit that shall?est acts as fiscal agent for the regional program. 4. Funding. The regional program shall must be supported by funds included in the early interyentign and special education appropriations of each of the member school administrative units. Sec. 31. 20-A MRSA ?7254, as enacted by PL 1931, c. 693, and B, is amended to read: ?7254. Contractual programs for nonresident children Another state, subdivision or private person, firm or agency may contract with a private school in this State to provide early Page intervention or special education for children_ who are not residents of this State. A program for these nonresident children shall? be is subject to approval by the commissioner only with respect to the requirements of section 7204, subsection 4. Sec. 32 20-A MRSA ?7255, as enacted by PL 1981, c. 693, and 8, is amended to read: ?7255. Other programs In addition to, or in place of, those methods listed in this chapter, a school administrative unit may make other provisions, subject to approval in advance by the commissioner, to ensure the education of all exeeptienalmstudents children with disabilities. Sec. 33. MRSA ?7256, as enacted by PL 1931, c. 693, and 8, is amended to read: ?7256. State licensed agencies A An early intervention or special education facility may be operated in conjunction with or as 21 part of a state licensed agency. Sec. 34. 20-A MRSA ?7257, as enacted by PL 1933, c. 64, is amended to read: ?7257. General supervision All educational programs for eseeptienalustudents children with disabilities within the State, including all Such programs administered by any other state or local agency, wii4??be .are under the general supervision of the commissidner. Sec. 35. 20-A MRSA c.307-A, as amended. is repealed. Sec. 36. 20-A MRSA ?13024, sub- as enacted by PL 2005, c. 457, Pt. FF, S3, is amended to read: C. Personnel employed by or servingr the school administrative unit as contracted service providers; and Sec. 37. F20-A as enacted by PL 2005, c. 457, Pt. is repealed and the following enacted in its place: D. Personnel for whOm certification or authorization is not required prior to being hired or being placed under contract bv a public school or an intermediate educational unit. .Page Sec. 38. 20-A MRSA ?13024, sub-?1, as enacted by PL 2005, C. 457, Pt. FF, is repealed. Sec. 39. 22 MRSA ?8823, Sllb-?2, ?lC, as enacted by PL 1999, 4c. 647, is amended to read: C. A representative of hospitals, a representative of health carriers, a representative of the Ghil?uDevelepment early childhood special education program referred to in Title 20mA, chapters 301 and 303 and a representative of the department. Sec. 40. 26 MRSA ?962, sub-?7, 11A, as amended by 2005, c. 279, ?15, is further amended to read: A. Any officer, board, commission, council, committee or other persons or body acting on behalf of: (1) Any municipality or any subdivision. of a municipality; (2) Any school, water, sewer, fire or other district; (3) The Maine Turnpike Authority; seetien?1139+ (5) Any county or subdivision of a county; (6) The Maine State Retirement System; or, (7) The Maine Educational Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf; Emergency clause. In view of the emergency cited in the preamble, this Act takes effect when approved. SUMMARY This bill consolidates and reorganizes the delivery of early childhood special education services including the child development services system to achieve efficiencies of cost and effectiveness of childhood special education programs. Page STATE OF MAINE 122ND LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE NOTICES JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS Sen. Elizabeth H. Mitchell, Senate Chair Rep. Jacqueline Norton, House Chair PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 1:00 pm, Room 202 Cross Building (L.D. 1772) (L.D. 1790) Bill "An Act To improve Early Childhood Special Education" (S.P.0689) EMERGENCY) (Presented by Senator MITCHELL of Kennebeo) (Cosponsored by enator BRENNAN of Cumberland, Senator of Aroostook, Senator TURNER of Cumberland, Representative CUMMINGS of Portland, Representative DAVIS of Faimouth, Representative MILLETT, JR. of Watertord, Representative NORTON of Bangor) Submitted by the Department of Education pursuant to Joint Rule 204. Bill "An Act Concerning the implementation of Cuts in Child Development Services" (S.P.O707) (Presented by Senator WESTON of Waldo) (Cosponsored by Senator RAYE of Washington, Senator DAVIS, SR. of Piscataquis, Senator PLOWMAN of Penobscot, Representative STEDMAN of Hartiand) Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to Joint Rule 203. CONTACT PERSON: Katherine Morse 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 287?3125 EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY DATE: January 31, 2006 LD OR CONFIRMATION: LD 1790 ??An Act Concerning the Implementation of Cuts in Child Development Services SPONSOR: LD 1790 Senator WESTON of Waldo Senator RAYE of Washington, DAVIS of Piscataquis and PLOWMAN of Penobscot; Representative of Haitland LD OR CONFIRMATION: LD 1772 ?-An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education SPONSOR: Senator MITCHELL of Kennebec COSPONSORS: Senator BRENNAN of Cumberland, MARTIN of Aroostoolc, TURNER of Cumberland; Representatives CUMMINGS of Portland, DAVIS of Falmouth, MILLETT of Waterford and NORTON of Bangor Public Testimony by: NAME TOWN OR AFFILIATION POSITION ON LD Rep. Gerald Davis 122mi Legislature Presenting Senator Carol Weston 122?d Legislature Sen. Mary Black Andrews 122nd Legislature Senator Kevin Raye 1221?"1 Legislature Senator Michael Brennan 122mit Legislature Susan Gendron Commissioner, DOE Senator Joseph Perry 122??; Legialture Remaining testimony from sign?up sheet for both bills Name (please print) Af?liation or Residence- Support Oppose Neither 1790 1772 v/ (an 0:"vo 4/14 Fa {530 737252 Pad (Zr/v 1177.6 /5 far/Wm. CCE/g/kxj/ 3 f77?). (N E713 Eacm Arm-?5? UVEUDWEVK Gin/E6- 1'77 Qmo? M7: 1" MW) W772 I me Led/Em xii/6E7: ?Er/La; a. Megan/ace? 7 6L) h; 74% ILOD {1/47 . ??70 ?7 751 f-E??i?on Char-E11! 11d?! \fLi-E. E770 1772,; (lg/?7 how a /i>?0ir {if (334?qu IET i790 @Wiwwgi FUN \n-S Le Earl-Elk LG mo WEE Ewes: 1:01, WEKLJL. i772, cm (ME 159%; SE: (?772/ $640552?; ELM CLJCEK EOEU 1 ?7 '2 A. \ilw'f/ i/?rhs?. WA EL, ?1 W72. EB. SEE Ben'iv? ME PM Math?t SLka?-l Mar?093m ?530 179; T509 Lyman u? Bear: E12, Lin L. mg BREE TJEC, (?if"wda Corem . .) Name (please print) Af?liation 0r Residence Support Oppose Neither 1790 1772 ?2 1&ng CWMI momIk Eckwt?? ?Imgxm QMM A2221: WM. /772? . Quhm?z?m SIeu/oen, ME I771. A yd" 5494c Dbuc, M?m Saddam!) M5. [772? 5r Fi?/06> ?7 WC: /77z 5 247/96?? awe?? V1.8 I773. 0" 3,1795% $057+ S?pw?w Mow/2w I 77L (3235 5% 14/ng I7 . . Mfg/aw A Ewe/gnaw :Dcitfrf? l?772? xx x/W?w 0% WWI I Ian/e Sat/(rev 0mm- Wm) Na w; OCCMEUJLI mam? Mm?, wear- ?lm/L CU hull-W Name (P192139 Print) Af?liation 01? Residence 013130? Neither 1790 1772 LAMmmg . its}. Va?r?f?h?g EAWMQ MW - JWXi'Tv??md RSelg @7201, Jihad 534% . Mm L?v) mar/?wan 14m 3+,er A dd Name (Please Print) Af?liation or Residence Name" 1790 1772 h/M/Zo ?ea/M m1 fig,? Mia/J .. Name (please print) Af?liation '01- Residence Support Oppose Nei?le'r 1790 1772 Senator Mitchell, Rep Norton, members of the Education Committee. My name is Jane Weil and I live in Steuben in Washington County. I am retired from the field of early childhood work and am on the Board of the Maine Association for Infant Mental Health. It was to your predecessors about 30 years ago that I came with others from the Association for Young Childi en with Special Needs to ask for state funding for children under five with developmental delays or disabilities. We came back thi ee consecutive years with the answers to all the questions the committee asked: 1. What were the current services and resources for these children? 2. How many childi en were there who had needs? 3. What current state and federal laws applied? We gathered the information and in 1977 the Legislature responded with a bill that wisely required a coordination system. It funded 5 pilot sites in 5 counties and provided $50,000 per site to: coordinate what services and resources existed in our local communities, document the gaps in service, and work with other agencies and resources in our counties to identify and fill the gaps in a coOrdinated, interagency manner. At the state level an Interdepartmental Coordinating Committee for Preschool Handicapped Children was established; at the county levelLocal Coordinating Councils (LCCs) were authorized. These councils were assigned responsibility to ensure communication and coordination of resources, and to assure that duplication was reduced and the needs of families and young children were met. For the next several years you added 2 or 3 counties at a time until all 16 were covered. The name of Child Development Services (CDS) was adopted for the st tewide system to help make sure that our early intervention system was easy to identify from ounty to county under one common name. Maine and Texas served as national models, templates for the federal Public Law 99? 457, passed in the mid-?805. We did not do what most other states did. We kept a seamless system for children with Special needs from 06. Now, with over 30 years of federal history, states all over the country are trying to replicate our model, moving back to 0?5 systems, using opportunities offered in the recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We have before us a bill that Will make Local Education Agencies (LEAs) responsible for children aged birth to five with developmental delays or disabilities. Before this shift there are many things that need to be closely examined. We need to better understand the ultimate costs to local towns and their taxpayers. It will cost money and time to set up a system that, according to DOE publicly, will then go away when responsibilities are passed to the LEAs in two years. That seems a needless double shifting of a major fiscal system. DOE plans to centralize fiscal responsibility for CD5 in Augusta. Fiscal responsibility at the local level can be a good management tool. Locally, CDS administrators can check on the status of se1v1ce p1 ov151on by a contracted providei before authorizing payment, thus helping to ensuie the quality and p1 ogi ess of se1v1ce When that authoiity goes to Augusta a soui ce of local accountability is gone. DOE at one of the 1ecent community meetings about CDS indicated it had the ability, with handling a billion dollai budget, to competently take on the CDS finances, but I've been told that a business managei and an accountant in the process of being hu ed to manage the CDS funds. It is 1easonable to question whether the loss of these positions in local communities won end up being paid f01 by taxpayeis with added jobs within state goveinment in Augusta. Then, DOE plans to de centralize the system back to the LEAs by 2008. It seems reasonable to ask if moving the financial management to Augusta for 18 to 24 months and then back, decentralized, to the LEAs is cost?effective. LD 1772 lacks a number of things that both parents and the Legislature should make sure to include that are Among them are: 1. inclus' of'parental choicefor an Individualized Family Service Plan ntives for schools to contract with community providers; 3 evelopment of a program to ensure quality services and compliance w: 1. federal law; . 4 4 4. reinstatement of an structure at the state level and and LCC structure at the local level; 5. inclusion of the Kindergarten Parental Choice law passed last year, which has been removed in the Commissioner?s plan; . . 6. an on?going training and personnel-preparation program articulated with Maine's Universities and Community Colleges, to include in?service training for those currently practising in the tern at all levels. This is a short list. If Maine wants a good system for the children under consideration, these are specifics that need to be spelled out in law. Doing this will require time and thoughtful consideration which is why deciding to slow down the speed of this train is a good - idea. A recent report to the DHHS Committee of the Legislature makes a recommendation which should be adopted. That-report is the January 13, 2006, ?Commissioner's Report on the Delivery of Child DeveIOpment Services.? It was completed pursuant to .PL 2003 Ch. 689, Part B, section B-l, sub-section 11 which was a part of the DHHS Merger. This law required, "the Commissioner of Health and Human Services to-work with the Commissioner of Education to review the delivery of child? development services." The recommendation of the commission is to ?maintain Child Development Services Within the Department of Education while confirming to develop a vision and implementation plan for the?entire early childhood system. At that point the role of early childhood state efforts, their placement in state government and expected outcomes for children and families will be determined." -- The further details of this report are what really will lead to a collaborative, coordinated, integratedEarly Care and Education and Early Intervention system that will be cost?effective, humane and of high quality. Placements of children with special needs into Least Restrictive Environments (LREs) will bring the most saVings, be in the best long term interests of children and be in compliance with the federal law. Doing the work required in this report will involve all the players of Maine?s early the Homevisiting Program which sees firstborns and can work? with that child until age five; Head Start, Early Head Start, home? based and center?based Child Care, the programs for 4-year-olds that are developing in the schools. With this system working well, Maine will be sending even more children than CDS does now into schools with goals met and no need for Special education. And CDS has been doubling those numbers in recent years. . This report calls for a report back in December, 2006. That year of planning time, of opportunities for buywin from all the early childhood constituencies is a reasonable amount of time to grant, especially since there is no good explanation for this rush to dismantle CDS and move the services into schools. Such a coordinated planning effort should be welcomed by federal DOE asMa'ine?s CDS works with them to achieve compliance in several areas. . Maine should not rebuild its early childhood system of straw or of sticks. We should build it of the bricks and mortar of careful consideration, thoughtful planning and loving attention that we would give to our children. They deserve a strong, solidly built house. Thank you for your time. Jane Weil State of Maine DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Testimony of Susan A. Gendron, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education In opposition to L.D. 1790 An Act concerning the Implementation of Cuts in Child Development Services Before the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs Sponsored by: Senator Weston I I Cosponsored by: Senators: Raye, Davis, Plowman and Representative Stedman .Date: January 31, 2006 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs: My name is Susan Gendron, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, and I am here today speaking In Opposition to L.D. 1790 An Act Concerning the Implementation of Cuts to Child Development Services. The original L.D. 1790 was a concept draft which proposed to require a legislative review of and changes to the implementation of funding cuts in Child Development Services (CDS). The Joint Committees On Education and Cultural Affairs, and Appropriations and . Financial Affairs, and, subsequently, the full Legislature enacted budget reductions for the CDS system during the last session. I have provided both interim and??nal reports which are being reviewed by the Joint Committees of the Legislature. Late yesterday afternoon I received a new proposal which re?ects a year long study, during which time the CDS system would be maintained as it now exists. The budget which was passed during the last session reduced the State General Fund appropriation for the CDS System by $7.2 million . While I support many of the points of examination ,which will be undertaken by the Task Force on Early Childhood, I cannot support the maintenance of the existing structure. The structural changes through the transition period are critical elements in meeting the ?scal Savings. The Early Childhood Special Education Governing Board and the Commission on Study Early Childhood Special Education Birth through Age Eight will advise the Commissioner on effective steps for a successful transition of jurisdiction. Both of these :groups will maintain ongoing communication with the Task Force on Early Childhood as it explores the broader comprehensive early childhood system. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have, and I will be available for 'work sessions on this bill. Januaiy 25, 2006 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members oftlie Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Helen Gallagher and I am a school based Speech Pathologist that works in MSAD #53, which includes the towns of Pitts?eld, Bumham, and Detroit. I live in the town of Hartland. I am writing to you today with some of?my personal thoughts regarding LD 1772, an Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education. I have first hand experience about what our District funded Pre-K program because I worked as the SLP for the program over the past two years. The MSAD #53 program is extremely valuable for the development of our 4 year olds and I have seen the difference it makes in a child?s readiness for Kindergarten. I think our program is crucial for the emotional and educational success of the students. However, currently, we cannot house all 4 year old students in our district. There is a waiting list of students that meet the criteria but our classes are full due to limited space and limited personnel. It is hard for ours schools to meet the existing needs now and that is why I am concerned about LD 1772 passing before all these issues are Worked out. As I understh this bill, it will put into law that local schools/districts will be responsible and required to provide services and programming for children ?om the birth to 3 population. Is there a plan for how these changes will occur in our schools? Will our school districts be given the funding that will be necessary to successfully carry out a program such as this? Is there a plan to recognize the special needs of these young preschoolers? I am worried that school districts will be asked to provide this population with services without the funding to increase personnel, space, and other needs of the program. It will be difficult to increase the costs to local schools or taxpayers, but there needs to be a plan to fund this bill. Right now it is unclear to me how these changes will occur successfully. Please carefully consider the implications of how it will affect the current status of school districts and the local service delivery necessary for these younger children. I urge you to thoroughly examine all of the issues before voting for this legislation. Sincei?ly yours, I . IL) I Hel allag air/1A., occ-- LP, Speech/Language Pathol 3O Halfway Point Lane, Hartland, Me. 04943 Work phone: 207?4876 575 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative NOrton and Members of the Committee, I am writing concerning LD 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education. My name is Laureen Libby and I am a speech/language pathologist employed by SAD #34 in Belfast, Maine. I am gravely concerned that LD 1772 will be detrimental to early intervention will be ultimately do a disservice to children ages birth-5 with special needs. As a speech pathologist who has worked in school systems for the past 5 years, I am certainly familiar with challenges of serving students at school and meeting their needs. There is scarcely enough time in the school day to provide effective therapy services, conduct speech/language evaluations, meet and collaborate with parents and teachers, complete paperwork, and attend meetings. Adding birth-5 children to school provider's caseloads will lessen the quality of services for all children involved because of insufficient amount of time to deliver therapy, and will lead to under-identi?cation of children who need services due to lack of time and providers as well as lead to children entering school not having received the therapy they need at such a critical juncture in their lives. We need to be providing the most appropriate and effective therapy measures we can during preschool years when children can make the most gains in skills. I am also concerned how local school districts, and subsequently, local taxpayers will account for the added cost burden of moving birth?5 special services into schools. Most school budgets have already been hit hard with decreases in funding. Asking schools to take on additional costs of this magnitude with questions about how necessary services will be provided and with no clear cut plan for where the funding will come from and how this shift will be carried out is startling. Will existing therapists be stretched to the limits in an attempt to provide some level of service to all needy children birth?5 AND school-age, since most likely there will be no money to hire additional staff to cover the load? l, for one, am not comfortable with the level of service can provide as a professional if this is the case. On a personal note, have also had the opportunity to work closely with Child Development Services in Waldo County over the past two summers providing speech therapy to preschool children. CDS provides as invaluable service to the preschool population of Waldo County and their families by initiating and coordinating necessary services, providing information, and subsequently, improving quality of live for children and families. CDS services have made a signi?cant difference in countless lives. it would be a great loss to take this level of services coordination away. Thank you, Laureen Libby, M.A. Speech/Language Pathologist 397 Old Belfast Road Frankfort, ME 04438 207223?5291 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Karen Shute. I am a speech/language pathologist and I work in MSAD #34. I am writing to state my concerns about LD 1772: An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education. Please carefully consider how this will affect local service delivery to young children. Please consider having a detailed plan in place with ?nancial support for the transition of Birth *5 care from CDS to public education. It is unclear how these changes will occur. I am worried that the plan may make it harder for children to get services. It is already dif?cult for many schools to meet existing needs, both in ?nding salaries and providing space for the current population. Adding the burden of birth?5 children to public education may overwhelm school systems resulting in inadequate services for the B-5 population and their families. Currently, CDS identifies children with special needs and begins a prOgram that allows them to seamlessly transition into the public education system. The personnel needed to adequately meet the needs of the children and their families is not currently available in public schools, and it is my belief that many school systems will not be able to provide the financial support necessary for this plan to be successful. As a speech language pathologist, I often see the bene?ts of early intervention, If a bill is passed without a plan of how to deal with the transition, I believe that many children will not be given assistance before reaching school due to unclear expectations of the public schools and lack of personnel to service these children and their families. As a result, more children will be entering Kindergarten without the benefit of early intervention, increasing their need for special services. For speech/language needs, early intervention is vital to insure that children have the ability to communicate as effectively as possible, and the conceptual knowledge to help them understand others. One other concern I have is the transition from Child Development Services to Early Childhood Special Education. CDS implies a positive role in helping children, While Early Childhood Special Education may be intimidating, as many parents do not want to hear that their 3 year old is a ?special education? student. This type of labeling may cause some families to be hesitant to participate, indirectly denying their children early intervention. I urge you to imagine yourself in the position of the parents of these children, and of the public school system, and to thoroughly think this plan through so that the most effective, efficient, and empathetic changes can be made. Thank you. Karen Shute, MA, Captain Albert Stevens School, Belfast 338?3510, ext. 122 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Helen Kosmo, a Speech and Language Pathologist and the manager of Mid-Coast Speech and Hearing, which is a department of Penobscot Bay Medical Center, Rockport. I am writing to strongly suggest that the proposed legislation, LD 1772 An Act To lm prove Early Childhood Special Education, will do just the opposite. The first ?ve years of a child's life is when the foundation for all learning is formed. The system in which early intervention is acCessed is vital to its success. Parents, not educators are the most important adults in the lives of these young and sometimes fragile at risk children. We should be encouraging parents to be part of the intervention so they are better equiped to facilitate development in the child?s daiiy routines. This would be next to impossible if the intervention is housed within the school systems. The system has traditionally assumed the responsibility for the ?education" of chiidren. I had two chiidren enrolled in special education during these years, and I soon realized that it was up to me to keep informed and to communicate the identified special needs to the regular education. This type of system would be detrimental to the children. Many of the parents we work with are either intimidated by such a system and would not be able to or know how to advocate for their youngsters. I am also concerned that children with actuai speciai needs would not be identified at an early age. Studies show we-can actually prevent the need for special education during the grades if we intervene at a young age. Example. I have worked with many 2?3 year olds who upon evaluation presented with probable apraxia of speech. In other words the message from the brain telling the mouth'how to produce words was not yet developed. These are very bright chiidren and typical [at this age] in every other way. Speech Therapy helped these children develop the neuroiogical pathways needed to speak. Most of them were successful and entered Kindergarten needing no services. Some needed continued Speech Therapy, but there self confidence in communication was high and they were ready to be successful iearners. Therapy included parents so they had an in depth understanding of how to help their child be successful communicators. My fear is that if these children ?fall through the larger school system's cracks," valuabie time is lost, these children wiil always be piaying ?catch up? as each month more and more skilis are expected. This may be obvious, but worth saying, g? learning involves language and communication. Let's continue to provide exceptional comprehensive services to our preschooi children to ensure positive educational experiences. i do think the CDS system needs careful analysis and there is certainly room for improved ?scal accountability, but i urge you to recommend that more time is needed for a responsible early intervention plan. fA/a Helen Kosmo Mid-Coast Speech and Hearing 6 Glen Cove Drive Rockport, Maine 04856 207-230-6393 Melinda Snow Bosk, Special Ed. Capt. Albert Stevens Elementary 1 Elementary Avenue Belfast, Maine 04915 January 23, 2006 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Committee, I am writing in regards in regards to LD 1772: An Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education. As a Kindergarten through Grade 3 Special Educator and Case Manager, I work directly with the CDS agency during the transitional stage of children moving from preschool to kindergarten. The CD8 caseworkers are well-trained experts in the field of early childhood and are very connected with the networks of services available to birth to age five children. Many dollars have been spent in training these people over the years. I am puzzled by the title of this act because it indicates that it is an act to improve early childhood special education. I strongly disagree with this. As I look at what the plans are, I feel this act will do just the opposite. First, dismantling any system that is working well overall is never a smooth process. It would make more sense to work with the system that exists, analyze the ?aws that exist, and work toward making improvements. I am concerned too that the family services aspect of special education will be dropped. As a former Head Start Parent Involvement Coordinator, I know how important it is to work with the whole family, and this has been a strength in the early childhood arena. Another concern is that Occupational Therapy services will be more difficult for the younger children to qualify for. Rumor has it that the regulations may shift to the same standards as the public schools, meaning that preschool age children can only receive Occupational Therapy if they qualify under some other special education disorder. This would create a large reduction in the gains that children make before entering kindergarten. Secondly, if the reason for considering moving the responsibility early childhood Special education to the public schools is to save money and create more efficiency, then think again! The public schools have already been pushed to the maximum with expectations but without any funds to help support these expectations. We are overwhelmed with local assessments, standards-based report cards and assessments, the loss of funds that were promised when constructing new schools, incurring the financial burden of the errors made by the state Medicaid funding officers, and suffering greatly reduced funds due to the Essential Programs and Services formulas and State Agency Client funds. Our district currently is facing a budget crisis for this fiscal year of at least 1 million dollars. We will be losing critical staff, programs and services. This will have a huge impact on the quality of services we are currently providing to our students, which has already been previously impacted. We are not in place currently where we can endure one more responsibility! Finally, as the state and federal government continues to hold higher and higher expectations for the public school systems, they continue the pattern of not providing funding to back up what they are asking for. Funding for the CDS program has not been pushed heavily on the local taxpayers. If it is, you will find the already overburned taxpayers wanting to provide very little funding, not because they do not care, but because they are all strained financially with all the increasing costs of things they are already expected to fund. I implore you to look closely at how you can maintain the quality of services CBS is currently providing, and if cost savings are needed and/or if there are ?aws in the CDS system, focus more on how this can be done within the already existing program. If you dismantle this program, I can?t help but see how you will just be creating a more chaotic and fiscally challenging situation. In closing, I want to say that I am gravely concerned about the title that has been chosen for this Act. It is a very subjective title. As professionals, we should always think about titling acts in such a way that the public knows specifically what we are doing, not what we hope to achieve. Let the public make their own decision as to whether this act will or will not improve early childhood special education. Respectfully Submitted, Melinda S. Bosk January 23, 2006 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Susan Olson and I am a kindergarten teacher in MSAD #34. I am writing about LD 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education. I am concerned that this bill will adversely affect the neediest children that our enter kindergarten classrooms each September. Many of the children that I work with enter kindergarten with speech and language issues that have already been identified in their preschool years. This early identification and the special services that these children receive before they enter kindergarten are vital to their success in elementary school. These preschool services set the stage for the speech and language programs that will continue once they enter my class. Without these services, I?m afraid these children will find it difficult to be successful in kindergarten. As I understand this bill, there is no plan in place for how these important services will be delivered to our youngest learners. I am worried that this bill fails to recognize the special needs of these young learners. This plan may make it more difficult for these children to receive services. This plan fails to consider how the community services that already exit can continue to be utilized. As a teacher, it seems our children are being threatened from all sides. Local budgets are already difficult to pass and this bill seems to take more away from our neediest children that the local districts cannot possibly fund. Our young preschool children need these services to help them succeed once they reach kindergarten. Please do not let anything happen to these vital programs. Thank you, Susan Olson Gladys Weymouth School Morrill, Maine 04952 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, NE 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, I am writing about LD 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education. My name is Nicole Carter and I work in MSAD 34 as a Special Education Teacher of Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities at the elementary school level. I am writing to express my concerns about how this bill will affect not only the quality of current services we currently provide to students in our public schools in Maine, but our ability to provide quality services in the future. As I am sure you are aware, the public school system is already straining under the yoke of ?legislation without compensation?. Our best efforts to provide quality education to the children of this state is are constantly and systematically being undermined as we are asked to develop and implement programs to teach our children more of the important information they will need to be valuable members of our community, and then are being refused the tools to teach them with. Local taxpayers are being asked to pick up more and more of the ?nancial burden when other funds that have been promised are suddenly cut or ?shifted? to other places. Thinking speci?cally about the area of special education, educators learn in our own school systems and by certi?cation requirements mandated by our state that ?mainstreaming? students with disabilities is best for all students. Research supports this view, and Federal regulations require that we provide the least restrictive environment to educate our children. Research tells us that we should follow models where our children get in class support in smaller class sizes to learn better, and that we should use standardized testing only to inform instruction and let us know where we need to do a better job. How is our state government supporting us? Our ?mding to the neediest areas of the state is cut. Our class sizes are growmg and we are asked to follow a model that limits the amount of special education staff we are ?allowed? to have. We are asked to use more careful and reliable methods of identifying our students with special needs, and when we employ them, we are told that we are ?over identifying? students with special needs. The actions of our legislators are having the exact opposite effect of the goals we say we are trying to achieve. It is of great concern to me that any one with any knowledge of our current crisis situation in the public education sector of this state would even dream to pass the legislation proposed in this bill without solid plans for funding, structure and incorporation into the current public school system. I wonder if the goal is to ?trim? the number of students receiving services such as those needed by the age 0-5 age population of our state, despite the assurances of those proposing the bill that the services would allow us to ?better serve? our local community. I do not mean for the tone of this letter to be bitter or vitriolic. My mind simply reels at the enormous cost implications of additional staffmg, housing, and probable inability to provide adequate services to the most needy folks. I see sad things for our communities on the horizon should this legislation slip through. The only result can be that our already over burdened system will face a new challenge: a generation of children who are unable to learn in school because they are unable to grasp the basic skills they were never able to develop in the crucial early years of their lives. What would happen to the literacy rates in our state then? Who would be able to shoulder what will end up as the enormous tax burden (state and local) if we are not able to help our children be functional members of our communities? Until we have the answers to these questions, and have ?eshed out the ?ne details of how we could make this change work in a positive way, I urge you no to support this legislation. Doing so would be like telling our kids to have ?rm and learn by throng horse shoes uphill in the dark on a twenty degree night with three feet of snow on the ground, hoping the post is out there somewhere and that the shoe won?t roll back down the hill and whack you in the nose. How can we call ourselves responsible adults and good role models if we stack the deck against them that way? I thank you for your time. Yours truly, Nicole Carter Special Education Teacher January 24, 2006 To: Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs Re: LD 1772 It is shocking to think that our local CDS might no longer be providing services to the many children and families in Waldo County. As a registered nurse working in the elementary schools of MSAD 34, I cannot imagine children in need entering our system without benefit of evaluations and the necessary interventions. Nor can I imagine these programs having space within our already cramped schools. I believe this proposed bill; LD 1772 and resulting implications should be thoroughly reviewed and evaluated before considering it. The children and their families of Waldo County are in great need of these services and the current method of delivery has been working well. Children who have been served by CDS are well on their way to an equal start with peers when entering kindergarten. Thank you for your careful evaluation of this proposed bill. Most sincerely, Judith Cookson, R.N. Elementary School Nurse MSAD #34 SenaTor Libby MiTchell, Chair RepresenTaTive Jacqueline NorTon, Chair Members of The CommiTTee on EducaTion and CulTural Affairs 100 House STaTion Augu5Ta, ME 04333?0100 Dear SenaTor MiTchell, RepresenTaTive NorTon and Members of The CommiTTee, My name is Caroline Dodd, I am a parenT and I live and work in Morrill. I am wriTing To urge changes in The new legislaTion ThreaTening To eliminaTe child developmenT services and To shifT The responsibiliTy of birTh-five services To The public school. I work in The public school sysTem and I am concerned how This bill will affecT The children and families in our disTricT. This plan fails To recognize The special needs of young pre?school children. IT will noT only affecT special needs children, buT The school populaTion as a whole will suffer. I am ToTally opposed To This legislaTion and cannoT possibly supporT iT and ask you noT To supporT as well. LB 1772 An To Improve Early Childhood Special EducaTion Thank you. Caroline Dodd 13 Higgins Hill Rd. Morrill, ME 04952 207-342?5472 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Shirley Kelley. I am a kindergarten teacher and I work for I am writing to state my concerns about LB 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education. I am concerned that this bill will affect the public schools in a very negative way. I see first hand the needs that are in my school and how staff juggles to stretch time and/or find time to service the needs that we have already I can 't imagine how Increasing the workload for the therapists that we have wall benefit any child I feel fortunate as a teacher to have in my schedule 30 minutes once a week for whole group speech services provided by. our speech therapist. There are children in my classroom who are not identified but need the expertise of our therapist In guiding and supporting them with articulation and social language skilis If this bill should pass not only would this precious amount of time be gone but what would be taken away next. Please think carefully about the caseload and stress you will put on our therapists Thank you, 67ka Shirley Kelley 792 Lincolnville Road Belmo t, Maine 04952 342-2179 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Karen Stacey . i am a Special educator and I work in MSAD 34. i am writing to state my concerens about LB 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education I am concerned that this bill will have a negative impact on CHILDREN AND Specifically, how this will affect local service delivery to young children. There is no clear plan of how these changes will occur. I am also worried that the plan fails to recognize the special needs of young pre? school children. The plan may make it harder for children to get services and we all know that early intervention is crucial to these children. I am also concerned about an increase in costs to local schools or taxpayers. Our local school budget is ?frozen? every year in the fall and this year we have a huge deficit,even after this freezing. We cannot cover the expenses of educating/serving the school?age population in our school district. I cannot imagine how we could reasonably serve the preschool children with special needs without a large influx of funds from the state. The current CDS system does a fine job serving the special needs of pre- schoolers in our area. I have worked with them many times and this system really works to identify and get the proper interventions for those children with special needs. Thank you. aren P. Stacey Weymouth Elementary School 2 So. Main St., Morrill, ME 04952 January 22, 2006 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, My name is Kristen Higgins. i am a student at the University of Maine who will soon be entering the workforce as a speecnianguage pathologist. Obviously, my greatest concern, at such a point, will be the quality of care Maine children receive. After brief interaction with Emily Cain, i don't doubt for a moment that each of you have a similar goal. As such, i am writing to explain my concerns about LD 1 772 An Act to improve Early Childhood Special Education. As i understand this bill, there is currently no plan of how these changes will be manifested. What will the additional costs be? Who will provide the services? Where will such services be provided? Will service providers be expected to travel to the homes of these children, and if so how will this affect the size of their caseload and the time they have to provide said services? Please carefully consider the implication of this bill, with respect to how local service delivery to young children will be affected. At this point in my professional journey, have no anecdote to offer about any one particular child who would be negatively impacted. instead submit the well?known fact that schools already need more service providers than they can afford to meet exist/?g needs. While it may be the state?s intent to provide more funds, would it not be advantageous to create a detailed strategic plan before passing any school mandates? it is my opinion that passing a bill ?rst and planning iater is simply an unacceptable practice. i do hope to be able to stay in Maine, my home, after graduating. i support the governor?s view on the importance of studenB remaining here as professionals in order to help Maine grow. However, i worry about the negative impact on the workforce that may occur if such a bill were to pass, leading to less than inviting school system/work environment and a poor quality of care. it is my opinion that my peers will likely find other states more in compliance with their beliefs on treatment standards. i sincerely hope i have not caused any offense. l'm sure much time went into the creation of LD i772, and the intent behind it was admirable: changes DO need to be made to the current system. We share the same goals, and differ only in our opinion of the best way in which to proceed. Please carefully consider my concerns, as well as those of the more experienced professionals who will be writing you. They truly are the experts, and can best advise us all on what will benefit our children. Thank you, Kristen P. Higgins, B.A. 323 Dunn Hall University of Maine Orono ME 04469 27 January 2006 SenaTor Libby MiTchell, Chair RepresenTaTive Jackie NorTon, Chair Members of The CommiTTee on EducaTion and CulTural Affairs 100 House STaTion AugusTa, Maine 04333-0100 Dear SenaTor MiTchell, RepresenTaTive NorTon and Members of The CommiTTee: My name is Jennifer Day. I am a residenT of Bangor and I work in Maine Indian EducaTion aT The Indian in an inclusive preschool program. I am wriTing To sTaTe my concerns abouT The proposed changes To The early inTervenTion SySTem. Having been involved in The educaTion of several preSchoolers wiTh special needs, I have firsThand knowledge of The benefiTs of The currenT meThods of service delivery and case managemenT provided by Child DevelopmenT Services. AT This Time, public School disTricTs are limiTed in Their experTise in working wiTh The birTh To five populaTion. The facT ThaT 282 birTh To five endorSemenT is no longer required To provide special educaTion To our youngesT children wiTh special needs indicaTes The shifT To having providers wiTh limiTed Training and educoTion in meeTing The needs of very young children. The proposal To eliminaTe The IFSP in favor of The generic IEP, negaTes The involvemenT of families in planning an appropriaTe program for Their children and foreshadows The advenT of Turning of preschoolers inTo ?school?agers." Already The eligibiliTy requiremenTs have changed To eliminaTe aT risk children from receiving inTervenTion. This is noT abouT children, buT abouT fiscal resTrucTuring. Again, children will pay The price for financial mismanagement IT should be remembered ThaT research has proven Time and again ThaT geTTing a good sTarT/eariy inTervenTion, mosT-ofTen eliminaTes The need for prolonged Services once a child enTers school. PleaSe do noT dismanTle The presenT sysTem. Consider The children you are placing aT risk and The monies you will allocaTe in The fuTure To compensaTe for Today's shorTsighTedn fer ay Childhood EducaTo Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Committee, i am writing about LB 1772 An Act to improve Early Childhood Special Education My name is Lee Francis and I am a teacher at the Indian island School, lndian island, Maine. More importantly, i am also the parent of a child currently receiving services through ODS-Penobscot. i am absolutely opposed to putting CDS into the schools. As i understand this bill, there is no plan of how these changes occur. it?s difficult for schools to meet the existing needs of school-aged children. There will be an increased cost to local schools and taxpayers. Qualification standards for preschool children will become more restrictive making it harder for children to get services. This plan fails to recognize the special needs of young pre-school children. Aside from the effects this plan will ultimately have on local schools and children i feel I need to share some of? my own personal experiences of trying to receive sen/ices for my child. My husband and have had to write letters to state representatives Commissioner Gendron, Governor Baldacci, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot tribal representatives, retain an attorney, threaten to sue CDS-Penobscot while fearing retaliation. We?ve had to travel 5 hours, round trip, weekly, for ssmices far. my. @11de CBS-Penobscot could not put services 121.9%ch my We. have had to travel 2 hours, round trip, for other services for the same reasons. My son would not have the services he has today if it were not for my husband and me being assertive and applying pressure. AND we were dealing with an organization dedicated solely to children aged birth through five. i can?t imagine that would improve after adding this group of children to local schools. she?s?massed}; amiss-?ies Childhood Program and now in anticipation of our son entering Kindergarten. It has become very apparent the level of understanding needed for early intervention and working with families is severely lacking in public schools. The concern for school-aged children is school. People are not accustomed to thinking beyond those borders. Working with preschool children is completely different. i know this because I work with students from an Early Childhood Program right up through middle schooi?and? i' am a parent of a child? who receives early intervention services. fhave experience from both sides. i assume many letters will be arriving in your office so i will keep this brief. urge you to please carefully consider the effects these changes will have on children and families. Please do not put early intervention sen/ices in the public schools. i understand the pain,,frustration and fear of the many families who will suffer because of this bill. My son is entering Kindergarten next year. I?m excited for him. However, i worry about future children we might have because you just never know and those questions of ?what if? cross your mind. What if? What if this was your child, grandchild, niece or nephew? What would make you feel safe? Eru- 1.:er tint-Ln. 1 11mm B?anClS 11 BurnunNurbskek Lane lndian island, ME 04468 (207) 827-5378 27 January 2006 SenaTor Libby MiTcheli, Chair RepresenTaTive Jackie NorTon, Chair Members of The CommiTTee on EducaTion and CulTural Affairs 100 House 5TaTion AugusTa, Maine 04333-0100 Dear SenaTor MiTchell, RepresenTaTive NorTon and Members of The CommiTTee: My name is Karen Thomes. I am a residenT of Bangor and I work-in Maine Indian EducaTion aT The Indian Island School in an inciusive preschool program. I am wriTing To sTaTe my concerns abouT The proposed changes To The early inTervenTion sysTem. Having been involved in The educaTion of Several preschoolers wiTh special needs, I have firsThand knowledge of The benefiTs of The currenT meThods of Service delivery and caSe managemenT provided by Child DevelopmenT Services. AT This Time, public school disTricTs are limiTed in Their experTESe in working wiTh The birTh To five populaTion. The facT ThaT 282 birTh To five endorsemenT is no longer required To provide special educaTion To our youngesT children wiTh special needs indicaTes The shifT To having providers wiTh limiTed Training and educaTion in meeTing The needs of very young children. The proposal To eliminaTe The IFSP in favor of The generic IEP, negaTes The involvemenT of families in planning an appropriaTe program for Their children and foreshadows The advenT of Turning of preSchooIers inTo ?School?agers." Already The eligibiliTy requiremenTs have changed To eliminaTe aT risk children from receiving inTervenTion. This is noT abouT children, buT abouT fiscal resTrucTuring. Again, children will pay The price for financial mismanagemenT. IT should be remembered ThaT reSearch has proven Time and again ThaT geTTing a good sTarT/early inTervenTion, mosT ofTen eliminaTes The need for prolonged services once a child enTers school. PleaSe do noT dismanTle The presenT sysTem. Consider The children you are placing aT risk and The ?nies you will allocaTe in The fuTure To compensaTe for Today's shorTsi rly Childhood EducaTor January 26, 2006 Senator. Libby Mitchell, Chair- Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333?0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Committee, My name is Amy L. Bragg. I am a speech language pathologist living and working in Penobscot County. have worked at the Warren Center, a not for profit speech and hearing clinic providing services mainly to preschool children, for nearly 10 years. I am also the President of the Maine Speech Language Hearing Association, representing some 400 licensed speech language pathologists In the state. I am writing to express my concerns regarding LB 1772 An Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education. Admittedly, have struggled with Child Development Services over the years, and i agree changes are in order. However, I am concerned how this bill could affect children and families Many schools are already struggling to hire and maintain quali?ed providers Most school speech language pathologists carry the maximum caseload allowed by law. In one extreme circumstance, I was asked by a special education director if I would take on more children than the law allowed! My point is, schools are already burdened by high caseloads and shortages in qualified staff" .how will they be able to accommodate the preschool population? Who will serve them? Where will they serve them? We already know the horror stories of working in janitor closets. . As I understand, there is no speci?c plan to put the proposed changes in place. What will happen to the toddler who isn?t eating solid food the three year old who - only says 10 words, or the deaf preschooler while the details Of this are being worked out? - Please carefully consider the implications of this tremendous change. 3ft. . Amy L. Br 9 381 Mann Hill Rd. Holden, Maine 04429 843-6617 Thank you, 27 January 2006 SenaTor Libby MiTchell, Chair RepresenTaTive Jackie NorTon, Chair Members of The CommiTTee on EducaTion and CulTuraI Affairs 100 House STaTion AugusTa, Maine 04333-0100 Dear SenaTor MiTchell, RepresenTaTive NorTon and Members of The CommiTTee: My name is Karen Clukey. I am a residenT of Milford and I work in Maine Indian EducaTion aT The Indian Island School in an inclusive preschool program. I am wriTing To sTaTe my concerns abouT The proposed changes To The early inTervenTion sysTem. Having been involved in The educaTion of several preschoolers wiTh special needs, I have firsThand knowledge of The benefiTs of The currenT meThods of service'delivery and caSe managemenT provided by Child DevelopmenT Services. AT This Time, public school disTricTs are limiTed in Their experTise in working wiTh The birTh To five populaTion. The facT ThaT 282 birTh To five endorsemenT is no longer required To provide special educaTion To our youngesT children wiTh special needs indicaTes The shifT To having providers wiTh limiTed Training and educaTion in meeTing The needs of very young children. The proposal To eliminaTe The IFSP in favor of The generic IEP, negaTes The involvemenT of families in planning an appropriaTe program for Their children and foreshadows The advenT of Turning of preschoolers inTo ?school-agers." Already The eligibiliTy requiremenTs have changed To eliminaTe aT risk children from receiving inTervenTion. This is noT abouT children, buT abouT fiscal resTrucTuring. Again, children will pay The price for financial mismanagemenT. IT should be remembered ThaT research has proven Time and again ThaT geTTing a good sTarT/early inTervenTion, mosT ofTen eliminaTes The need for prolonged services once a child enTers school. Please do noT dismanTle The presenT SysTem. Consider The children you are placing of risk and The monies you will allocaTe in The fuTure To compenSaTe for Today's shorTsighTedness. Wipe/m Karen Clukey Early Childhood EducaTor UNIVERSITY or MAINE AT MACHIAS On the Coast of Downeast Maine 9 O?Brien Avenue Niachias, [Maine 04654 207-255?1200 Christine W. Rudd 9 O?Brien Ave. Machias, ME 04654 January 24, 2006 Senator Elizabeth H. Mitchell 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333' Dear Senatdr Mitchell, For the past 25 years it has been my privilege to be involved in the lives of children and their families in a number of capacities ?om serving as an Ed Tech working with children with special needs, to teaching 1n a K-2 multiage classroom, and currently as the director of the Early Care and Education Center at a nationally accredited child care center. As a classroom teacher I witnessed ?rst hand how the ?special education? label can devastate children and families. Self?esteem, dignity, and hope can be . destroyed with a simple label. And yet LB 1772 would now have us attach this label to children birth through age 5 who are in need of supportive services As troubling as the title of this bill is to me, more frightening is the content of L13 1772. School districts struggleas it?is to meet the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, with its rigorous standards and rigid assessment. To place the responsibility of meeting the needs of children birth through age onto an already oven-burdened system is ill advised and certainly not in the best interest of young children and families. To place this responsibility onto a system that is not prepared and has little or no experience or training in Early Childhood Education la?ckssound judgment.? The Child Development Services (CDS) system and its partners in Child Care, Head Start, Home Visitation ,Programs, and other providers are trained 1n developmentally appropriate practice for young children and have been Collaborating for many years to provide for the vast array . of needs of children birth through ?ve and have been doing so in a cost effective way Why change something that IS already working? Research has shown repeatedly that inVesting in children?s early years and providing . early intervention when services are needed yields the highest success rate overall. This 1 in turn saves money by 1educing the need of servic'es as children enter public school at age five And most importantly, children enter the public school setting with their self- esteem intact, ready to participate with all of their peers, and without the stigma of a ?special education? label. Yet it would seem evident from theintent of this bill that as systems are consolidated eligibility requirements will be tightened, resulting in fewer 1? umm. maine .edu A Member of the University of Mame System Printed on Ree) cied Paper Fax: 207~255?4864 children receiving the critical early intervention services they need in spite of what research and years of experience have demonstrated. Partnerships between families and children?s service providers are instrumental in planning for the needs of young children. The current CDS system involves the family in the development and implementation of the Individualized Family Service Plan, which requires that all services be delivered in the ?least restrictive environment? possible. Historically, Head Starts, Child Care Centers, family child care providers and others have partnered with CDS to provide needed services on site in the context of a child?s day and with the inclusion of the child?s peers. This is due in large part because of the lower staff/child ratio found in these settings. Are school systems going to be able to provide staff/child ratios of 1 to 4 for infants and toddlers and 1 to 8 for three to ?ve year olds to insure that ?least restrictive environments? with inclusion of the regular class program are possible? Change in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, for any change to be successful there are certain basic steps in the process that cannot be overlooked or side stepped. First, there needs to be a well?documented indication that there is a need for change. Second, all parties who are involved or potentially impacted by the change need to be at the table ?om the beginning or there will not be ownership in decisions that are made. Third, successful change is achieved when it is well planned and implemented in small increments, allowing for ongoing evaluation and modi?cations as needed. LB 1772 de?es all of these principles. How can we even begin to hope that its implementation will cause ?no harm to children?? With all this in mind, I urge you to please reconsider LB 1772. Please slow this process down and bring all those individuals knowledgeable in Early Childhood Education together to develop a comprehensive and consistent system of services for our children. Maine?s families deserve nothing less than this effort. Most importantly, Maine?s children deserve the best system we can possibly provide. Sincerely, Christine W. Rudd Early Care and Education Center University of Maine at Machias name sowsoer councn. on THE EDUCATION or: CHILDREN Senator Elizabeth Mitchell, Chair Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs State House Station Augusta, ME 04?.?3?0?100 Testimony on 1D 1772 Public Hearing January 31, 2006 The Maine Advisory Council on the Education of Children with Disabilities (MACECD) has three concerns related to 1D 1772. The ?rst. concern is that as written, Sec. 7001, LA, B1, of L1) 1772 seems to leave the consideration of a child?s developmental delay (for eligibility purposes) up to the discretion of the state Intennediate Education Unit or Local Educational Agency (LEA). MACECD recommends that the Legislature remove the phrase . . at. the discretion of the intermediate educational unit or school administrative unit. . . from the paragraph so that the paragraph reads: (1) Signi?cant developmental delays for a child at. least 3 years of age and under 6 years of age, as de?ned in rules adopted by the department in one or more of the following areas: cognitive development; physical development, including vision and hearing; commrmication development; social or emotional development; adaptive development; or The second concern is that the word "signi?can in the context of the de?nition of developmental delay dirTers from the federal de?nition in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act MACECD recommends that the use of the ward "signi?cant? be deleted and that the language in Maine statute be aligned-with the federal expectation. The third concern is that the membership of the proposed Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors 13 too narrow in focus. MACECD recommends broader membership, e.g. a skilled early childhood person (ie. higher education), a child advocate (ie. legal rights, etc), parents, a member of MACECD, and geographic representation (cg. one member from each of the 16 sites). These were made by the full Maine Advisory Council on the Education of Children with Disabilities at the January 20, 2006 regular meeting. Respect?tlly submitted, Sue Henri?MacKenzie, Chair W?zi Maine School Administrative District No. 75 50 Republic Avenue TOPSHAM, MAINE 04086 TEL (207) 72919961 FAX (207) 725?9354 .org MICHAEL WILHELM, Ech. PATRICK F. MOORE, PHD. Superintendent . farm? Director of Special. Services . ?remen (207) 7294557 SALLY LOUGHLIN ?a Assistant Superintendent y? a) DIANA LS. . ?7&3 Director r?JfAdnlt and WILLIAM RSBA 533/ a Community EducatiOn. 1?3? (207) 729-7323 Business Manager Tor Senator Elizabeth Mitchell 1? Representative I ackie Norton Members of the Educ t' Ce 'ttee From: Patrick F. Moore, 1 (rt-f RE: l-?31-06 Legislature Te timcny, LD 1772 Date: 1?30?06 - My name is Patrick Moore. 1 am - a life long special educator and currently serve as Director of Special Services for SAD 75, representing the towns of ,Bowdoin, Bowdoinharn, Topsham and Harpswell. have the good ,fortune to -. have in that capacity for 20 years and have worked collaboratively with Project Search, the CDS regional program. for the 'Brunswick MidCoast Region. When the CDS system was initiated in 'Maine 16 years ago, I served as the Regional Board President during the start up years. am here speaking in support of LB 1772. While I understand that . there is a great deal of disagreement about this Bill, it is on the whole good legislation. Let me emphasize that my districts working relationship with Project Search has been productive for the students of SAD 75. As many as 35 preschool students eligible for Special Services transition through CDS to our Kindergarten programs each year and the overwhelming majority continue to receive special education or supportive services. This transition period is occasionally dif?cult due to the different regulatory standards, but by and large is successful. Kindergarten students continue to receive services to their needs; the parent?s fears about their child falling between the cracks are allayed; and new relationships are forged that bene?t the entire community, - ZOO. . 9003/081ro At the time the CDS system was formed in Maine, SAD 75 sponsored an Early Childhood Program. Preschoolers with disabilities attended a developmentally appropriate program. Typical peers were recruited to enroll in the program, and everybody bene?ted. At the advent of CDS, this program was abandoned, believing that the CDS system would provide these services through a variety of privately based preschool programs. The CD8 system evolved? and, in hindsight, the SAD 75 early childhood program should have remained an integral part of that structure. My support of this bill is based on the fact that public elementary schools are and should be at the epicenter of. communities and neighborhoods across Maine. Elementary schools are natural settings both familiar to and accessible to most community residents. There is no reason that public schools couldn?t offer developmentally appropriate early childhood programs, both on site and through home based outreach, along with other private and public agencies. Special education services have been providing a multitude of programs and. supportive services to K-lzo students with disabilities for years in SAD 75, and the school district has develdped a strong early intervention prevention framework. This framework is based upon the premise that schools are full service educational and social agencies. The signi?cant advantage of developing Maine elementary schools as the primary agents for early childhood services within a hub network is their embeddedness as community centers. This legislation is a natural extension of the early intervention and "prevention frameworks already A existing in many of Maine?s elementary schools. While the creation of a statewide CDS Board Structure might seem at odds with a community based . service structure: the fact remains that local school districts are governed by local school boards elected as community representatives. The State Board and local boards would work hand in hand to assure access and equity. LD 1772 seeks to improve early: childhood services through consolidating services within existing ptiblic schodl structures and standardizing practices across the state through a unitary State Board Structure. It ~must be recognized that this legislation is predicated on the successful elements of the current system, many parts of which might evolve into future alliances through mergers, agreements and collaborative structures. I urge y0u to support this legislation. Cc: Commissioner Gendron Lauri Bertulli, State CDS Director J.C. Holmes, Id Grozinski, Project Search Superintendent Wilhelm, SAD 75 ?mm . reassures secures/t0. Maine Department of Health and Human Services 221 State Street State House Station 11 Augusta. ME 04333-0011 John R. Nicholas John Elias Saldacci Commissioner Governor January?l3, 2006 Senator Arthur F. Mayo, Chair Representative Hannah Pingree, Chair Members, Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 043330100 Dear Senator Mayo, Representative and Committee Members: In accordance with provisions in PL 2003 Ch. 689, Part B, section B~l, subsection 1 1, An Act To Establish the Department of Health and Human Services, I am pleased to present to you the attached report. As required by the legislation, my report contains recommendations regarding the delivery Of child development services. If you have any questions regarding the report, please do not hesitate to contact me For additional copies of this report, you can contact my of?ce at 287? 3707. Sinc rely, ohn R. Nicholas Commissioner cc: John E. Baldacci, Governor Jane Lincoln, Chief of Staff . Patrick Ende, Policy Advisor Brenda Harvey, Deputy Commissioner Our vision is Maine people enjoying safe, healthy and productive lives. Phone: 287-3707 Fax: 207~287-3005 I Y: 207-287-4479 DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services Commissioner's ReporT on The Delivery of Child DevelopmenT Services January 13, 2006 RecommendaTion: MainTain ChildbevelopmenT Services wiThin The ?DeparTmenT of EducaTion while conTinuing'To develop a vision and implemenTaTion plan for The enTire early childhood sysTem. AT ThaT poinT The role of early childhood sTaTe efforTs, Their pl'acemenT in sTaTe governmenT and ,expecTed ouTcomes for children and families will be deTermined. Commissioners of The DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services and EducaTion urTher recommend: Under The auspices of The Children's CabineT The Task Force on Early Childhood will augmenT iT membership To ensure parTicipaTion by all inTeresTed parTies and add To Their scope of responsibiliTies The enhancemenT of The comprehensive early childhood sysTem. ExTension of The reporTing daTe To December 1, 2006, ouTlining The vision, role of early childhood sTaTe efforTs, Their placemenT in sTaTe governmenT and expecTed ouTcomes for young children and Their. families and recommendaTions for any necessary legislaTion: ClarificaTion of parallel efforTs (legislaTive and execuTive) sTudying early childhood To ensure synergy and prevenT acTion ThaT is aT cross purposes; Develop sTaTe level accounTabiliTy To ensure inTegraTion and coordinaTion of early care and educaTion services including evaluaTion of The comprehensive sysTem wiTh parTicular aTTenTion To ouTcome measures and cosT effecTive service delivery madels. Review Process: Department of Helth and Human Services Commissioner Jack Nicholas and Department of Education Commissioner Susan Gendron invited representatives from The early childhood system to review early childhood system and advise him on The future delivery of Those services.? This advisory grOu'p met November 14 and- December 16, 2005. This reporT incorporates Their advice on The issue of early childhood services. (Membership attached) Reasons: I. Child Development Services (DOE) is a part of a continually developing early childhood system. CD5 and other child serving entities need To collaborate in a beTTer, more effective manner To insure better outcomes for all Maine Children and families. IT will be imporTanT for The Task Force on Early ChildhoOd To examine The complementary and integrated roles and responsibilities of each of The child serving programs on The State and local level in order to design and implement an effective and efficient comprehensive early childhood system. 2 II. Establishment of Department of Health and Human Services: IT was recommended in The Restructuring and Reunification Report, January 2004 That ?a decision be made within Two years regarding whether Child Development Services should be inTegrated into The new Department.? 1 Legislation was passed requiring The Commissioner of HealTh and Human?Services to work with The Commissioner of Education To review The delivery of child development services and report To The CommiTTee by January 31, 2006. 2 The Commissioner's Implementation Advisory Committee (January 2005) and The subsequent legislation which further established The Department of Health and Human Services (September 2005) did not address The issue of Child Development services. 3 Educational Reform Underway: Simultaneous to This work regarding The Unification, The report of Governor's Task Force To CreaTe Seamless Educational Systems Pre To Grade 16 recommended a vision and plan for an education system. That will achieve prosperity for all Maine citizens. A key goal is To start all students ready To learn for their futures as they enter kindergarten. To accomplish This it is recommended That every community be encouraged To offer quality, accessible, affordable early childhood Report of the Advisory Council for The Reorganization and Unification of The Department of Human services and The Department of Behavioral and Developmental Services submitted to Governor John E. Baldacci on January 5, 2004 2 PL 2003 Ch. 689, Part B, sect/on 8?1, subsection See Append/X A for text 3 Chapter 412 Public Law educaTion for four year olds Through privaTe and school based programs, SupporTing The noTion of universal access To PreuKindergarTen. Concurrenle The DeparTmenT of EducaTion was required by The LegislaTure To submiT a?final reporT on November 30, 2005 . To The JoinT STandingCommiTTee on EducaTion and CulTura'l Affairs on The Plan for The ExaminaTion of The Child DevelopmenT Services (CD5) sysTem. This plan defines The conTexT for The?reorganizaTion of The'Early Childhood Special EducaTion Program (proposed name change for CD5) as well as a proposal for a mulTi-year approach To insuring qualify services by well qualified sTaf-f in locaTions ThaT are. easily accessible To eligible young children and Their families. This proposal is inTended To enhance alignmenT and coo?rdinaTion while creaTing a seamless special educaTion sysTem. CosT savings-in This sysTem are also being invesTigaTed. 4 - IV. Research has caughT up wiTh inTuiTion and common knowledge abouT early childhood. The Neurons To Neighborhoods reporT by The NaTional InsTiTuTes of HealTh highlighT The criTical imporTance of The beginning years of life. Early childhood is noT jusT one sTage, buT many. The pre-naTal and firsT year are criTical sTages followed by Toddlerhood and The preschool period._ Ongoing research confirms ThaT children's readiness for life and more formalized schooling is mulTi?faceTed, encompassing The whole range of physical, social, emoTional, and cogn-iTive skills ThaT children need To Thrive. In addiTion The ACE STudy ?reveals a powerful relationship beTween our emoTional experiences as children and'our' physical and menTal healTh as adulTs, as well as The major causes of adulT morTaliTy in The UniTed STaTes. IT documenTs The conversion of TraumaTic emoTional experiences in childhood inTo organic disease laTer in life. ?5 RecenT advances in The early childhood sysTem: Building on The early work of: creaTing The child developmenT sysTem; The InTerdeparTmenTal CoordinaTing CommiTTee on Preschool Handicapped Children and: ME Right, The following sysTem improvemenTs have been iniTiaTed. A. The Early Childhood Task Force, reconsTiTuTed in 2002, supporTed by a federal Early Childhood SysTems IniTiaTive granT is promoTing: i Home VisiTors To The parenTs of every infanT in Maine beginning prenaTally,? ii DevelopmenT of parenT iniTiaTed and led Family Nefworks in Towns or neighborhoods 4 Maine Department of Education Plan for the Examination of Child Development Services (CDS) System. An Interim Report Submitted to: the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs on November 2005. 5 Vincent J. Felitti, MD The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead. EsTablishm?enT. of Town or neighborhood?based Family Resources CoaliTions in every Maine Town and: iv U-p ?To- daTe, evidence-based pracTices, accessible To all, promoTing infanT and Toddler brain developmenT. B. ConsolidaTion of DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services (DHHS) early childhood services: WiThin The newly esTabiished Office of Child and Family Services all DHHS early childhoodservices are being cons?oiidaTed in one division To focus DHHS service delivery in a more collaboraTive way. These services include: Head Early Head Child Care, Child Care for?InfanTs and Toddlers, Home VisiTors, HealThy Families and The Early child-hood IniTiaTive. AddiTional services provided by The DHHS Office of Child and Family Services include 9 Division of Children's Behavioral Services offers a varieTy of supporTs and services To children 0?5 and Their families: InformaTionand Referral; RespiTe: Flexible Funds; InfanT Toddler Groups; ParenT Groups: SupporT and EducaTion: Family SupporT/OuTreach; Home Teaching; InfanT MenTa-l HealTh: Counseling: Individual and Family; EvaluaTion and Diagnosis; Crisis Services: Day TreaTmenT: FamilyMediaTiOn Services; MedicaTion ManagemenT.? TargeTed Case ManagemenT. Children ThaT are eligible for MaineCare may also qualify for: In-Home SupporT; Specialized of Home TreaTmenT.? Children's Behavioral HealTh Services supporTs six family organizaTions. I: Division of Child Welfare Services assesses child abuse and neglecT I allegaTions; provides child proTecTive services To inTacT families;, provides fosTer care; ouT of home care, permanency planning, adopTive and TransiTional living services. Maine's RecommendaTion for Core IndicaTors of School Readiness, 2004. Too many children enTer kindergarTen wiTh physical, social, language, emoTional and cogniTive limiTaTions ThaT could have been minimized or eliminaTed Through early aTTenTion To child and family needs; This documenT describes The readiness indicaTors in five goal areas: READY FAMILIES, READY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION, READY COMMUNITIES, READY SCHOOLS AND READY CHILD. These indicaTors have The poTenTial To develop inTo sTandards of measuremenT for school readiness. D. The Maine Head CollaboraTion Office EvaluaTion of Program, AugusT 2005 This reporT highlighTs key accomplishmenTs for 2000? 2005 and idenTifies key fuTure acTiviTies for conTinued improvemenT of Head in Maine E. The of Maine Early Childhood Learning Guidelines, SepTember 2005 serves as a guide for sTaTe and local early care and educaTion pracTiTioners' efforTs To improve early childhood professional pracTice and programs for young children ages Three Through Their enTrance inTo kindergarTen. These guidelines cover The areas of: PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: HEALTH AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE: EARLY LANGUAGE AND LITERACY: APPROACHES TO LEARNING: MATHEMATICS: SOCIAL STUDIES AND CREATIVE ARTS. Maine's InfanT Toddler Early Learning Guidelines, were presenTed January 2006, These guidelines are inTended To help parenTs, early childhood professionals and policymakers undersTand whaT To look for as a baby grows and develops They are also I'nTended To help us undersTand ThaT infanTs and Toddlers' naTural learning paTTerns and abiliTies can be nurTur'ed In The everyday acTiviTies of a home or childcare seTTing. . 6. Early Childhood DiagnosTic ClassificaTion: Children's Behavioral HealTh Services has also supporTed The professional developmenT of clinicians working wiTh children 0-5 by direcTing The developmenT of a billing crosswalk and creaTing a Training sysTem ThaT is accessible ThroughouT The for an evaluaTion and diagnosTic sysTem developed for children 0-5. H. Child Care Plus Maine is a parTnership agreemenT beTween The~ UniversiTy of Maine?s CenTer for CommuniTy Inclusion DisabiliTy STudies, The Maine DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services? Office of Child Care and Head and The DeparTrnenT of EducaTion. The projecT supporTs The provision of and access To qualI'Ty early care and educaTion for all Maine children parTicularly Those wiTh challenging medical needs, behavioral healTh care needs, and children aT risk of being excluded from mainsTream childcare programs. IT was developed in response To The large numbers of children being expelled frOm child care (parTicular-ly because of behavioral Issues menTal heaiTh needs) The prOJecT provides consulTaTion and Training sTaTewide To early care and school age child care providers. The prOJecT also works wiTh oTher early care and educaTion child/ family serving organizaTions I and sTaTe deparTmenT parTners To increase The awareness/knowledge/skill of sysTem parTners by providing informaTion, consul-TaTion, sTaff developmenT To build Their capaCI'Ty To supporT access To qualiTy inclusive child care. OpporTuniTies of ImprovemenT: The following ideas were presenTed by members of The Commissioner's Advisory Group and submiTTed for The consideraTion of The subsequenT e-fforT To ouTline a vision and implemenTaTion plan for The Maine's Early Childhood. SysTem: A. If economies are found Through collaboraTion?s or changes in demographics, They shbuld be earmarked Towards early childhood programs. B. PrevenTion of adverse childhood experiences should be everyone?s prioriTy. C. All prevenTion and services should begin prenaTally wiTh a sTrong focus on The firsT Two years of life Our daTa Tells us ThaT mosT of our early childhood services are delivered To children ages 3 5. - D. ParenTs need To be involved boTh as resources for prevenTion and as True parTners in every sTage of The developmenT of Maine's Early Childhood SysTem including planning policy developmenT qualiTy improvemenT and evaluaTion E. Deliveryvof services needs To fiT wiThin The normal paTTerns of communiTy and family life. F. Develop a Universal screening process ThaT can open doors for The family To The sTaTe and local resources mosT able To meeT Their needs. 6. Develop pracTice guidelines, wiTh communiTy provider inpuT, promoTing common screening, assessmenT and TreaTmenT plans. . H. Increase social and emoTional supporTs for children and families. I. InfanT menTal healTh services for children from birTh To five and Their families is a service for which There needs To be improved public undersTanding professional Training, collaboraTion and resources. CommuniTy based delivery of serViCes supporTed by an infor?maTion sysTem ThaT easily makes available The informaTion families need. Appendix A PL 2003 Ch. 689, ParT B, secTion B-1, sub~secTion 11 "(T)he Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services (To) work wiTh The Commissioner of EducaTion land The Commissioner of 'CorrecTions To review The delivery of child developmenT services and juvenile jusTice services. By January 31, 2006, The Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services shall submiT a reporT including recommendaTion's and any necessary legislaTion To The Governor and The joinT sTanding commiTTee of The Legls-laTure having jurisdicTion over 'heaITh and human services maTTers. Following receipT and review of The reporT, The commiTTee may reporT ouT legislaTion To The Second Regular SessiOn'of The 122nd LegislaTLire." Child Development Services Invitees ack Nicholas, Commissioner DHHS Susan Gendron, Commissioner Department of Education Brenda Harvey, Deputy Commissioner DHHS Representative Jacqueline R. Norton, Chair Joint Standing Committees on Education and Cultural Affairs 85 Thomas Hill Road, Bangor, ME 04401 RepNorton@leaislaturemaineaov Senator Elizabeth H. Mitchell, Chair Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 277 Cushnoc Rd., Vassaiboro ME 04989 Representative Hannah Pingree, Chair Joint Standing Committee on Heaith and Human Services 92 Mills Street, North Haven, ME 04853 Representative LiSa Miller Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services 3 6 hemlock-Lane, Somerville, Me 04348 lisammaine?maccom Lori Whittemore, CDS Director Cumberland 50 Depot ST., Falmouth ME 04105 Patrick Moore, Special Education?Director MSAD 75 50 Republic Ave ,Topsham ME 04086 moorep?link75 org Donna Ford, Special Education Director Old Orchard Beach School Department 28 Jameson Hill Road Old Orchard Beach ME 04064 dford@oobschools.orq Debra Hannigan, Special Education Director MSAD 53 73 Hartland Avenue, Pittsfield ME 04967 hanniaan@warsaw ms.sad53.k12.me.us Richard Abramson, Superintendent of Schools Manchester School Department . ?45 Millard Harrison Dr., Readfield ME 04355 Rich abramsan@maranacook.orq William Braun, Superintendent of Schools MSAD 48 PO Box 40, Newport ME 04953 bbraun@m5ad48.orq Barbara Eretzian, Superintendent of Schools Auburn School Department PO Box 800; Auburn ME 04212 Lewis Collins, Assistant Superintendent Maranacook C50 45 Millard Harrison Dr., Readfield ME 04355 Lew collins@maranacook.orq Terry Despres Superintendent of Schools MSAD 36 9 Cedar Street, Liverrnore Falls ME 04354 Msad36so@sad36.orq Mike Towey Waldo County General HosPital PO Box 287, Belfast ME 04915 speech@wcgh.org Cindy Brown CDS Director Piscataquis PO Box 326, Dover?Foxcroft ME 04426 George Krohne, Executive Director Southern Maine Parent Awareness 8 Hemlock Street, East Lebanon ME 04027 glachnefalmegalinknet Janice Lachance Maine Parent Federation/SPIN PO Box 2067, Augusta ME 04338 ilachance@mpf.ora Ada Guarino', Direc?ior Easier Seals Maine 600 SouThborough Dr. Sou?ih Por?iland ME 04106 aquarino@easiersealsmeorq Kori Ellis Circle of Learning . 1100A Cen?rral Drive, Presque Isle ME 04769 I Ellinor? Goldberg, Presiden'i/ CEO Maine Children's Alliance 303 S'ia?re S'lree?r, Augusta, ME 04330 eqolberq? mekids.orq BurT?r Richardson, MD 11 Old Western Ave, Win?rhrop, ME 04364 BurTTr@aol.com Cheryl Rus?r PO Box 329, WiscosseT, ME 04578 Jane Weil - Advoca?re PO Box 22, Sfeuben, ME 04680 Bus Tel: 546?2269 iwei Alan Cobo~Lewis, - family Depar?rrnen'r of University of Maine ?5742 Li?r'ile? Hall Orono, ME 04469-5742 (207) 581?3840 alanc@maine.edu Trish Niedorowski, Execuiive Direc?ior WINGS for Children and Families Bangor, ME 04401 Tel: 1?800-823-2988 Trish@wingsinc.org Linda Elias - Child Care Resource Dev. C'ir. Child Care Connec?rions 136 Rou?fe Scarborough, ME 04074 Bus. Tel: 396?6573 Sue Reed - Child Care Head S?rar?i Maine Roads To Qualify PO Box 15010, Por'iland,,ME 04112 Bus Tel: 780-5825 Shalon Odokara - Communi?iy and Cultural Women in Need, Inc. PO Box 2519, Sou?ih Por'iland, ME 04116 Bus Tel: 761-9464 womini@aol.com Richard Farnswor'lh, EXecuTive Direc?ior Woodfords Family Services (St Maine Association for Communi?iy Service Providers PO Box 1768, Portland, ME 04101-4768 Bus Tel: 878-9663 rfarnsworlh@woodfordsorq Linda Labas 48 Tandber'r Trail Windham, ME 0406?. Bus Tel: 866-230?4520 Theresa Gae'ljens 41 Enierprise Road Limerick, ME 04048 793?9694 Ray qae'l iens@yahoo.com Lori Freid Moses, Presidem? Maine Child Care ST Elizabe'ih's Child Development Cen'ier 87 High S?rree?i, Por'rland, Maine 04101 207 871-7444 lfreidmoses?ccmaineorq Kolawole Bankole, M.D., MS. Minori?ry HealTh? Program Coordina?ror Public Heal?rh Division, HHS Depar'imen'r City of Por?rland 389 Congress St, Portland, ME 04101. Tel 207-874-8773, fax 207.874.8913 Nancy - . United Cerebral Palsy of'Maine 700 Mount Hope Ave, Suite 320 . Bangor, Maine 04401 - Tel: 941-2952 nancy.isaacs@ucpofmaine.orq Kristin Wright, Executive Director Washington county Children's Program PO Box 311, Machias, Maine 04654 1?800-545-0873 . krwriqht@wccp.net Joan Nason, Special Education Director Freeport School-Department 17 West Street, Freeport ME 04032 Joan nason@coconetme.oLq Deb Rainey University of Maine Center for Community Inclusion 225 Western Ave. Augusta, Me 04330 623-3942 Debra.rainev@umit.maine.edu Dean Crocker, Vice President Maine Children's Alliance 303 State St. Augusta, Maine 04330 dcrocker@mekids.orq_ - Kim Moody, Executive Director Disability Rights Center . PO. Box 2007, 24 Stone Street Augusta, ME 04338 (207) 626-2774 v/tty (800) 452-1948 v/tty Staff: Angela Faherty, Assistant to Commissioner David Stockford, Special Education Lauren Walsh, Maine Children?s Cabinet Laurie Bertulli, CD5 Director . Jaci-Holmes, Federal Liaison DHHS . Nancy DeSisto, Assistant to Commissioner Richard Aronson, MD, Maternal and Child Health Sheryl Peavey, Early Childhood Em Beougher, Child'and Family Services Lucky Hollander, Commissioner?s, Office Susan Savelle, Communities For Children Carolyn Drugger Waldo County Child Development Services 139 Northport Avenue, Belfast, Maine 04915 9 Telephone: (207) 338-1177 6 Fax: (207) 338?9978 TESTIMONY ON LD1772 EDUCATION and CULTURAL AFFAIRS COLMTTEE January 31, 2006 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, members of the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee, Good afternoon, I am Dallas Adams, Chair of the Board of Directors of Waldo County Child Development Services, testifying in opposition to 772. In my professional life I am Director of Sweetser?s Children?s Services in Belfast and Plymouth. During her meetings aroundthe state and before the legislature, Commissioner Gendron has cited a number of reasons for her proposal to remove Boards of Directors, take control of the CDS system for two years, and then shift responsibility to public schools. Those reasons include: Federal pressures regarding timeline compliance and waiting lists for services di?iculties she has had with four Boards of Directors, and the Govemor?s wish for a ?seamless? education system. WE AGREE that the commissioner should have the management ?exibility to deal with compliance problems and waiting lists, if the goal really is to serve children and not restrict eligibility. Given that compliance and waiting list numbers have'improved dramatically this year, it appears she might have that ?exibility. WE AGREE that she should have the power to hold Boards of Directors accountable. Given that the commissioner dissolved the Board in Bangor over two years ago and never re- established one, perhaps she already has that power. WE AGREE that a seamless education system is an admirable goal. However," We believe the word ?seamless? should re?ect more what people do, rather than where they are located. The people working for families of young children in Waldo County do work seamlessly. They communicate with each other, refer to each other, and solve problems together. The issues associated with compliance, waiting lists, and boards of directors are, at their heart, accountability issues. We believe greater accountability should be achieved by having a standard set of performance measures for the system, and for the sites. Site performance measures should also re?ect how well providers do their work. Regular statistical reports should be required from, and shared with boards and providers so that everyone can see where there are successes, where problems lie, and who is responsible. We disagree with state control of CDS because then the communities won?t be involved and won?t be able to hold the Department accountable, as it wants to hold us accountable. One statewide Board with even less authority than the current boards will not get the job done. Fer example, consolidation is the table right now, but if the Department is in charge, it could re-appear and no one could stop it. A statewide, interdepartmentai coordination network of services for Maine families and children, (0-5) with disabilities. CDS is an E.O.E. By the way, we are not opposed to consolidation, if it were done with discussion and deliberation among all parties before a plan is developed. The same could be said of this bill. Most of the ef?ciencies in the commissioner?s savings plan can also be accomplished without the Department governing the system. We oppose the move to public schools because we think it will not solve problems, although it might conceal a few. Please recall the testimony of a middle school teacher from Cumberland last winter at the joint hearing with the Appropriations Committee, commenting on waiting lists. He said: ?We have waiting lists at my school, too; we just don?t write them down.? I will close with a quote from a hearing before this committee on January 12. The issue was Charter Schools. The speaker was Commissioner Gendron. She said: QUOTE: I don?t believe the department or the schools, at this point, can take on a new initiative. Folks are stressed to the minimum. UNQUOTE Once again, WE AGREE. Thank you. Board of Directors Dallas Adams, LCSW Nan Simpson, consultant; formerly Director of Mid-Coast Resource Development Center Joan Probert, grandmother of a child in service with Child Development Services Sharon Goguen, Special Education Director, MSAD #56 Searsport Joan Callahan, Special Education Director, MSAD #34 Belfast Eva Blethen, Home-to-school Coordinator, MSAD #3 Unity Faith Garrold, former Head Start Director, retired Assistant Superintendent, MSAD #3 Sue Lapham, parent of a child formerly in service with Child Development Services Kathy Alley, Department of Health and Human Services Anne Williams BSN, Infant Mental Health Specialist PO Box 116 West Rockport, ME 04865 207-236-2104 Testimony in Opposition of LB 1772 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, Members of the Education Committee, my name is Anne Williams and I am here today to speak in opposition to LD 1772. I have been an Infant Mental Health Specialist here in Maine for almost 20 years. In this profession, I have conducted assessments of infants (ages 0- 3) in the foster care system to assist with permanency planning for this vulnerable population. I teach Infant Mental Health theory and practice to home visitors, clinicians, and most recently at the Baxter School for the Deaf. I am also a teacher of toddlers, at Peopleplace; one of the ?rst National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accredited preschools in Maine. I have worked with and for the Early Intervention system in Maine my entire profession, both as a Public Health Nurse and as an Infant Mental Health Specialist. Last year I began my graduate studies at Husson College to become a Clinical Nurse Specialist in Child and Adolescent to further expand my capacity to serve this population. I will speak today about my concerns regarding LD 1772. LD 1772 ?consolidates and reorganizes the delivery of early childhood special education services including the child development services system to achieve ef?cienCies of cost and effectiveness of childhood special education programs (LB 1772 summary statement). I agree with the importance of using our tax dollars e?ciently however invite the Committee to examine LD 1772?s plan, time line and philosophy. LD 1772 dOes not include families 1n the delivery of services to infants, toddlers, preschoolers. The tirneline for implementation of the work of this bill needs extension. The philosophy emphasizes special education when we are talking about early childhood development of young children with disabilities. We are hoping, through early intervention, to keep children out of the special education system. LD 17 72 defines children with disabilities but does not take into consideration infants and toddlers at risk for developing disabilities. One population to consider is infants, toddlers and their families who live in poverty in Maine. Premature infants are also at high risk for developmental delays or disabilities. Early intervention philosophy addresses prevention to decrease therapeutic-costs over time. LD 1772 states that services will be ?provided at no cost except where federal or state law provides for a system of payment by families.? Later in the bill is the statement that programs ?must be supported by funds included in the early intervention and special education appropriations of each of the member school administrative units. Does this mean that families are going to have to pay for early intervention? Will there be additional funding to the current Special Education budgets? Are Early Intervention services going to be paid for by already strained current budgets? School of?cials, school boards, and taxpayers need answers to these questions before this bill is passed. LD 1772 also asks that the school system supervise and approve Early Intervention services. This is asking an educationally based system to undertake a developmental approach in order to meet the needs that infants, toddlers and preschoolers and their families. What is the budget and where is the time for educating those taking on this responsibility? Supervision and approval of services to this population is an enormous job. One more area to consider IS the staf?ng of the Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors. The only designated members of this Board who attend with an understanding of Early Intervention and the unique needs of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with or at risk for disabilities are the parents. They are essential members of this board The addition of representation ?om the broad array of Early Intervention professiOnals, who have knowledge about this population as well as an interest in the- policy questions, is needed to assure that decisions made re?ect the needs of the population served. Protecting the growth and development of Maine?s youngest residents is our responsibility as Maine citizens. This is not a matter to take The results of our actions today will make a difference to the future of -Maine. The intent to streamline and consolidate administratiVe costs is well intentioned and admirable, however there Is so much more to consider. HOW the services will be provided Is the basic question on the table today and a question that MUST be answered before we proceed any further with LB 1772. As the adage goes, ?One hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of car I drove, what kind of house I lived 111, how much money I had, nor what my clothes looked like. But the world may be a little better, the universe a little brighter, because I was important to a child. I ask that you make yourselves important to Maine? 3 youngest children. Thank you for listening to my cements today. 4w. [Main Senator Mitchell, Rep. Norton, members of the Education Committee. My name is Donaldson and I live in Lamoine in Hancock County. I am a social worker and a retired former director of an early intervention program, now serving on the board of Hancock County CBS. The Commissioner and the Governor often use the word ?seamless?. They want a ?seamless? system of education that was ?rst is now for special education, and aims for ?provision of services to O?ZZuyearnolds in a seamless fashion.? But what does ?seamless? mean? What seams are to be gone? Seams between elementary, middle, and high schools? Seams between school districts? What seams exist in the provision of services to If ?seamless? means that the Department will run CDS, does it also then mean that DOE will run all the schools? And the community colleges? The universities? The day care homes where those infants spend their days? Does ?seamless? relate to governance? To policy? To funding? Is a seam de?ned by a Department, or by divisions within a department, or by a level of managementcornerstone of educational design, shouldn?t it be de?ned? It will have to be because DOE is using it to mean different things. The word has a nice feel to it, certainly. Some of us, however, like some seams. They give us sleeves and pockets. They provide us form, function, and ?exibility. They also give us focus, which helps develop depth of knowledge. They allow assignment of responsibility and accountability. We like that, too. The period birth-tow?ve is special. That?s when people this age are Children. And all of us?who work with this age, e. health professionals, child care workers, Head Start workers, therapists, CDS staff, have the expertise to work together to assist those children who have disabilities. We try to ensure that there are no learning ?seams? between them and their peers when they go to school. And, given the increasing number of children who meet their goals, and whose cases are closed before entering school, we are doing a pretty good job. When children turn ?ve they become students. It is a seam. It does what a seam is supposed to do it binds two pieces and adds strength, if done properly. We know what . should happen on our side of the seam for young children, and public school knows what should happen on its side of the seam for students, and done well, we stitch up that seam together, with family involvement and great care. If this seam is removed, as is proposed in LD1772, and school responsibilities stretched beyond their limit, the fabric of education will rip, and children will fall through. We can all recognize going to school as a seam, but in LDl772?s Amendment Three we also have language regarding the aforementioned ?provision of services to O-Zuyear?olds in a seamless fashion.? Can anyone explain what that means? If the Department knows what it wants, it ought to be speci?c so that we know what?s in store for children. Or, the Education Committee can do what I recommend, which is to recognize the word ?seamless? for what it actually is, a metaphor for the pleasant sounding, ambiguous element of this scenario Let us give more respect to the Children we serve and spend more time focusing on strengthening andbuilding on our existing system. I ask you to vote Ought Not to Pass on LD1772 and to recommend to the Appropriations Committee the restoration of at least two million dollars to the CDS budget to keep this - our ?awed, functional, focused system - intact. Thank you. January 31,2006 testimony to the Legislative Education Committee in Augusta regarding the proposedbill LDI772 related to early intervention services for children in Maine: Members offthe Education Committee I am Mary Merchant. I live in Dover?Foxcroft, Maine and I have worked for various entities within Piscataquis County serving preschool children and their families as an occupational therapist for a minimum of 10 years. I am here to oppose LD 1772 as it is currently written. Further I am here to suggest that there be a global effort to research and compile information related to the pros and cons of the current early intervention CDS system to be utilized by a broad and comprehensive team of individuals as a foundation to devise a well organized upgrade of the current early intervention CDS system to cost effectively and with uniform accountability serve our children and their families in their local communities. I currently base the bulk of my practice within the public schools across several Maine School Administrative Districts. The general trend of our culture in Maine and nationally is to send students less prepared for school to school earlier and expect them to learn more at and earlier age at an accelerated rate with less developed bodies and brains. These less developed youngsters are not able to keep pace and become frustrated learners especially if they have any form of a disability identi?ed by the system or overlooked by the system for whatever reason. I have been a strong advocate over the recent years of early formal intervention programs for all children who have entered public school. I have provided full class programs for kindergarten students and have seen some wonderful results from simply better preparing the bodies and brains of these children to support their learning with greater ef?ciency. The teachers of these children in several of the programs that have been implemented are clear that their students have preformed better as a result of these interventions to full classrooms of children. Pre and post testing of these students as well further reinforces their claims. I bring this to your attention because the teachers themselves will tell you that they are not trained to consider children developmentally and are amazed at the difference this developmental support makes to their students. They are trained academically. The proposal of LD 1772 does not work to support this important concept of child development especially with respect to special needs children who are already at a disadvantage. LD 1772 places children in school earlier and with academically trained staff as is the current teaching population and philosophy of the public school format. This is not to the positive bene?t of our children and will not put us any closer to meeting Maine State Learning Results. In fact, I would say it may set us back further unless these programs are implemented with signi?cant caution and forethought with well trained truly developmentally oriented staff. At the current time the public system is not prepared to support this. Additionally the current physical plants of the public schools are not ready to support this transition either. My second point is that an alternative plan be considered. I am not suggesting a rushed plan drawn up in a hasty craze to combat the potential hazard of LD 1772 but instead a well researched plan. I am suggesting one that includes the best qualities of the current system to accentuate them in a cost effective manner and elimination and replacement the weaker qualities of the current system with components more supportive of children, their families and ultimately the state budget. We all as tax payers would be benefited by this approach in both the short run with tax savings and long term with quality educational results from preschool on up thru the grades into college. As a provider in the preschool and public school system for over 10 years I can testify that without question both good and weak points clearly exist in .the current early intervention CDS system. I can truly say I have seen the early intervention system becoming more stringent with their qualifying criteria and as a result not serve children as preschoolers who in the past would have qualified for assistance. The resulting effect is that these kids fail miserably in the ?rst few months of kindergarten. Our early intervention system is meant to catch these kids not be so mushy on our quali?cation criteria that we don?t ?have to serve them?. The lucky ones at this point have advocating parents and concerned teachers that then trigger the public school system into action to identify a disability and provide support. The less lucky get pushed ahead unsupported becoming increasingly frustrated as the years pass, develop behaviors that disrupt school for themselves and their peers and ends in any number of ways. They may get identi?ed later but the cumulative effect of late referrals for support and the emotional impact of not having been supp01ted makes helping these kids a much more dif?cult, longer and more costly process. I can say that as a provider the current CDS structure has facilitated a somewhat inconsistent referral process. The inconsistencies I have noted include such factors as where we are in the budget cycle, who a child?s parents are, how strong an advocate a parent or guardian is, how old the child is, how long they have waited to be served, who conducted the evaluations, what CDS site did the decision making, or simply who facilitated the IFSP meeting. In a well working system these types of variables would not exist. These are the types of system breakdowns that lead to very frustrated parents and providers, the kind I have talked to so often, and the kind I am hearing voices of with greater frequency in the last ?ve years as the budget has reportedly tightened. One solution of the CDS system has been to hire their own in house staff to further the system causes. The result, unfortunately, has been an escalation of the above sited concerns serving to further reduce the effectiveness of the ?lter and catchments system that CD8 was originally designed to be for our state. In closing I will say that I have many speci?c situations that I could site that outline the good and the weak process of the current CDS system. I can say that it would appear that a good hard evaluative look at the current CDS system is our best option from the perspective of money and with respect to the welfare of our children. I suggest allotting time and demanding a thorough and truly investigative program revision be the direction . of the State of Maine as they are faced with clearly necessary budget shifts. None of us should be afraid of this. None of us should avoid it related to ease and time savings. It is a necessary and supportive course of action fo1 the long and short term support of the state of Maine, its taxpayers and more importantly our state 3 childien and I would be honored to be a part of the piocess of revision as would the Task che of Piscataquis County that has joined forces to encourage this endeavor. I sincerely thank the members of the Education Committee for taking time to hear me and am hOpeful that some good will result. Sincerely, ?Hr/m 74 /Mary Atkinson Me1chant Concerned Tax Paying Citizen Private Business Owner Task Force Member Community Therapy Service Provider ?nite ?eveapmem tit-[Southern Kennebec - 263 Water Street, Suite 500, Augusta, ME 04330 - (207) 623-4989 ."E-mail: Fax:(207) 622-9798 I-i' 1. ?Fiscal: In the last 4 to 5 years, has the CDS system stayed within the budget . ?dictated by the funding formula? . 2- CompliaHCe: What has been the of children 111 compliance for the past 6 months? I 3.: Parents: _II'What was the overall of satisfaction from the Parent Survey most i recently done? (Please read source document to understand comprehensive nature of questions and parent comments) I 4 Cox-3t Savings: What part of cost savings plan submitted to Education Committee ._on Nov 30th, 2005 can?t be done without the passage of this statute? (see attached budget worksheet) . 5. Alleged Site Issues: How many CDS sites, if any, are currently having ?issues? ?3 I that would constitute an immediate need for emergency legislation? Who are the sites? What are the specific issues? When did they occur? Have these issues been resolved? I I Draft Rules: Are there draft rules? Will those draft rules potentially reduce eligibility criteria for children 3 original budget document - See: Sec: YY-2 (attached) . Name Change: Has anyone done a cost analysis on a statewide name change? - - - Signage, nametags, brochures, stationery, general public relations, etc . lwould ask the committee to carefully weigh each of the answers to these - do gmy of the answers warrant the need for any legislation, let alone emergency legislation? - ntermedlate Educationai tJnIt responsible for ensuring identification of children with disabilities or developmental delays who are aged birth through ?ve. Potential Savings Estimate for Early Childhood Special Education Program Requires Statute . . Change' 1 Potential FY06 FY07 FY08 i, l? . Savings Primary Service Provider Model 300,000 . 300,000 1110 Extended School Year 400,000 200,000 200,000 No - Eligibility Criteria/Evaluations/Service Delivery 1,650,000 1,650,000 . No MaineCare Geneial Fund Reduction 726,000 726,000 Enrollment decline Impact on Anticipated Services 1,762,821 694,462 1,068,359 . I No MaineCare? State General Fund Reduction 368,098 158,246 - 209,852 . Fie1d Coordmator/ supervisor 16 to 15 65,000 65,000 No Centralized Fiscal Management 418,228 418,228 780,000 No' Public School Programs for Four Year Olds I 500,000 7 500,000 No Family Cost Participation 100,000 100,000 No Statewide Autism Initiative 5 300,000 300,000 300,000 No MaineCaIe State General Fund Reduction 4 100,000 100,000 100,000 Screening/ChildFind 1 55,000 55,000 No Implementation of Tiered Rates DT Programs . 600,000 300,000 300,000 NO 1,352,708 5,992,439 State General Fund $7,345,147 [MaineCare State general Fund Reduction $1,194,098] Report on the Maine Department of Education Pian? Examination of the CDS System Page 6 of 39 November 30, 2005 Directions given to the Commissioner of Education by the Appropriations Committee regarding her $6.5 out to CD3 ??EEec. YY l?wbhild Development Services System; restructuring plan. By ?November 1, 2005, the Commissioner of Education shall present a report of the Department of Education plan to restructure the Child Development Services System to the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs. The report must rinclude: l. A desCription of the proposed restructuring plan; 2. A timeline for the implementation Of. the proposed restructuring plan;. . - 3. An explanation of how the proposed restructuring plan will . neither interrupt eligible children' 5 early intervention and special education service plans nor diminish necessary services to eligible children in the future: and - ab analysis of the proposed restructuring plan. "i W?Reduction in funding. Funds deappropriated from the Child Development Services program within the Department of Education in fiscal year 2006 07 must be absorbed through administrative savings within the existing program and not through decreases in eligibility for program services or reduCtions in service benefits. - am&?wm Appropriations and allocations. The following appropriations an nd al ocations are made. Initiative: Reduces funding for the Child Development Services I System from savings achieved through administrative and program cost efficienCies. GENERAL FUND 2005 06 2006-07 All Cther"$0 ($6,500,000) GENERAL FUND TOTAL $0 500, 000) Preschool Handicapped 0449 . Initiative: Provides additional funds to support services within the Child Development Services program. GENERAL FUND 2005~ ~06 2006? ?07 All Other $0 $200, 000 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $0 $200,000 3 Thomas Drive. Watervile, NIB. 04901 January 31, 2006 Dear Senator Mitchell and Representative Norton and members of the education committee, I am testifying in opposition to L.D. 1772. I am currently working as a speech pathologist in a hospital setting. My youngest brother has spina bi?da and my two sons both received speech and language services as young children so I?ve participated in the system as a professional, sibling and parent. I have worked with children with special needs as a speech pathologist and a school in preschool settings, public school settings, private school settings and hospital settings for over 20 years. I want to give you an example of a hypothetical young child in the CDS system and what has happened to this child and contrast this with what probably will happen to this child if LD 1772 is passed into law. This child is two and a half years old. Both of his parents work and they would be considered a ?low income? family. They live in a small rural town in Maine. They do not have health insurance. They have not taken their child to a physician for over a year because they do not have heath insurance. A friend of theirs urges them to have the child screened by CDS. CDS screens the child and refers the child to a speech pathologist and a multidisciplinary evaluation center. The speech pathologist determines that this child is non?verbal and demonstrates understanding of language at the one-year level. The multidisciplinary team determines that this child has cerebral palsy, signi?cant developmental delays and signi?cant motor delays. All of these assessments were completed within a month. The CDS worker has the family ?ll out paperwork to apply for MaineCare and they receive MaineCare. Since the Early Childhood team can consider the needs of the family and all the services in the area, this child?s IFSP plan meets the child?s and the family?s needs. The child is placed in a program for children with signi?cant special-needs for several days a week and a preschool program with typical children for a couple days a week. The staff at the special school and the speech pathologist have both been trained in using sign language and other augmentative language programs. The parents also participate in one speech therapy session a month and a parent-training program to teach them strategies to teach their child to communicate so they can carry over skills in their home. However, if this child and family had to contact the school system this is what would probably happen. It may take some time for the friend of the family and the parents to ?nd out that they need to contact their school system to have their child screened. Once they contact the school system, the school system would reply that they screen children in the home. The school system utilizes their special education teacher to administer one of the ?approved? developmental assessments. The results of this assessment indicate that the child demonstrates develOpmental delays. The parents are told that children from birth until age 4 are provided services in a home visitation model. Once children are 4 years old, then the child can participate in the school?s four year?old program. The parents would not be able to participate in the home visitation program since it is essential that they both work to make an income that can support their family. There is no one on the school system staff that has the expertise to help the family apply for MaineCare so this family continues to not have health insurance. Once the child is four, this child participates in a preschool program that is primarily designed for typical children but has integrated some children With special-needs into the classroom. Since this is a small town, this child is the only child with signi?cant disabilities in the classroom. The staff in the school system do not have the specialized training in Sign language and other augmentative language interventions. The parents do not have any choices of programs. They get the program that the school system has to offer. In conclusion, this child who has been served by the CDS system will come into kindergarten with considerably more skills and readiness for school than the child who is served by the school system. In the long run, the school system will probably have to spend more money on this child during his school years if he is provided services during his preschool years by the model that is being proposed by the LD1772. Sincerely, Pamela Rasmussen Speech Language Pathologist School Service Provider AUTISM SOCIETY OF MAINE 723 Main Street Winthrop, Maine 04364 Let ME. spread the word on AUTISM Let ME. spread the word on AUTISM (800) 273-6200 - (207) 377-9603 - Fax (207) 377?9434 Good Afternoon Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Intrieri and I am the Executive Director of the Autism Society of Maine. I am here to speak in opposition of An Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education, for a number of reasons. The most important is that the plan considerably decreases family involvement and family choice. We oppose changing the IFSP to for children 3?5. We would rather the parents get to choose which option they prefer because the IFSP is an ?Individual Family Service Plan? which includes the family while the IEP is an ?Individual Education Plan?. We are concerned that the move for 3-5 year olds into public schools would minimize parents choices where their preschoolers should go. Last year families won the right to choose whether their preschooler who turns 5 between September 1 and October 15 would stay in CD8 an additional year or move to the public school system. We oppose the repeal of that ruling. Another concern is that many of the issues that have been raised regarding the Commissioner?s plan have not been addressed. We are concerned that the quality of services will not be available and ready for our children aged 3-5. We are concerned what the transition between 0?2 and 3-5 will be like for families. Will it be cumbersome? Will there be gaps in services? We have not seen timetables of how this will be done nor have we seen procedures of what it will be like to be a family member in the new transition. It is a difficult time for families when they discover that their child has a disability. It is confusing to learn what to do to help your child. Furthermore, there is a large mixture of emotions families go Serving the Autism Community of Maine Since 1976 through. In the case of autism, many families don?t really know what that means. There is a whole new culture and vocabulary to learn. Currently when a child with a disability is identi?ed CDS helps the parent ?nd resources. CDS sets up programs with different providers to help the child. CDS also refers the family to different resources, such as the Autism Society of Maine, to be able to learn about the disability and get the help that they need. This is a crucial job. We are concerned that the educational system does not have the expertise, time, or resources to provide the information/resources a family needs early on. What we need to be doing is working to improve the CDS system, which currently often works well, and use the schools as resources. The bottom line is that we oppose splitting our toddlers into two separate systems until we know that our children won?t be harmed by not getting the therapeutic interventions they need the interventions that show the most promise to positively affect their prognosis. We also want to make sure that there are as many quali?ed therapists available that the child needs to ensure the early intensive intervention that is recommended for children with autism. We want to make sure that the child with autism gets all the needed services within a reasonable time frame to ensure that child?s maximum potential. Every recommendation that I have read, including state and federal task force reports, state that early intervention is crucial to positive change for a child with autism. The 2000 MADSEC Autism Task Force states, that ?It is likely 90% of children with autism who do not receive effective early intervention will require special or custodial care throughout their lives.? We are opposed to this bill because we want to make sure the school systems are ready for the shift of 3-5 year olds into their care. We are concerned that if the plan is done too quickly, problems that Serving the Autism Community of Maine Since 1976 could be avoided might occur. Planning for adequate space, transfers of CD3 personnel to public schools, teacher credential checks, as well as oversight, funding, and training all need to be thoroughly addressed. It is imperative that if the public schools take over the 3?5 year old population they have trained staff or teachers who have preschool credentials. How will caseworkers, home involvement, and the kinds of therapies the child needs be handled? We want to know that the quality of care will be there and that it will be seamless. Seamless means the services are not interrupted for the child, and that the shift is easy for the family. We want to know what the transition will be like. We want to know that families will have a meaningful say. Last year the 121St legislature passed what is now Title 20-A, Section 7727?5 This ensures that parents whose preschooler turns 5 between September 1 and October 15 should have the right to keep their child in the CDS system instead of enrolling them in kindergarten. This was requested because parents felt that they were receiving quality services from CDS. The Commissioner?s proposal would not only repeal that right but also force parents to leave the CDS system 2 years earlier. It does not seem right that over the Span of one year a parent initiative should be repealed and set back a number of years. We oppose the repeal of a parent?s choice in the education of their preschoolers. Again, we hope that you oppose LD 1772 until a real plan can be shown that would be comprehensive enough to know that children?s services would not be interrupted, that their would be avenues for families to give voice, that transitioning from one system to another would not be cumbersome, and that no child with a disability will be left behind. Serving the Autism Community of Maine Since 1976 The bill is being put through as an emergency preamble. I implore you to delay the passing of this bill until the Commissioner can show her plan more thoroughly and get more public comment. Lastly, we want to again extend our desire to work with the Commissioner to make good changes for our children with disabilities. The CDC has stated that autism is the fastest growing childhood disability; there are many children with autism who will be affected by these changes. The Autism Society of Maine represents the autism community. We need to be a part of the process and give our input into what the needs of our children are. Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have now or in the future. Serving the Autism Community of Maine Since 1976 Gay Ha-routunian, . Pediatric Speech?Language Pathologist 535 Rogers Point Road Steuben, Maine "04680 Phone and Fax: (207) 546.7473 . . Testimony In Opposition To LD [1772 January3l,2006 - . Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and members of the Education committee," "my? name is Gay Haroutunian. I am a pediatric speech?language. pathologist who has worked in ?ve SAD 37 elementary schools for 7 years and with. preschoolers in washington County for) morethan 30 years. I work with ?birth to ?ve year old Childrenfin their homes, childcare centers, p'reSchoo?ls, - Head Starts, and The Washington County Children?s Program. I am on theBoard of the" Maine - Assocmtion for Infant Mental Health I feel that theDepartment of Education? 5 proposedLD #1772 would create a disastrous effecton-the welfare of Mainefslyoungchildren} and their families. It would do quite'the opposite? of its titlefF?An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special . Education?. children to reach their best potential in their ?rst and formative years. Why label these :children at birth with ?Special Ed? and send them to school with a label they may not'even need? Our goal should he to nurture and support them and their families to promote their optimal development before they reach school age. .7 - . a The title itself represents how disconnected this-whole. approachistothe-task of helpingyoung I understand that the state is trying to save money. Thus the budget for CD8 has been out by 42%! 'I'hese'children muststill? lie-served. a all know from recent, brain researeh that early intervention creates the best savings in the long?run. Eliminating local CDS boards and Creating onecentral board in Augusta may save some money, but can you imagine being the'parent of a child with autism in Fort Fair?eld or Lubec with no accessto local, or county representation regarding a concern? Shifting responsibility for all Maine?s preschOolers ?with diSabilities over to the school system will not save, but rather will costmoire money. . There will be increased expenses for additional space, maintenance, staff, and most impurtantly, training of staff. There may well be signi?cant increase in legal fees. I have heard that states which have shifted their 0-5 ?education? into their DOES have had increases 1n law suits? against them fer providing inadequate services to their preschool population. Another way of saving money is to reduce the number of children who are eligible for services. We in the ?eld are still unclear about what the DOE proposes for changed eligibility standards, At the 14 meetings held around the state the information about eligibility has varied. If Maine makes it harder for children to meet eligibility there will be a signi?cant percentage of children who go nnserved. Had they been Served, many might enter kindergarten with no need for further services. I have worked with the speech and language of a number of children who would not have quali?ed for services under the proposed higher standard deviations below the norm. Many of these children have Worked hard on improving their signi?cant dif?culties and no longer need therapy when entering schobl. This is :a "pay now, .or paylater" situation. Paying "now"-when children are very young is surely the most cost-effective solution. Public school staffs are already struggling to cope with the challenges of educating elementary and high school children. LD 17 72 dees not discusszhow Maine will train and prepare school staff for meeting the needs of such a different and challenging population of young children. Maine's ?higher education institutions are not yet turning out enough early childhood/child development personnel to serve current needs". It?would be utterly inappropriate to move teachers from elementary ?grades to work with birth to ?ve year-old children with disabilities and/or developmental delays since the two populationsare so very different. i ?1 . i "In early childhood (.055 years) parents MST be an integral part of .a and pt?gr?Mi?rig, thus the Individualized Family Service Plan (IF SP) which is currently, used by CDS LB 1772 has an IF SP for 0-3 year-olds only. At 3?they would have to change to an i r; Individual 'Edueaticma?l Where 12115133131111 is relegated to "being the team that will carry out the duties'aiid freSponsibilit'ies in acCordance witl?lqrules established by the Fora 'succesS?JI outcome parents of preschool children need to be included from the ground the plenum and the carrying'out of theplansr . . - Parents and service providers have not been included in the formation .of this LB 1772 plan. The A belated county meeting attempt at including those whom this bill would affect directly 1 Was too littlea'nd way too late. They?basically delivered the done deal; and then listened to distressed commumty members as the-bill went to printch?thodg-early and therapeutic - . . .. . intervention, special education, and schools are extremely distressed by this LD 1772. I Since we Were not included in? the?formation of this bill, please listen-to us? nowrbefore it, is tea-rate; tn .1772? pr'Oposes huge changes suddenly with littlerplanning for .the?actual' So many parents and people involved in earl I 1 representation cf the 'bill. Our need to support Maine?s young children with special? needspiandtheir families is of utmost importance. We must proceed slowly and carefully, a?ected by anyinewplan. . . ?Thank'you' for listening to my comm-cm Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, Members of the Education Committee My name is Christine Rudd and I am the Director of the Early Care and Education Center (ECEC) on the University of Maine at Machias campus. For the past 25 years I have had the privilege of being involved with children and their families as an Ed. Tech. working with children with special needs, as a K-Z multiage classroom teacher, and in my current role at the ECEC. While teaching in the public schools I saw ?rst hand the sometimes irreversible damage that can be done when the special education label is placed on children. Self-esteem, dignity and hope can be destroyed for children and their families with a sirnple label. It is troublesome enough to me that we attach this label to our school aged children, and so I have to wonder why we would want to attach this same label with all its stigmas and negative connotations to our children birth through age 5. However, troubling the title of this bill may be to me, it is its content that concerns me most. Our school districts now struggle as they work to meet the current state and federal mandates placed upon them. rom my years teaching in public school I know the demands felt by teachers and administrators as curriculum and assessment are made more rigorous and an increased emphasis is placed on accountability. Most public, school personnel ?are not trained in Early Childhood Education and are certi?ed as elementary educators and therefore have not had the intense training and experience necessary to meet the needs of these young children. To place the responsibility of meeting the needs of children birth through age 5 onto an already over-burdened system is ill advised, to place this responsibility onto a system that is not prepared and lacks training and expertise lacks sound judgment. Child Development Services and its many partners and providers are knowledgeable in developmentally appropriate practice for young children and have been collaborating for many years to provide services geared toward meeting children?s individual needs. - Partnerships between families and children?s service providers are instrumental in planning for the needs of young children. With the current CDS system, families are involved in the development and implementation of the Individualized Family Service Plan which calls for all services to be delivered in the ?least restrictive environment?. Historically, Child Care Centers, Head Start Programs and family child care providers have partnered with CDS which allows for services to be provided in the context of a child?s day, integrated with the overall program and with the inclusion of the child?s peers. This is successful in large part due to the lower staff/child ratio found in these settings. With a 1 to 4 ratio for Infant/Toddler programs and a 1 to 8 ratio for three to ?ve year old programs, teaching staff are more available to work with children individually and in small groups. Are school systems going to be able to provide this level of staf?ng in order to facilitate ?least restrictive environment? with inclusion in the regular class program? When I think of change I think of growth and all the possibilities that may be an end result of it. For change to be successful though there must be: 0 A well documented indication that a change is needed 0 A buy-in ?'om all parties involved which requires that those parties be involved in the process from the very beginning 0 A well developed plan that is implemented in small increments to allow for on?going evaluation and modi?cations as needed LD 17 72 does not follow any of these principles. How can we hope that its implementation will cause ?no harm to children?? Please slow this process down and bring all those individuals knowledgeable in Early Childhood Education together - to develop a comprehensive and consistent system of services for our children. Maine?s children and their families deserve no less than this from us; In the words of Frances Cress Welsing ?Children are the only future of any people.? Let?s make sure we invest wisely in our future. Let us never forget: MAENE MANAGEMENT ASSGEEATIQN 49 Community Drive, Augusta, Maine 04330 Telephone: (207)622-3473 Fax: (207) 626?2968 Website: aweb.com TESTIMONY NEITHER FOR NOR AGAINST L.D. #1772 ?An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education? January 31, 2006 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, my name is Bob Lyman, Director of Administrative and Personnel Services at Maine School Management Association. I appear before you today representing the Legislative Committees of the Maine School Boards Association (MSBA) and the Maine School Superintendents Association (MSSA). Our committees have chosen to respond to this bill as being Neither For Nor Against. We do this because of the extreme complexity of the issues associated with the provision of services for the Birth - Age 5 population. We have approached our analysis of this proposed legislation by identifying a set of questions that we believe you should have answers to before making a decision on this reorganization and the transference of program responsibilities to local school units. We have identi?ed seven topic areas and have formulated questions concerning each. We believe that the Department of Education should be able to respond to these questions in some detail before you take ?nal action on this bill. FUNDING: 1) What are the current sources of funding to support Child Development Services (CDS) activities, and how can we assure these funds will continue to be available during the transition period and beyond? Executive Director Associate Executive Director Dale A. Douglass Ronald T. Barker 2) As local school systems become responsible for CD8 program delivery, will there be a local responsibility to support funding? 3) How will CDS expenses be incorporated into the Essential Program and Services (EPS) funding model and what are the expected state and local shares? 4) What will be the impact on existing age 4 programs by the implementation of this proposal? 5) Historically, CDS has experienced shortfalls in funding how will these be made up in the future? 6) Will the management of the ?nancial side of CD8 mean an increase in local I responsibilities and generate the need for additional personnel and other expenses? 7) Will increased expenses for CD8 service delivery be calculated into the ?above 100%? EPS category, and must these amounts be appropriated under the school budgets? 8) Are there speci?c impacts to those school districts who are minimal EPS special education receivers? 9) What implications do these programs have for insurances held by the local school system? SPACE: 1) In the event space is not available in existing school buildings, can the local school administrative unit (SAU) lease space for these services? 2) Is there different criteria for space for Birth Age 2 and/or Age 3 5 students than for current pupils? 3) If additional space or major renovations are needed, will schools be able to obtain Revolving Renovations Funds for this purpose? 4) Do spaces for age 5 and under students require any additional approvals other than those for existing schools? TRANSPORTATION: 1) What new special requirements for transportation (including buses, other vehicles, equipment, and supervisory personnel) will schools need to meet the requirements of this bill? . 2) If additional transportation is required, will this be included in the EPS funding? CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE OF PERSONNEL: 1) Do the individuals currently providing CDS services fall under the DOE/other state agency certi?cation or licensure requirements and, if so, what are the implications of this proposal? 2) Currently school personnel are certi?ed 12 or some sub-?section of this. Will additional certi?cation be needed for supervisory and other personnel to cover Birth - Age 5 students? DUE PROCESS LITIGATION: 1) Currently the Attorney General?s of?ce provides legal services to CDS sites. When local school units are responsible for services, will the of?ce continue to provide services or will the cost of those legal services need to be absorbed by local school districts? IMPACTS ON LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS: 1) What will this mean for additional workloads on supervisory, ?nancial, and central of?ce personnel, speci?cally special education administrators, principals, and ?nance pe0ple? 2) What are the time, money, and personnel implications for the school system?s responsibility for the development of and 3) Does it make sense to transfer the Birth Age 2 p0pulation to schools before we have successfully transferred the Age 3 5 students? LANGUAGE ISSUES: 1) Are all of the minimum attendance rules currently in effect for ages 5- 20 applicable to the Birth - Age 5 population? 2) As important as these rules are, why are they not major and substantive? 3) Please review Ch. 303, 18, 201, 2A,b: how does the Department expect local schools to comply with educating preschool children with disabilities with non- schoolchildren without disabilities? (LD 1772, P. 10) 4) Why are there no School Board members, Superintendents or Principals on the Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors? 5) Would it make sense to have the timetable for this transition parallel the timetable for the achievement of 100% EPS funding on July 1, 2009 and how do we guarantee that appropriate funding will be built into the EPS model? In closing, local school systems would be taking on major new responsibilities under this proposal. Both MSBA MSSA want to make sure that, if this comes to pass, school systems are truly prepared, adequately supported, and suf?ciently ?mded to deliver these services to this student population through quality programs. We would be happy to work with the Committee, the Department of Education, and others in work sessions or as otherwise appropriate. Thank you. JlDataq?gisUMSMAfTestimonyle ?HZ-Early Chiidhood Spec. Ed. Senator Elizabeth Mitchell, Chair Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, NE 04333?0100 Testimony on LD 1772 1 Public Hearing January 31, 2006 We are representatives from the University of Maine Farmington Student Body. Heidi Howard IS a senior majoring in Early Childhood Education with a Kindergarten through third grade teaching certificate. Kristie Backus 1s a senior majoring in Early Childhood Special Ed with a Kindergarten through third grade teaching certificate. We would like to recommend the two following amendments regarding LD 1772 bill, section 25, 2. Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors. The first, is in addition to the recommended qualifications of the board it should also state that one 01 more of the members must have experience and expertise in the early childhood profession and/or have a degree in Early Childhood Education or a sister related degree. In the cunent bill the potential board may not have a representative from the early childhood profession. It IS crucial for the well being of the programs and the citizens they will be serving, that at least one of the members on the board has a clearly defined understanding and knowledge of early childhood development, as well as, the developmentally appropriate practices to follow The second, is in regard to the definition of the two parents designated for the board. In order to create a diverse parental representation of the State of Maine we would recommend that more than two parents or a parent representing each region of the State (e g. Central Maine, Westein Maine, Mid?coast, etc.) be a component in the structure of the board. Further more each parent should have a child who exemplifies at least two different disabilities and/or developmental delays. In doing so, the parents would assist the board?s representation of all demographic areas while also catering to the cultural needs of all families 1n the State of Maine. In turn, these two recommendations will ensure that the composition of the board has a diverse and appropriate representation to better serve the communities of the State of Maine. Thank you in advance ?aw 4i Heidi Howard; Farmington, Maine Kristie Backus; Wilton, Maine ?Inn" Maine Kennebec Centre a 67-5 Western Avenue, Suite 2 Manchester, ME 0435i (207) 626?3380 - FAX (207) 626-3347 Web: - E?Maii: info@madsec.org jadams@madsec.org ?Int-4 .. - i Administrators of Services for (Children with Disabilities Gll'll?tcers 2005-2006: . TO: Hon. Elizabeth H. Mitchell, Senate Chair E?fg?a?fjge, Hon. Jacqueline R. Norton, Rep. Chair Portland Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs President-Elect Barbara Gunn . Old Town Regional FROM: Barbara Dee, Press dent Program RE: Li). #1772: "An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Vice President Carrie Thurston MSAD 3 (Unity) DATE: January 27, 2006 Secretary Sharon Goguen MSAD #56 (Searsport) Treasurer Maine Special Education Administrators are willing to assume programming fission for children with disabilities aged 3-5 in addition to our existing mandate for children aged 5-20. It is our responsibility to provide services for Pasppresidem children with disabilities. However, Li), 1772 is obviously constructed to Ig?iaefansm? ?achieve efficiencies of cost" without regard to maintaining any of the positive contributions the current CD5 system has provided for children with disabilities aged 0-5. Although Maine is the last state to combine 3?5 year olds with the rest of special education, this pr0posed legislation is both poorly timed in an era of dwindling resources, and also proposes an extremely rapid implementation of the change. Implementation of LB 1772? will require careful, prudent planning. There Sta?: . are a large number of problems that have yet to be fully explored or Executive Director addressed that will impact the quality of service, and the cost of service, 1m v. Adams for years to come. LB 1772 is too far reaching, and has not been I researched thoroughly encugh, or explained thoroughly enoUgh, and does Adm Asst/Gmcelvigr. not provide the necessary overall benefits its proposing. What specifically Panama Mme? are the goals of this landmark legislation? What are the benefits to this Conference Coordinator Laura K. Soule Of?cers 2005-2006: President Barbara Dee Portiand President-Elect Barbara Gunn Old Regional Program Vice President Carrie Thurston MSAD 3 (Unity) Secretary Sharon Goguen MSAD #56 (Searsport) Treasurer Joan Freeport Past~lPresident Ronnie Hanson Gorharn Staff: Executive Director . Jill V. Adams Adm. Asst/Ollice Mgr. Penelope A. Mortell Conference Coordinator Laura K. Soule Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities Kennebec Centre 675 Western Avenue, Suite 2 a Manchester, ME 04351 (207) 6266380 .. FAX (207) 626?3347 Web: E-Mail: info@madsec.org jadams@madsec.org public policy shift for children with disabilities? What will "we" get in return for changing the system? Are we improving the . current system? Will children be serviced more efficiently? Will this legislation assist in reducing the shortage of Service providers? Will children receive services sooner than under the current system? Has DOE done a cost benefit analysis and/or compared the proposal with existing service delivery models MADSEC suggests strongly that there be an inadepth bi?partisan legislative commission to review the DOE proposal and draft further recommendations, rather than implementing LB 1772 as written. MADSEC has developed specific comments about several sections of LB 1772 that are of the gravest concern to the field. First, the phrase be educated with children without disabilities" in the natural environment as applied to the 36 group will create a massive new entitlement. This very topic, as discussed in a recent hearing officer decision, can be construed to mean that all children with a disability will get free access to day care and preschools with normally developing children. Clarifying language must be added, if new costs are to be avoided. LD 1772 mandates that the same identification process will be used with the 3-6 group, as is now used with the 6?20 group. This age range of children presents many differences in onset and identification; using the same process we now use with children aged 5?20 will not work. Trying to make one size fit everyone is just not appropriate, and violates federal policies around individualized services for children with disabilities. Where is the research that suggests this pervasive identification process is appropriate for very young children? LB 1772, at least in some sections, places children aged 0?2 under the local public school, a location in which no one knows anything about early intervention at this level. Large?scale staff development would be required -2- Of?cers 2005-2006: President Barbara Dee Portland President-Elect Barbara Gunn Old Town Regional Program Vice President Carrie Thurston MSAD 3 (Unity) Secretary Sharon Goguen MSAD #56 (Searsport) Treasurer Joan Nason Freeport Past-President Ronnie Hanson . Gorham Stalit?: Execative Director Jill V. Adams Adm. Asst/Of?ce Mgr. Penelope A. Morrell Conference Coordinator Laura K. Soule Mai - 1 mumrAdmit istr tors of Servrees rot in Kennebec Centre 675 Western Avenue, Suite 2 Manchester, ME 04351 Web: wwmadseeorg arm tea with Disabilities (207) 626m3380 FAX (207) 6263347 E-Mail: info@madsec.org . jadams@madsec.org uux a )2 to implement services and child find for the 0?2 age group. In other sections this age group is not connected to the 3-20 year olds, which is yet another example of the contradictory language and intent that permeates this document. The composition of the Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors is interesting in that it lists two members from DHHS and one of those must represent MaineCare. This is another indication that money (specifically MaineCare/Medicaid money) is driving this change. If foster} parents are good enough to care for a child, why are they not good enough to act as advocates? Surrogate parent assignments should remain the exclusive right of DOE, with no right to negate by DHHS. One section of the proposed legislation calls for local school districts to be fully responsible for all childfind and direct service activities. Another section calls for the development of regional programs to do childfind and other activities. Will each district do its own program, or will we reinvent the CDS system? Clear direction is needed so that services will be improved and expense controlled. MADSEC and its individual members are anxious to improve services to 3?5 year olds and to do so in an efficient manner. This is a very complex undertaking that cannot, and should not, be attempted without adequate planning, including a detailed cost/benefit analysis of a coherently articulated service model. C: [my dammenrsipamyliegrxlame Tammany regarding LD Louise Packness, MA, 61 Rackleff Street Portland, Maine 04103 (207) 772?4204 Packness@maine.rr.com Testimony in opposition to LD 1772 Jan. 31, 2006 Sen. Mitchell, Representative Norton, Members of the Education Committee: . My name is Louise Packness. I live in Portland, Maine. I work ?ill time as a Speech~ Language Pathologist with children birth to ?ve. I am on the Advisory Board of the Maine Newborn Hearing Program and I am a member of the Board of the Maine Association for Infant Mental Health. I strongly Oppose LB 1772 and I am here to ask you to vote no on this bill. I believe that this bill would not improve services to children and that it carries the potential for harm to young children and their families. I have a particular interest in early language development and I have worked for many years on facilitating early language skills for deaf and hard?ofuhearing infants and other children with language and speech delays, working primarily in children? 5 homes. For this group of children with special needs work with parents is not only essential, it is central. There are many concerns with this bill. You have heard and will hear of many of them today. For me, the overriding concern is that for three to ?ve year olds, this bill would shift the primary role from the parents and the family unit to educational institutions. For this age group and for young children with disabilities in particular, the urgent need is not primarily educational; it is to facilitate and nurture the processes of development. For this to happen, the parents need to be the center. This bill states that parents will be consulted and included. That is not enough. When I began working in the early intervention system in Maine, ?fteen years ago, there was a strong and growing commitment to the central role of families in facilitating the development of children birth to ?ve. The research literature was clear about the importance and effectiveness of early intervention for children with special needs and about the crucial role of the parents in that process. In the late nineties, a signi?cant change of attitude began to become apparent. The state needed to save money. Preventative services were being cut, and in spite of all research evidence to the contrary, the family was slowly moved aside. The Individualized Family Service Plan, (1F SP), which recognized the central role of the family in supporting the child?s development, was being supplanted by the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) whiCh focused on the measurable educational needs of the child. In team meetings, parents were now being asked if they wanted an IFSP or an IEP. The acronyms are similar, but the concepts behind them are worlds apart. One focuses on the educational needs of the child in isolation while the other addresses the needs of the child by providing services to the family that will allow the family to perform its developmental ?inctions. It is this subtle, but crucial difference that is codi?ed by this bill. Parents will be consulted, perhaps, but they will not be central to the process. That is a small distinction but an absolutely crucial one. Under the present system the developmental needs of the child and the role of the family are central. Under this bill, the educational needs are central and the family is peripheral. This is why this bill must be defeated. TO: Senator Elizabeth Mitchell, Senate Co?Chair Rep. Jacqueline Norton, House CowChair And The Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs FROM: Richard R. Farnsworth, Chair, Children?s Services Committee, Maine Association for Community Service Providers SUBJECT: LD 1790 It is no secret that the 0~5 years of development are extremely critical for our children, whether they have special needs or not. This is a time of life when the basic foundation for learning, behavior, basic attitudes about work and ability to function with others is laid down. It is also a time when young families are challenged beCause their children did not come with an instruction manual; parents have to rely on their own experiences, peer consultation, grandparents and some guesswork. Maine has responded to the needs of young children and families in many ways. However, this response has been in a somewhat fragmented and departrnentally specific fashion. Before the merger of DHS and EDS, there were Specific responsibilities assigned these departments. DHS addressed head Start, Early Head Start, Child Care Subsidy and more recently Start Me Right, Parents as First Teachers and Friendly Visitors. This was all supplemented by the EPSDT Program (Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment), that was under Federal and State Medicaid oversight. Within BDS, under Children?s Behavioral Health, there were support systems offered for children with identi?ed behavioral health needs or with developmental disabilities. Respitecare for families, In?Home Support, Case Management and Diagnostic Teams scattered across the State. The Department of Education was given responsibility for the early childhood services beginning with PL 95-45 7 many years, ago. This is now called IDEA and is focused on services to children with special needs. Over the years, this compartmentalization has been able to survive because of the commitment of a number of professionals in the community that have moved forward sometimes overlooking the potential barriers that can be established by these service areas. I have had the rare opportunity to sit on many committees and task forces that deal with the variety of early childhood services in this State. The fragmentation and the compartmentalization has been a barrier in a number of situations. However, it is clear that this type of status must come to an end. We must take a giant step and, as with any good business, develop an interdepartmental plan for Early Childhood Services that integrates all of the above identi?ed programs and clears away the debris that has gotten in the way of families obtaining services. Consideration must be given to easy access, timely reSponse with appropriate services ID 1790 Page 2 (continued) and the use of research based services with the appropriate documentation as to the effectiveness of what we are doing. Commissioner Nichols and Commissioner Gendron both signed off on the suggestion that we move ahead on this front (see attached). We need to do what is recommended. The planning process needs to include all of the stakeholders so that we can produce a plan that re?ects reality, is workable and effective. This is a time when this Committee can take the step for State government and for our many young families and children, both today and in the future. Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner's Report on the Delivery of Child Development Services January 13,. 2006 Recommendation: Maintain Child Development Services within the Department of Education while continuing to develop a vision and implementation plan for the entire early childhood system. At that point the role of early childhood state efforts, their placement in state government and expected outcomes for children and families will be determined. The Commissioners of the Department of Health and Human Services and Education . further recommend: 7 .3. Under the auspices of the Children's Cabinet, the Task Force on Early Childhood will augment it membership to ensure participation by all interested parties and add to their scope of responsibilities the enhancement of the comprehensive early childhood system. .3. Extension of the reporting date to December 1, 2006, ?outlining the vision, role of early childhood state efforts, their placement in state government and exPected outcomes for young children and their families andrecommendations for any?neceSsary legislation: Clarification of parallel efforts (legislative and executive) studying early childhood to ensure synergy and prevent action that is at cross purposes: Develop state level accountability to ensure integration and coordination of early care and education services, including evaluation of the comprehensive system with particular attention to outcome measures and cost effective service delivery models. Review Process: DeparTmenT of HelTh and Human Services Commissioner Jack Nicholas and DeparTmenT of EducaTion Commissioner Su5an Gendron inviTed represenTaTives from The early childhood sysTem To review early childhood sysTem and advise him on The fuTure delivery of Those services. This meT November 14 and December 16, 2005; This reporT incorporaTes Their advice on The issue of early childhood services. (Membership aTTached) Reasons: Child DevelopmenT Services (DOE) is a parT of a conTinually developing early childhood sysTem. CD5 and oTh?er child serving enTiTies need To collaboraTe in a beTTer, more effecTive manner To insure beTT?er ouTcomes for all. Maine children and families. IT will be imporTanT for The?Task Force on Early Childhood To examine The complemenTary and inTegraTed roles and responsibiliTies of each of The child serving programs on The and local level in-order To design and implemenT an effecTive and efficienT comprehensive early childhood sysTem. II. Establishment of Department of Health and Human Services: IT was recommended in The 'ResTrucTuring and ReunificaTion ReporT, January 2004 ThaT ?a decision be made wiThin Two years regarding wheTher Child DevelopmenT Services should be inTegraTed inTo The new DeparTmenT." 1 LegislaTion was passed requiring The Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services To work wiTh The Commissioner of EducaTion To review The delivery of child developmenT services and reporT To The CommiTTee by January 31, 2006. 2 The Commissioner's ImplemenTaTion Advisory CommiTTee (January 2005) and The subsequenT legislaTion which furTher esTablished The DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services (SepTember 2005) did noT address The issue of Child DevelopmenT services. 3 EducaTional Reform Underway: SimulTaneous To This work regarding The UnificaTion, The reporT of Governor's Task Force To CreaTe Seamless EducaTional SysTems Pre To Grade 16 recommended a vision and plan for an educaTion sysTem ThaT will achieve prosperiTy for all Maine ciTizens. A key goal is To sTarT all sTudenTs ready To learn for Their fuTures as They enTer kindergarTen. To accomplish This iT is recommended ThaT every communiTy be encouraged To offer qualiTy, accessible/affordable early childhood ReporT of The Advisory Council for The ReorganizaTion and Unification of The DeparTmenT Of Human services and The DeparTmenT of Behavioral and DevelopmenTal Services submiTTed To Governor John E. Baldacci on January 5, 2004 2 PL 2003 Ch. 689, Parf B, secffon sub?Sec?on See Append/X A for fexf 3 ChapTer 412 Public Law educaTion for four year olds Through privaTe and school - based programs, supporTing The noTion of universal access To Pre?KindergarTen. Concurrenle The DeparTmenT of Education was required by The Legislature To submiT a final reporT on November 30, 2005 To The Joint STanding CommiTTee on EducaTion and Cultural Affairs on The Plan for The Examination of The Child DevelopmenT Services (CD5) sysTem. This plan defines The conTexT for The reorganization of The Early Childhood Special EducaTion Program (proposed name change for CD5) as well as a proposal for a mulTi?year approach To insuring quality services by well qualified sTaff in locaTions ThaT are easily accessible To eligible young children and Their families. This proposal" is inTended To enhance alignmenT and coordinaTion while creaTing a seamless special CosT savings in This sysTem are also being invesTigaTed. 4 IV. Research has caughT up wiTh inTuiTion and common knowledge abouT early childhood. The Neuronsfo Neighbor/1000?s report by The NaTional InsTiTuTes of HealTh highlight The criTical importance of The beginning years of life. Early childhood is noT jusT one stage, buT many. The pre~naTal and first year are criTicaI sTages followed by Toddlerhood and The preschool period. Ongoing research confirms ThaT children's readiness for life and . more formalized schooling is mulTi-faceTed, encompassing The Whole range of physical, social, emoTional, and cogniTive skills ThaT children need To Thrive. In addiTion The ACE STudy ?reveals a powerful relaTionship beTween our emoTional experiences as children and our physical and menTal health as adulTs, as well as The major causes of adult morTaliTy in The UniTed STaTes. IT documenTs The conversion of Traumatic emoTional experiences in childhood into organic disease laTer in life. ?5 Recent advances in The early childhood sysTem: Building on The early work of: creaTing The child developmenT system: The InTerdeparTmenTal CoordinaTing CommiTTee on Preschool Handicapped Children and; ME RighT, The following sysTem improvemenTs have been iniTiaTed. A. The Early Childhood Task Force, reconsTiTuTed in 2002, supporTed by a federal Early Childhood SysTems IniTiaTive granT is promoTing: i Home VisiTors To The parenTs of every infanT in Maine beginning prenaTally: ii DevelopmenT of parent iniTiaTed and led Family NeTworks in Towns or neighborhoods 4 Maine Department of Education Plan for the- Examination of Child Development Services (CDS) System. An Interim Report Submitted to: the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs on November 2005. 5 Vincent J. Felit?ti, MD The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead. EsTablishmenT of Town or neighborhood?based Family Resources CoaliTions in every Maine Town and: iv evidence?based pracTices, accessible To all, pramoTing infanT and Toddler brain developmenT. B. ConsolidaTion of DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services (DHHS) early childhood services: WiThin The newly esTablished Office of Child and Family Services all DHHS early childhood services are being consolidaTed in one division To focus DHHS service delivery in a more collaborative way. These services include: Head Early Head Child Care, Child Care for InfanTs and Toddlers, Home VisiTors, HealThy Families and The Early childhood IniTiaTive. AddiTionaI services provided by The DHHS Office of Child and Family Services include: - Division of Children' Behavioral Services offers a varieTy of supporTs and services To children 0 5 and Their families InformaTion and R,eferral RespiTe; Flexible Funds; InfanT Toddler Groups: ParenT Groups: SupporT and EducaTion; Family SupporT/OuTreach; Home Teaching; InfanT MenTal HealTh: Counseling: Individual and Family: EvaluaTion and Diagnosis: Crisis Services: Day TreaTmenT; Family MediaTion Services; MedicaTion ManagemenT: TargeTed . Case ManagemenT. Children ThaT are eligible for MaineCare may also qualify for: In?Home SupporT: Specialized of Home TreaTmenT. Child ren?s Behavioral HealTh Services supporTs six family organizaTions. . Division of Child Welfare Services assesses child abuse and neglecT allegaTions: provides child proTecTive services To inTacT families;, provides fosTer Care; ouT of home care, permanency planning adopTive and TransiTional living services 61 Maine's RecommendaTion for Core IndicaTors of School Readiness, 2004. Too many children enTer kindergarTen wiTh physical, social, language, emoTional and cogniTive limiTaTions ThaT could have been minimized or eliminaTed Through early aTTenTion To child and family needs. This documenT describes The readiness indicaTors in five goal areas: READY FAMILIES, READY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION, READY COMMUNITIES, READY SCHOOLS AND READY CHILD. These indicaTors have The poTenTial To develop inTo sTandards of measuremenT for school readiness. D. The Maine Head CollaboraTion Office EvaluaTion of Program, AugusT 2005. This reporT highlighTs key accomplishmenTs for 2000-2005 and idenTifies key fuTure acTiviTies for conTinued improvemenT of Head in Maine. E. The of Maine Early Childhood Learning Guidelines, SepTember 2005 serves as a guide for sTaTe and local early care and educaTion pracTiTioners' efforTs To improve early childhood professional pracTice and programs for young children ages Three Through Their enTrance inTo kindergarTen. These guidelines cover The areas of: PERSONAL AND SOCIAL HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION: LANGUAGE AND APPROACHES TO SOCIAL STUDIES AND CREATIVE ARTS. F. Maine's InfanT' Toddler Early Learning Guidelines, were presenTed January 2006, These guidelines are inTended To help parenTs, early childhood professionals, and policymakers undersTand whaT To look for as a baby grows and develops. They are also inTended To help us undersTand ThaT infanTs? and Toddlers' naTural learning paTTerns and abiliTies can be nurTured in The everyday acTiviTies of a home or childcare SeTTing. 6. Early Childhood DiagnosTic ClassificaTion: Children's Behavioral HealTh Services has also supporTed The professional developmenT of clinicians working wiTh children 0?5 by direcTing The developmenT of a billing crosswalk and creaTing a Training sysTem ThaT is accessible ThroughouT, The for an evaluaTion and diagnosTic sysTem developed for children 0-5. H. Child Care Plus Maine is a parTnership agreemenT beTween The UniversiTy of Maine's CenTer for CommuniTy Inclusion 6: DisabiIiTy STudies, The Maine DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services' Office of Child Care and Head and The DeparTmenT of EducaTion. The projecT supporTs The provision of and access To quaIiTy early care and educaTion for all Maine children parTicularly Those wiTh challenging medical needs, behavioral healTh care needs, and children aT risk of being excluded from mainsTream childcare programs. IT was developed in response To The large numbers of children being expelled from child care-(parTicularly because of behavioral issues menTal healTh needs) The projecT provides consulTaTion and Training sTaTewide? To early care and school age child care providers. The projecT also works wiTh oTher early care and educaTion child/ family serving organizaTions and sTaTe deparTmenT parTners To increase The awareness/knowledge/skill of sysTem parTners by providing informaTion, consulTaTion, sTaff developmenT To build Their capaciTy To supporT access To qualiTy inclusive child care.? OpporTuniTies of Improvement The following ideas were presenTed by members of The Commissioner's Advisory Group and submiTTed for The consideraTion of The subsequenT efforT To ouTline a vision and implemenTaTion plan for The Maine?s Early Childhood SysTemi A. If economies are found Through co?llaboraTions or changes in demographics, They should be earmarked Towards early childhood programs. B. 'PrevenTion of adverse childhood experiences should be everyone's prioriTy. C. All prevenTion and services should begin prenaTally wiTh a sTrong focus on The firsT Two years of life. Our daTa Tells us ThaT mosT of our early childhood services are delivered To children ages 3 - 5. D. Parents need To be involved boTh as resources for prevenTion and as True parTners in every sTage of The developmenT of Maine's Early Childhood SysTem including planning, policy developmenT, qualiTy improvemenf and evaluaTion. E. Delivery of services needs To fiT wiThin The normal paTTerns of communiTy and family life. F. Develop a universal screening process ThaT can open doors for The family To The sTaTe and local resources mosT able'To meeT Their needs. 6. Develop pracTice guidelines, wiTh communify provider inp'uT, promoTing common screening, assessmenT and TreaTmenT plans. H. Increase social and emoTional supporTs for children and families. I. Infan'l' menTal healTh services for children from birTh To five and .Their families is a service for which There needs To be improved public undersTanding, professional Training, collaboraTion and resources. J. CommuniTy based delivery of services supporTed by an informaTion sysTem ThaT easily makes available The informaTion families need. Appendix A PL 2003 Ch. 689, Pm B, secTion 3-41, subwsecTion 11 ?(T)he Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services (To) work wiTh The Commissioner of EducaTion and The Commissioner of CorrecTions To review The delivery of child developmenT services and juvenile jusTice services. By January 31, 2006; The Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services shall submiT a reporT including recommendaTions and any necessary legislaTion To The Governor and The joinT sTanding'commiTTee of The LegislaTure having jurisdicTion over healTh and human services maTTers. Following receipT and review of The reporT, The commiTTee may reporT ouT legislaTion To The Second Regular Session of The 122nd LegislaTure." January 31, 2006 Good afternoon Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Joint Standing Committee 011 Education and Cultural Affairs. - My name is Cindy Brown; I am the Site Director for Child Development Services of Piscataquis County and have been employed there for almost 12 years, after having taught in the public education system for 16 years. I want to be very clear that I am not here today to speak critically about Maines? public education system. I am the product of public school system and feel that I received a quality education. Both of my children have attended public school in Maine as students of MSAD #68 and Foxcroft Academy? where they have by and large bene?ted tremendously. I am offering testimony today neither in Opposition to or in favor of both LD 177?. and LD 1790. I believe there are merits in elements of both bills and I ask that when you go into your work sessions on them you thoroughly and carefully review each one in great detail. I know that you all care deeply about what happens to our infants, toddlers and pre- school aged children and take your roles very seriously? that was certainly evidenced on November 30?? after Commissioner Gendrons? presentation, when you sought input from those in attendance? however, the CDS system as we know it has come to a crossroad in its existence with the introduction of these 2 bills. The decision you and ultimately the full legislature make about these bills will have life? long impacts on young children and their families. I believe you will be making one of, if not the most important decisions an Education Committee has ever made. If LD 1772 is looked upon favorably, Maine will be taking its Birth to FiVe System in a new direction. The CDS system has been Maines? Early Intervention and Pre?school Special Education program for nearly 30 years. There have been many changes made to it over the years- additions, deletions, improvements and fme~tuning. You are on the brink of making the most wide-sweeping changes since the inception of CDS. Even with identi?ed problems, this is a statewide system with many complicated components that have been put into place over the decades. To make the sort of changes proposed will take an enormous corrunitment from the state of Maine. Is the commitmentgoing to be there to put forward the resources required to make these kinds of changes? If you decide to move forward, on July 15?, 2006 the CDS system will be in the history books. I say with all sincerity, I do not envy the position you and Commissioner Gendron are in your decisions about the disposition of CDS and how we handle children Birth Five with special needs in this state rests solely in your hands. Please take your time and the greatest care in making that decision. 0 Under Chapter 303, Sec. 18 7201, 2A, why is the term ?developmental? environment used rather than the Federal Language of Natural Environment? 0 Sec. 18 MRSA 7201, 6? Participation in co curricular activities: why is there a reference to Individual Family Service Plans- along with all of the references to students, reduced course load, children not satisfying the applicable academic standard and other references that do not ?t for infants and toddlers. Co- curricular activities are not applicable for children under Part C. 0 Sec. 19 MRSA 7202, Special Education and Early Intervention Services- why are there only references to birth-3 and not to 3-20? 0 Sec 21, MRSA 7204, 2- what exactly does all of this mean? It is new language, and again it is speci?c only to Part C. 0 Sec 21, MRSA 7204, #3 School Year- A and needs to be clearer as Part C- Early Intervention services are not subject to a school year or extended school year schedule. Again, if children at age 3 are to be allowed to continue with an IF SP, and therefore perhaps under the Part regulations~ there could be signi?cant budgetary impacts if more families remain under Part versus Part B. 0 Sec 25, MRSA 7209? Early Childhood Board of Directors~ does a 6, or even 9 member board provide a fair and broad representation of membership for the entire state? I have not seen the ?ll text of LD 1790, but do know that it contains recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services Commissioners Report on the Delivery of Child Development Services-- which includes an extension of the reporting date to December 1, 2006. The indication being that more time has been asked for to take all components into consideration. How will you weigh these recommendations in relationship to the proposals in LD 1772? While I believe it would be time well spent for the citizens of Maine for you to thoroughly review and consider all of the pros and cons of what is in front of you I leave you with this: Several sub-groups of Commissioner Gendrons? CDS Steering Committee have been working diligently for, the past 9 months on speci?c-compliance issues we have been directed by the Federal Government to address. This is crucial work and it must go forward to its completion if Maine is to get into. and remain in compliance- especially for the Part Program. We are nearing the completion of documents that will bring us where we need to be and that we can be very proud of. I have brought DRAFT copies of some of those documents for the committee? In reviewing LD 1772, I ?nd that many items need further explanation, clari?cation and possible revision. I offer these comments as suggestions to help you think through the rami?cations of the proposed changes and that will help with clarity of the intent of the bill. There appear to be many parts that are confusing and at cross?purposesu if that is correct, when legislation is passed that is dif?cult to interpret clearly, as we all know, when people are not in agreement as to interpretation of laws, it then becomes the court who clari?es the interpretation, sometimes at great expense to the system and the state.? 0 The proposed de?nition of Development Delay for children 3?5 permits its use at the discretion of the intermediate educational unit or SAD. Developmental Delay has not been a category utilized by schools, it is safe to assume that trend would continue? so for all intents and purposes this will mean the end of the use of Developmental Delay for this age range. This then gives rise to the question: What eligibility category do we look to as we transition children at age 3? Mental Retardation, Emotional Disability, Learning Disability? Is this the direction we want to go in Maine? Across the rest of the country, Developmental Delay is one of the 2 most typically utilized categories for this age group, with Speech Language Impairment being the other. 0 Free Appropriate Public Education? denotes that services will be provided in conformity with an Individualized Education Program, known as the IEP, Which would apply for ages 3?20 as Opposed to the use of an Individualized Family Service Plan, known as the IFSP. This Speaks to a much bigger t0pic. It was stated in the Bangor Daily News January 25,2006 edition in an article by Mrs. Baldacci, Commissioner Gendron and Acting Commissioner Harvey~ that parents of children ages 3?5 will continue to have a choice between an and IEP. If that is correct, does this mean then that Maine will be adopting the Part C- Early Intervention option for children 35, as is permitted in the IDEIA, rather than an automatic transition into the Part B?Special Education program? The wording of LD 1772 does not currently lend itself to this concept- so that needs clari?cation or revision. Otherwise, at age 3 all identi?ed children will have an IEP. . If the intent is to allow families to choose to remain under the Part guidelines when their child turns 3 years old, that means something very different than what everyone has been thinking. As I will mention in a few minutes, what is being proposed for children Birth-3, Part for Maine is very, very different than how children are identi?ed and served under Part B. The section de?ning Intermediate Educational Unit is confusing - with references to Local Educational Agency, School Administrative Units and Intermediate Educational Units. Are each of you clear as to what this means? INCLUDING A DRAFT MODEL IFSP THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT - IS CURRENTLY IN USE. AS WELL, PARTIAL COPIES OF A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MANUAL TO HELP IN DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL IF SPS AND A PROCEDURAL MANUAL. I did not copy the manuals in their entirety as they are each about 50 pages in length? I just wanted to illustrate for you the level of work and commitment that it is taking and will continue to take to ensure that Maine is implementing Part in accordance with the federal requirements. We have worked for many, many months with the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center? reviewing and integrating the best work of many others states Part programs that will also meet federal regulations. No matter where the legislation ends up this work must get finished and implemented. It includes a paradigm shift in how we think about serving infants and toddlers; it will require statewide and svstematic training. support, monitoring and revision. If we are to be successful with this, all of these things must happen, they cannot be started and then pushed off to the side or put on a back burner. THE STATE OF MAINE MUST STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DEAL - APPROPRIATELY WITH YOUNG CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 6- THOSE OF US WHO HAVE COMMITTED OUR ADULT LIVES TO TEACHING AND HELPING CHILDREN HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THE EYES OF SCARED PARENTS AND TELL THEM WE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING. These things all cost money and a lot of it. My personal conflict is, I just can?t fathom how the things that must happen will happen in the face of the looming budget cut posed to go into effect on July 20.06. Thank you veiy much for allowing me-to share these comments with you today. gm, Cindy Brown CDS Piscataquis Co. LYNDA J. MAZZOLA, M.S., SP 28 N. Heritage Woods Lane Winthrop, ME 04364 (207) 371-2472 Speech?Language Pathologist Special Education Consultant January 31, 2006 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Education Committee: My name is Lynda Mazzola. I am currently a Speech-Language Pathologist and Special Education Consultant in private practice. I work with children and adults who have speech, language, and/or learning disabilities, and at least half of my clients are children between the ages of one-?ve years of age. I am also the grandparent of a three- year?old with special needs who is currently receiving services through Child Development Services. Prior to becoming a speech-language pathologist Iwas a special education teaches in the states of California, Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, and Maine, and was also the ?rst special education director in Hallowell, ME. I am here today to ask that you not pass LD 1772 ?An Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education? at this time, as there is much that is needed to be done in order to make this proposed legislation a step toward improving services and the service delivery system for children with special needs ages birth to ?ve. The ?rst issue I would like to address is the elimination of Child Development Services and the development of the Early Childhood Special Education Unit. There are currently 16 CDS sites throughout the state of Maine with trained professionals, quali?ed therapists, early childhood interventionists, early childhood educators, and numerous child care centers, private school and agencies, and private nursery schools and preschools to serve the birth to ?ve special needs population. And there are also many public schools that have developed preschool programs for four-year?olds, with input and collaboration from Child Development Services. To best serve Maine?s preschool children with special needs we need to continue to support the right of parents to choose where and what kind of preschool programming is the best ?natural environment? for their child. From birth to ?ve children are developing physically, emotionally, socially, and intellectually as they learn how to walk, talk, play, socialize, behave, and learn new motor skills, communication skills, social skills, and pre?academic skills. We must insure that these children get the quality and quantity of intervention services they need prior to entering the academic world of public school. The training and quali?cation of Case Managers, teachers, therapists, and other early intervention professionals is quite different from that of our K-8 public school educators. In addition, CDS staff is familiar with the providers within the community that are properly trained and quali?ed to provide services for our birth?5 special needs population, and they focus on the needs of the family as well as the needs of the child. Cutting programs such as CDS which have proven to be effective and cutting services to families and children to save money now will only cost us more later on, not only in dollars but in the quality of life for our children as they make their way through the education system. Another concern I have as a provider is the difference in intensity of services provided through Child Development Services vs. those provided within the public school setting. One of the reasons I chose to become a private provider was to be able to advocate for what children and families really need, and not just what schools have to offer or can afford to provide. Currently the intensity and frequency of services for preschool special education is determined through the Early Childhood Team process and is based on the individual needs of the child and family. Within the public school setting the need for services, and the frequency and intensity of services is based on how it ?affects educational performance?. I am very concerned that the implementation of LB 1772 will decrease the quality, frequency, and intensity of services which are being provided, or which have previously been provided in order to save money, and will be based on an ?affects educational performance? model rather than a developmental model. In addition, by making the eligibility criteria more restrictive, many children who are presently receiving services would fall through the cracks. One of the strongest positive aspects of the CDS system is the inclusion of the family in making decisions and determining what services the child needs, who will provide these services, when and where the services will be provided, and how often they will be provided. The need to maintain the Individual Family Service Plan for the three?to-?ve- year-old population is an important one. Currently private providers within the community who serve the birth to ?ve special needs population are on a list which CDS gives to parents to help them locate the provider closest to where they live, or to choose the provider they want to work with their child and family. With the introduction of the Early Childhood Special Education unit and the public schools may decide to contract with only one provider/agency, and once again the family?s right to choose has been taken away. We need to continue giving parents options and allow them to make their own informed choices as to what is best for their child. CDS staff not only provides case management and coordination of services, they also act as a resource and support service for the families and provide much needed information and reassurance. Once the child enters kindergarten, parent involvement is signi?cantly decreased as the family no longer has a case manager whose only job is to do case management and coordination of services. In the public school setting the case manager is a teacher or other school personnel who does case management along with his/her ?other? job, and the focus changes from family needs to educational needs. The legislature recently passed a ?Kindergarten Choice? law which allows children who turn ?ve between September 1 and October 15 of that school year to continue to receive services as a preschooler, rather than as a school-age child. There is a reason we use the term ?pre? school. Many children who have just turned ?ve are not ready for a formal educational setting. They are still in that ?developmental? stage where they are physically, socially, emotionally, and intellectually not ready for formal education. They still need time to develop the readiness and pre?acadernic skills necessary to be success?il in a kindergarten program. They need more support, more time, and more intensive services to be ready for the demands of the academic curriculum. If we repeal this law, we will be setting our children up for early failure, and once again limiting the choices families can make regarding their child?s education. Although in recent months there has been a much greater effort to involve parents, the public school, CDS staff, private agencies, providers, and preschools in the implementation of this proposal, there is still much that needs to be worked out and discussed. There are many areas which are unclear and questions which have not been answered. There are also still many questions that need to be asked. As a board member of the Autism Society of Maine I am aware that we have not been involved in any of the planning or discussion regarding how our birth-?ve autism population will be served. There has been some reference to an Autism Initiative, yet the Autism Society of Maine has no knowledge of this. That makes no sense to me. As the founder and long-standing member of this organization I am keenly aware of the needs of this population, as well as the needs of the families of young children with autism. Many of our birth??ve children with autism require the greatest intensity and quantity of services, resulting in higher costs and specialized programs. We need to be working together to be sure we are meeting these needs early on, as the cost of residential placement and/or out of state placement will be catastrophic ten??fteen years from now. As it is now, public school educators (teachers, consultants and administrators) with adequate and appropriate training in the area of autism are at a bare minimum, and schools are struggling to develop appropriate educational programs for the current autism population. We need time, and we need to work together to plan for educating and training school personnel to be adequately prepared to work with young children on the autism spectrum. I would like to say in closing that although I oppose the endorsement of LD 1772 at this time, I am in favor of ?nding a way to incorporate what is good about CD8 and what is working, with what needs to be changed. The important piece here is to look at how we can keep what works and only change those aspects of the program that aren?t working. Even though we have a budget de?cit, it should not be about money. We need to put our children and families ?rst. We must prioritize the integrity and quality of life for every individual and put that above all. There are lots of ways to cut costs without cutting services and programs, and without taking the giant steps before the baby steps. Let?s work together as a teamw CDS, parents, the Department of Education, and private agencies and providers to ?nd a way to make ripples instead of waves. Thank you for listening. January 31, 2006 Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs Maine Legislature Augusta Chairwoman Mitchell, Chairwoman Norton, and Members of the Committee: My name is Erdley Gardella and I live in Hampden. I am testifying in support of LD 1790 and against LD 1772. Ihave a in Developmental from the University of Illinois at UrbanauChampaign. I am an Associate Professor of at the University of Maine, and I have published research in journals such as Child Development, Developmental Journal of Abnormal Child and Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent I am also the parent of a 4? year?old child who is currently receiving services through CDS. I would like to thank the current members of the Education Committee who, as members of the 121st Legislature, helped pass Kindergarten-CD8 choice unanimously. I am deeply concerned that LD 1772 would immediately repeal Kindergarten-CDS choice. If such a repeal occurs, it would immediately take away the hard?won right of Maine parents to keep their late?birthday children out of kindergarten for a year without losing their special education services. Admittedly, this is a personal issue for me. My daughter will be turning 5 years old on September 16, 2006. Thus, by birth date, she is eligible for kindergarten. However, she has been diagnosed with developmental apraxia of speech. This disorder causes her to have many problems with articulation (pronouncing sounds), as well as difficulties with grammar. Because of her speech delays, I am strongly considering withholding her from kindergarten for a year. I believe it is important for her to continue to progress in her speech development before entering the formal education system. Gains in her speech will definitely bene?t her literacy skills as well as her social interaction abilities. Although I certainly have concerns for my own child, I am very much aware that there are many young children in Maine whose developmental delays are much more pervasive and serious, and these children need multiple types of therapy. I fail to see the logic of essentially forcing some of our most vulnerable young children to begin kindergarten before they are developmentally ready. It seems that more extensive early intervention will often reduce the need for later, more extended (and more expensive) special education services, and will lead to savings on issues that a price tag cannot be put on children?s anxiety, frustration, negative attitudes toward school). Notably, in at least 30 states in the United States, children must turn 5 years old before September 1 to be eligible for kindergarten. Therefore, many states do not consider children to be developmentally ready for kindergarten if they have not turned 5 years old before the school year begins. I would think these concerns would be exacerbated when the child not only is young compared to peers but also has developmental delays that very likely will impede his or her learning and enjoyment of school. Thank you for considering my concerns. I strongly urge you to support LB 1790 for the good of our youngest Maine citizens. Erdley Gardella 36 Aaron?s Way Hampden, ME 04444 (207)862-2474 1/31/06 This testimony was written by Becky Philbrook-Porter, a resident of Bangor who was unable to attend today?s hearing because she needed to stay back and take care of her children. She testifies against LD 1772. IT MAY CONCERN MY NAME IS REBECCA PHILBROOK PORTER WRITING TO TELL YOU ABOUT MY FAMILY. ME AND MY PARTNER HAVE TWO LITTLE GIRLS ONE IS FOUR YEARS OLD AND SHE HAS LOW FUNCTIONING HER SISTER IS FIVE YEARS OLD AND SHE HAS HIGH FUNCTIONING AUTISM.BOTH MY DAUGHTERS WILL BE OLD ENOUGH TO GO TO KENDIGARDEN THIS COMING SEPTZOOS. MY DAUGHTER WHO IS FIVE IS READY FOR THIS GREAT GAIN AND THAT IS GOOD FOR HER, BUT HER SISTER WHO IS A YOUNG BEGINNER, IS IN MY OPINION AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH HER EVERY DAY THINK SHE IS READY. HAVING SOME SPEACH PROBLUMS AND SOME OTHER LAPSES, WELL MY POINT IS RIGHT NAW I HAVE THE CHOICE TO HOLD HER BACK TILL NEXT YEAR BECAUSE OF HER AGE AND NAW HEARING THAT THIS CHOICE MIT BE TAKIN AWAY FROM THE PARENTS NAW NO EXPERT OR ANYTHING BUT I DO KNOW MY KID LIKE KNOW ONE ELSE BESIDES HER DAD, AND I KNOW SHE WILL NOT BE READY AND I WANT MY KIDS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE STUFF I HAD TO DELL WITH I WAS A EARLY SCHOOL GOER AND I STAYED BACK AND NEEDED ALOT OF HELP IN SCHOOL. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PARENTS KNOW BEST AND WE SHOULD HAVE THAT CHOICE.SO ON BEHAFE OF MY LITTLE GIRL ASKING YOU NOT TO RECONSIDER THE PARENTS I KNOW IF SHE STAYS AT HER PROGRAM SHE IS IN NAW SHE WILL BE READY AND WILL DO GRATE THINGS WHEN THE AWSOME DAY SHE GETS TO GO TO SCHOOL COMES, AND BELIEVE ME I AND HAFE YEARS AGO I THINK SHE WOULD EVER TALK AND NAW SHE TALKES ALOT I WANT HER TO KEEP STRIVING, BUT IF SHE IS MADE TO GO TO SCHOOL EARLY SHE MIT RELAPS SO AGAIN PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE PARENTS CHOICE AWAY. THANK YOU FOR LISTINING TO MY STORY AND MY BABYS STORY, I HOPE FOR MY BABYS SAKE, YOU LISTIN TO THE PARENTS AND CARE GIVERS, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT IF I AND MY PARTNER HAD SOME ONE TO WATCH OUR KIDS WE WOULD BE THERE TO TELL OWER STORY BUT JUST US AND IT TAKES BOTH OF US IT IS OUR FULL TIME JOB MY THREE HEWES A CONCERNED MOTHER REBECCA PHILBROOK PORTER Testimony to the Education Committee of the State of Maine 122?Cl Legislature . Submitted by: Rob Hatch, Executive Director, Child Health Center LD 1772 (Against) and LD 1790 (For) January 31, 2006 Members of the Education Committee, my name is Rob Hatch. I am the Executive Director of the Child Health Center, a CDS contracted provider of Special Purpose Developmental and Occupational Therapy - . services to children Birth 5 from Androscoggin, Oxford and Cumberland counties. I have worked with the CDS system for about a year and nine months on behalf of the Child Health Center and the children and families we serve. Therefore I come to you today with no long held attachments to CD8. I must also, acknowledge, that I may not have a complete understanding of all of the history around CDS, which I have also been told is a good thing. What I offer to you is my experience as an educator of children Birth through ?ve for the last 13 years-I offer my observations over the past year and nine months in working with the CDS system, my personal commitment to children and families, my own efforts to deliver the services in the most ef?cient way possible and my personal desire to be better at what we do everyday even if that means changing the way business is done. As a way of presenting evidence to this point: As a provider, I have made a 7.8% reduction in my own agency?s administrative rate since becoming the Executive Director in 2004. a A provision of 1790, a bill I support, has a signi?cant impact on the services my agency provides, by recommending greater inclusion programming for children instead of special purpose programming which is the type of program we currently provide. I am willing to work collaboratively to ?nd solutions. You may remember on November 30th, I was asked by Commissioner Gendron to testify regarding the Birth 5 Collaboratives that I have begun to form with local partners and school districts in Androscoggin and Oxford counties These collaboratives emerged out of the Children?s Congress at Sugarloaf. We were privileged to have representatives from West Virginia share their experiences of highly collaborative statewide effort to implement four year old programs. Their efforts began in 2002 and will have full implementation in 2013. That?s an eleven year process. Every attendee realized there was much to consider in the planning and implementation of these programs throughout the state. Each school district faCed certain challenges with space, staf?ng, certi?cation, local support, increased tax burdens, programming etc. and everyone wanted to make the best use of the existing infrastructure of programs within the community and to ensure the highest quality of services for children Birth 5. It was in recognition of these challenges and the recognition of the absence of a true statewide collaborative forum that the decision to begin by acting locally happened. We formed the Androscoggin Birth Five collaborative came to be. Our current focus has been to help one local school use the existing expertise to develop a four year old program scheduled to open in Sept. 06 with approximately 12 children. I relate this story, because the concems emerged around the implementation of four year old programs in public schools. We are talking about an entire system of Therapeutic Services for children Birth - Five LB 1772 proposes dismantling an entire working system of 16 sites serving children with special needs from Birth to five and moving it into 285 public schools on a very tight timeline. This system is complex and deserves true collaboration at all levels to determine the best way to serve these children. In my short time working in this system and with the communities of Androscoggin and Oxford counties I have come to see CDS as: A ?awed but essentially effective mechanism for?fmding, identifying and evaluating children early in their development and placing them into the appropriate services in the community. 0 A system which serves many masters. While local boards have enabled local control and input, CDS site directors are responsible to (parents, provides, boards, DOE, Federal IDEA) and sometimes even in this 16 site system regulations are interpreted in very different ways. This system needs to focus on cohesion and Consistency, examine its own systems, building models which are consistent from site to site to ensure parity of service delivery. In'order for us to be ?scally responsible, we must be mindful of the existing resources that have been built by public and private funds. These resources in turn, must also be willing to grow and change and respond, to improve and ensure that pro grams are delivered ef?ciently and effectively and represent the highest quality of services to children Birth .. Five. My concerns with - It has not been developed in a truly collaborative fashion and thus fails to fully utilize all of the. information available to make the most sound decision on how best to serve these children. 0 It accomplishes cost savings at the state level by shifting costs to local taxpayers. It dismantles and fractures services, creating a system with less cohesion and consistency of. delivery of service by moving from 16 sites to 285 sites. 0 It doesn?t have the support of the majority of public schools which will receive the responsibility. My support of LD 1790 is based on the following: . It acknowledges funding issues and ?aws in the current system and proposes a solid plan to reduce costs administratively and makes adjustments to how services are delivered. 0 It retains a system that has been working for the State of Maine which I believe is re?ected in the performance of our students nationally in the 4th and 8th grade. 0 It has been developed in partnership with parents and providers who have taken a tough look at the financial realities the state is facing and has put forth real solutions without burdening taxpayers. Making adjustments to an intact system of 16 sites is easier to manage and will reduce the risk of children and families falling through the cracks. It is particularly important since it is easier to ensure parity in the services provided within a system of 16 sites rather than 285. January 31, 2006 Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs Maine Legislature Augusta, ME Chairwoman Mitchell, Chairwoman Norton, and Members of the Committee: My name is Marcy Allen, and I live in Old Town. I am the mother of two children in the CDS system. I apologize for not being able to attend this hearing in person. I speak in opposition to LB 1772. I want to thank those of you who helped unanimously pass the Kindergarten?CD8 parental choice law last term. I was disturbed to hear that LD 1772 would repeal that law. I brought my twin sons, Evan and Trevor, with me to Augusta exactly two years ago to provide testimony supporting the parental choice law. Not long after that hearing my sons were both diagnosed as having Autism. Evan and Trevor turned five on October 5, 2005, and my husband and I made the choice to keep our children in the CDS system for another year rather than send them to kindergarten at the age of four-almost five. They will go to kindergarten in the fall of 2006. Please allow me to relay to the Committee what that extra year of early intervention has already meant to my children and my family. Keeping Evan and Trevor in CBS for another year means they have had the opportunity to transition out of a special purpose group deve10pment therapy program into a mainstream pre? school program for that final year before kindergarten. Since the beginning of the fall 2005 school year, Evan and Trevor have made significant gains in their capacity to use spoken language and how they use language socially. They are having moments of spontaneous play and verbal interactions with peers, and they are trying to figure out why peers behave as they do. This means they want to navigate the social world with peers, and they are trying to figure out how that system works! Given their diagnosis, this is a huge blessing and testament to the early intervention services they are receiving. Within the last couple of months, my husband and I have been delighted to be peppered with a constant barrage of ?what? and ?why? questions. I don?t know how tall God is, and I don?t know ?what is on top of the sun that is on top of the clouds,? but I do know that these questions mark the passage into a very important developmental period of and learning, and I am so thankful for the opportunity. Because I was given the choice to keep my sons in the CDS system for another year, Evan and Trevor will go kindergarten toilet trained and wearing underwear. This is significant for me as a mother because my heart was heavy at the prospect of having my sons go to public school before they were even potty trained. It is significant for them because they knew most of their peers wore ?big boy underwear,? and they did not. They were only recently toilet trained, and Trevor has been subject to ridicule because of having accidents. Maybe this concern is insignificant to some, but for me it was heartbreaking to see my almost fiVe year old be made fun of, and he knew it but didn?t understand. While my children would not be affected by LB 1772, I oppose this bill that would strip parents of their right to keep their four year olds in CD8 for another year. Because my boys have another year of early intervention, I feel like they haVe been given a second chance at life. I cannot stress how far they have come developmentally even since December 2005. Every week is a new learning experience, and it was the parent choice law that bought them the extra year of early intervention. I want every child in Maine to have the same amazing opportunities that my children had. I think of how normalizing kindergarten will be for Evan and Trevor. Instead of dumping toys and ?icking lights and ignoring the world, they will go to kindergarten, make friends, play with toys, sit for story time and most likely not need an adult hovering over them at all times. This is the price of early intervention. This is price of having the parental choice law. There is no price tag to be put on giving two little boys a life because early intervention does last a lifetime. I again thank all of you who supported the parent choice law. Please consider my testimony and regard my opposition to LD 1772. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marcy Allen, Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner's" Report on the Delivery of Child Development SerVices January 13, 2006 Recommendation: Maintain Child Development Services within the Department of Education while continuing to develop a vision and implementation plan for the entire early childhood system. At that point the role of early childhood state efforts, their placement in state government and expected outcomes for children and families will be determined. The Commissioners of the- Department of Health and Human Services and Education further recommend: Under the auspices of the Children's Cabinet, the Task Force on Early Childhood will augment it membership to ensure participation by all interested parties and add to their scope of responsibilities the enhancement of the comprehensive early child hood system. Extension of the reporting date to December 1, 2006, outlining the vision role of early childhood state efforts, their placement in state government and eXpected outcomes for young children and their families and recommendations for any necessary legislation: Clarification of parallel efforts (legislative and executive) studying early childhood to ensure synergy and prevent action that is at Cross purposes: Develop state level accountability to ensure integration and coordination of . early care and education services, including evaluation of the comprehensive system with particular attention to outcome measures and cost effective service delivery models. Review Process: DeparTmenT of HelTh and Human Services Commissioner Jack Nicholas and DeparTmenT of EducaTion Commissioner Susan Gendron inviTed represenTaTives from The early childhood sysTem To review early childhood sysTem and advise him on The fuTure delivery of Those services. This advisory group meT November 14 and December 16 2005. This reporT incorporaTes Their advice on The issue of early childhood services (Member-ship aT'l'ached) - Reasons: I. Child DevelopmenT Services a parT of a conTinually developing early childhood sysTem. CD5 "and oTher child serving enTiTies need To CollaboraTe in a beTTer, more effecTive manner To insure beTTer ouTcomes for all Maine _children and families. IT will be imporTanT for The Task Force on Early Childhood To examine The complemenTary and inTegraTed roles and responsibiliTies of each of The child serving programs on The and local level in order To design and implemenT an effecTive and efficienT comprehensive early childhood sysTem. II. . Establishment of Department of Health and Human Services: IT was recommended in The ResTrucTuring and ReunificaTion ReporT January 2004 ThaT decision be made wiThin Two years regarding wheTher Child DevelopmenT Services should be inTegraTed inTo The new DeparTmenT. 1 LegislaTion was passed requiring The Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services To work wiTh The Commissioner of EducaTion To review The delivery of child developmenT services and reporT To The CommiTTee by January 31, 2006. 2 The Commissioner' 5 ImplemenTaTion Advisory CommiTTee (January 2005) and The subsequenT legislaTion which furTher esTablished The DeparTrnenT of HealTh and Human Services (SepTember 2005) did noT address The' Issue of Child DevelopmenT services. EducaTional Reform Underway: SimulTaneous To This work regarding The UnificaTion The reporT of Governor's Task Force To CreaTe Seamless EducaTional SysTems Pre To Grade 16 recommended a vision and plan for an educaTion sysTem ThaT will achieve prosperiTy for all Maine ciTizens. A key goal is To sTarT all sTudenTs ready To learn for Their fuTures as They enTer kindergarTen. To accomplish This is recommended ThaT . every communi Ty be encouraged To offer qualiTy accessible affordable early childhood ReporT of ThelAdvisory Council for The ReorqanizaTion and UnificaTion of The DeparTmenT of Human services and The. DeparTmenT of Behavioral and DevelopmenTal Services submiTTed To Governor John E. Baldacci on January 5, 2004 2 PL 2003 Ch. 689, Parr B, sec?on 3-1, sub-section See Appendix A for Texf 3 ChapTer 412 Public Law educaTion for 'four year olds Through privaTe and school based programs, supporting The noTion of universal access To Pre-Kindergarten. Concurrenle The DepartmenT of EducaTion was required by'The Legislature To submit a final reporT on November 30, 2005 To The Joint STanding CommiTTee on EducaTion and Cultural Affairs on The Plan for The ExaminaTion of The Child DevelopmenT Services (CD5) sysTem. This plan defines The conTexT for The reorganization of The Early Childhood Special EducaTion Program (proposed name change for CD5) as well as a proposal for a mulTi~year approach To insuring quality services by well qualified sTaff in locations ThaT are easily accessible To eligible young children and Their families. This proposal is inTended To enhance alignmenT and coordinaTion while creaTing a seamless special education sysTem. CosT savings in This _sysTem are also being invesTigaTed. 4 - A IV. Research has caughT up wiTh intuition and commOn knowledge abouT early childhood. The Neurons fo Neighborhoods report by The National InsTiTuTes of HealTh highlighT The criTical imporTance of The beginning years of life. Early childhood is an jusT one stage, buT many. The pre-naTal and first year are critical sTages followed by Toddlerhood and The preschool period. Ongoing research confirms ThaT chi ldren's readineSs for life and more formalized schooling is mulTi?faceTed, encompassing The whole range of physical, social, emoTional, and cogniTive skills ThaT children need To Thrive. In addiTion The ACE Study ?reveals a powerful relaTionship beTween our emoTional experiences as children and our physical and mental health as adults, as well as The major causes of adulT morTaliTy in The UniTed STaTes. IT documenTs The conversion of Traumatic emoTional experiences in childhood inTo organic disease laTer in life. ?5 . RecenT "advances in The early childhood sysTem: Building on The early work of: creaTing The child development sysTem: The InTerdeparTmenTal Coordinating CommiTTee on Preschool Handicapped Children and; ME Right, The following sysTem improvements have been initiated. A. The Early Childhood Task Force, reconsTiTuTed in 2002, supported by a . federal Early Childhood SysTems' Initiative granT is promoTing: i Home Visitors To The parenTs of every infant in Maine beginning prenaTally; ii DevelopmenT of parenT initiated and led Family NeTworks in Towns or neighborhoods 4"Maine Department of Education Plan for the Examination of Child Development Services (CDS) System. An Interim Report Submitted to: the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs on November 2005. 5 Vincent J. Felitti,? MD The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead. EsTablishmenT of Townor neighborhood-based Family Resources CoaliTions in every Maine Town and; I iv Up-To?daTe, evidence?based pracTices, accessible To all, promoTing infanT and Toddler brain developmenT. 7 B. ConsolidaTion of DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services (DHHS) early childhood Services: WiThin The newly esTablished Office of Child and Family Services all DHHS early childhood services are being consolid'aTed in one division To focus DHHS service delivery in a more collaboraTive way. These services include: Head Early Head Child Care, Child Care for InfanTs and Toddlers, Home VisiTors, HealThy Families and The Early childhood IniTiaTive. AddiTional services provided by The DHHS Office of Child. and Family Services include: . . . Division of Children's Behavioral Services offers a varieTy of supporTs and services To children 0-5 and Their families: InformaTion and Referral: RespiTe; Flexible Funds; InfanT Toddler Groups: ParenT Groups: SupporT and EducaTion: Family SupporT/OuTreach; Home Teaching; InfanT MenTal HealTh: Counseling: Individualand Family; EvaluaTion and Diagnosis; 'Crisis Services: ?Day TreaTmenT; Family MediaTion Services: MedicaTion Management TargeTed Case Managemenf. Children ThaT are eligible for MaineCare may also qualify for: In?Home SupporT; Specialized of Home TreaTmenT. Children's Behavioral HealTh Services supporTs six family organizaTions. 0 Division of Child Welfare Services assesses child abuse and neglecT allegaTions: provides child proTecTive services To inTacT families;, provides fosTer care; ouT of home care, permanency planning, adopTive and TransiTional living services. C. for Core IndicaTors of School Readiness, 2004. I Too many children enTer kindergarTen WiTh physical, social, language, emoTional and cogniTive limiTaTions ThaT could have been minimized or eliminaTed Through, early aTTenTion To child and family needs. This documenT describes The readiness indicaTors in five goal areas: READY FAMILIES, READY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION, :25on COMMUNITIES, SCHOOLS AND CHILD. These indicaTors have The poTenTial To develop inTo sTandards of measuremenT for school readiness. D. The Maine Head CollaboraTion Office EvaluaTion of Program, AugusT 2005. This reporT highlighTs key accomplishmenTs for 2000?2005 and idenTifies key fuTure acTiviTies for conTinued improvemenT of Head in Maine. E. The of Maine Early Childhood Learning Guidelines, SepTember 2005 serves as a guide for sTaTe and local early care and edUcaTion pracTiTioners' efforTs To improve early childhood professional pracTice and programs for young children ages Three Through Their enTrance inTo kindergarTen. These guidelines cover The areas of: PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: HEALTH AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE: LANGUAGE AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING: MATHEMATICS: SOCIAL STUDIES AND CREATIVE ARTS. F. Mainefs InfanT Toddler Early Learning Guidelines, were presenTed January 2006, These guidelines are intended To help parenTs, early childhood professionals, and policymakers undersTand whaT To look for as a baby grows and develops. They are also inTended To help us undersTand ThaT infanTs' and. Toddlers? naTural learning paTTerns and abiliTies can be nurTured in The everyday acTiviTies of a home or childcare seTTing. 6. -Early Childhood DiagnosTic ClassificaTion: Children?s Behavioral HealTh Services has also supporTed The professional developmenT of clinicians working wiTh children 0-5 by direcTing The developmenT of a billing crosswalk and creaTing a Training sysTem ThaT is accessible Throughou-T The for an evaluaTion and diagnosTic sysTem developed for children 0-5. H. Child Care Plus Maine is a parTnership agreemenT beTween The UniversiTy of Maine?s CenTer for CommuniTy Inclusion dz DisabiliTy STudies, The Maine DeparTmenT of HealTh and Human Services' Office of Child Care and Head and The DeparT'menT of Edu?caTion. The projecT supporTs The provision of and access To qualify early care and educaTion for all Maine children parTicularly Those wiTh challenging medical needs, behavioral healTh care needs, and children aT risk of A being excluded from mainsTream childcare programs..IT was developed in response To The large numbers of children being expelled from child care (parTicularly because of behavioral issues menTal healTh needs) The projecT provides consuli'ai'ion and Training'sTaTewide To early care and school age child care providers. The projecT also works wiTh oTher early care and educaTion child/ family serving organizaTio?ns and sTaTe deparTmenT parTners To increase The awareness/knowledge/skill of sysTem parTners by providing informaTion, consulTaTion, sTaff developmenT To build Their capaciTy To supporT access To quaiiTy inclusive child care. Opportunities of ImprovemenT: The following ideas were presenTed by members of The Commissioner's Advisory-Group and submiTTed for The consideraTion of The subsequenT efforT To ouTline a vision and implemenTaTion plan for The Maine's Early Childhood SysTem: A. If econOmies are found Through collaboraTions or changes in demographics, They should be earmarked Towards early childhdod programs. B. PrevenTion of adverse childhood experiences should be everyone's prioriTy. C. All prevenTion and services should begin prenaTally wiTh a sTrong focus on The firsT Two years of life. Our daTa Tells us ThaT mosT of our early childhood services are delivered To children ages 3 5. D. ParenTs need To be involved boTh as resources for prevenTion and as True parTners in every sTage of The developmenT of Maine's Early Childhood SysTem including planning, policy developmenT, qualify improvemeni? and evaluaTion. E. Delivery of services needs To fiT wiThin The normal pai'Terns of communiTy and family life. F. Develop a universal Screening process Thai" can open doors for The family To The sTaTe and local resources mosT able.To meeT Their needs. . 6. Develop pracTice guidelines, wiTh communiTy provider inpuT, promoTing common screening, assessmenT and TreaTmenT plans. H. Increase social and emoTional supporTs for children and families. I. InfanT menTal healTh services for children from birTh To five and Their families is a service- for which There needs To be improved public undersTanding, professional Training, collaboraTiOn and resources. J. CommuniTy based delivery of services supporTed by an informaTion System ThaT easilymakes available The informaTion families need. Appendix A PL 2003 Ch. 689, PorT B, section B-1, sub-secTion 11 ?(T)he Commissioner of HealTh and Human Services (To) work wiTh The Commissioner of EducaTion and The Commissioner. of CorrecTions To review The delivery of child developmenT services and juvenile jusTice services. By January 31, 2006, The Commissioner of HeolTh and Human Services shall submiT a reporT including recommendaTions and any necessary legislaTion To The Governor and The joinT sTanding commiTTee of The . LegislaTure having jurisdicTion over healTh and human services maTTers. Following receipT and review of The reporT, Th?e' commiTTee may reporT ouT legislaTion To The Second Regular Session of The 122nd LegislaTure." January 27, 2005 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Education Cultural Affairs Committee Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Committee, My name is Karen Davis. I am a Speech?Language Pathologist who provides services to preschool and school-age children in the . Greater Old Town area. I am writing to express strong opposition to LD 1772 An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education as presented. I am deeply concerned with the impact of these changes on the provision of quality services to preschool children and their families. When looking at the CDS system, Commissioner Gendron was concerned with the variability among CDS sites. She initially proposed improving consistency among sites by reducing the number from sixteen to seven. Her current proposal would place early childhood services under the auspices of over 200 school administrative districts! This would defeat her admirable goal of increasing early childhood service consistency. There are currently many school districts in Maine who are unable to provide needed school-age services due to staff shortages. Adding the birth through age ?ve services will not help this situation. As a result, preschool children in need of services in these districts would not receive the same level of services as children in school districts that are fully staffed. Additionally, since 1987, I have worked in several school districts or was involved in the transition of preschool children to many school districts. I have witnessed great variation in the level of services that are provided. Some school districts have offered families excellent services to maximize the child?s success in school. Other schools have provided their ?standard? services 2, 30-minute speech?sessions per week) without looking at each child?s individual needs. This variability is unacceptable and will not be improved by adding preschool services. It is vital that Maine maintain quality preschool services to assure that children enter school ready to learn. I have observed the positive impact of services within the current CDS system. It has been my experience that the CDS case managers are dedicated to helping families access high quality, appropriate services. In reviewing my preschool records from the past nine years, I have knowledge of current educational performance of 73% of these children. Of these children, 70% no longer require speech/language services, most do not receive any special education services, and many are at the academictop of their class. Of the remaining 30%, most made signi?cant gains prior to entering school. Many of these children access regular education with minimal special education support. Due to the dedicated efforts of the CDS staff, many children have entered school with the readiness skills necessary to be successful. I am very concerned with eliminating such a successful, cost-effective system. There appears to be a lack of planning regarding the implementation of these changes. It appears that school districts arejust beginning to be aware of the legislation and were not consulted or fully informed as to the impact of these changes. The superintendent and special education director in one of the area schools expressed concerns with funding, transportation, staf?ng, and space issues. When approached earlier in the week, the principal of another area school had no knowledge of the proposed changes. How will schools be able to implement this mandate when they are having dif?culty meeting existing needs? The ?scal impact of the proposed changes on local schools is not explained. When Commissioner Gendron requested a 42% reduction in CDS funding in February 2005, she indicated the cuts would be administrative and would not affect services for children. A ?single provider? model is being piloted at several CDS sites. Under this model, one person provides inuhome services for a child birth to two years. Under this model, children with severe speech/language needs are not receiving services from a speech-language pathologist. The person providing the service is not certi?ed to provide speech/language services. This clearly presents a reduction in the level of service being provided. The Commissioner?s plan eliminates a system, that while not perfect, provides very good services in a cost effective manner and ?dumps? them into an already overburdened public school system with no plan. It will result in less appropriate, more variable and less effective services to the most vulnerable children. Children will enter school without the necessary readiness skills with impact on the school districts? Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and ability to meet NCLB requirements. It will increase costs to local schools, not only short?term with increased preschool costs, but long-term with increased special education costs and costs associated with meeting NCLB. LD 1772 is a poor plan. I urge you to oppose this bill and support ways to improve the current CDS system. Thank you, Karen L. Davis, MS Speech-Language Pathologist 109 Veazie Street Old Town, ME 04468 (207) 478-5796 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333?0100 I am writing about LD1722 An Act To Restructure Child'Developmen?t ?Services. My name is Leanne Drexler. and I am a speech-language therapist working in MSAD 58. I am concerned that this particular bill adversely affects services for children with special needs. As I understand, this bill seeks to dismantle CDS and put services for children birth to ?ve into the public schools. Unfortunately, this "bill does not offer a clear plan as to "how this will occur. Dismantling CDS requires that all school districts hire case managers, speech therapists, developmental specialists, provide space and administrative/secretarial support for these services. It?s hard to imagine how MSAD #58, or any other district, would have the capacity to absorb these ?services into 'already'overburdened Maine?School Districts, without seriously compromising services to young preschool children as well as increasing'local budgets. There are 6 schools within my district. We are in a rural area and have spent extensive time and "energies to recruit-speech4language therapists "to our district(e.g. 'Stratton, Phillips, Strong. . .). 'Still, we continue to attempt to meet the needs of children with only one full-time and one part?time speech-language therapist. A number of the children we work with display moderate to severe articulation and language disorders such that it is challenging for them to effectively 'aS?Well 'asaccess the content ?of the curriculum ?Yet,'because it is nearly impossible to lure" speech therapists to rural areas, we are forced to reduce the services they came in from CDS with g. two hours weekly) to just? three times per month! From my perspective here in the ?trenches?, CDS in Franklin county has done a ?ne job in identifying and assuring services to special needs children in our community in?the pre??school years. 'see a marked "difference between those children with articulation/ language disorders who enter Kindergarten and have received services-through CDS and those whose parents did not access CDS services. Children who have accessed the intensive services CDS has consistently provided are exposed to the pre-literacy skills g. learning the "sound system, vocabulary development, learning to formulate misarticulated'sounds) necessary to excel in Kindergarten where they are expected to begin reading. These same children enter school with compensatory strategies already learned and are able to use these skills as they make progress towards becoming effective I just don?t see how our school districts can possibly provide the quality of services integral to the future success of these preschool children. Please carefully consider the implications this bill will have on the local service delivery for young children. Respectfully, Leanne Drexler, M.A. PO. Box 1262 Rangeley, ME 04970 207.864.2862 Executive Summary Take-home message 7 Page 1. Please don?t repeal Kindergarten-CBS parental choice 2 DOE indicated no plans to repeal unanimously passed PL 2003 676, but LD 1772 would immediately repeal it. 2. CBS is cheaper than public schools 3 Moving to public schools will probably cause total cost to taxpayer to mg! 3. LB 1790 could save in DOE Budget in FY 07?Without Dismantling Current System! 4 LD 1790 could also save in MeCare state share in FY 07 This leaves only of new money to be found, some of which could come from rolling forward in FY 06 savings. a. Detail on savings from inclusion 5 b. Detail on savings from -1?year moratorium on new 4~year~old programs _6 Alan Coho?Lewis, . 1/31/06 Against 790 Page I a Kindergarten-CBS Parental Choice 0 Allows parents of disabled kids with late birthdays 1m10/ 15) to stay out of for a year without losing CDS services 0 Popular law with big bipartisan legislative support in 121St and 122"d Legislatures 0 Passed EDU unanimous OTP last term AFA voted off the table unanimously last term Passed House and Senate unanimously PL 2003 676 Resolve 2005 79 (LD 1529) directed DOE to adopt amended rules so kids identified late wouldn?t be excluded 0 On 2/ 15/05 Commissioner indicated in public hearing that DOE had no plans to repeal parental choice. 0 On 11/30/05 I reminded EDU and DOE of 2/ 15/05 testimony and noted that plans to repeal MRSA 307-A could repeal parental choice 0 LB 1772 would immediatelv repeal parental choice, even before the 2-year ECSE transition period begins. Alan Coho-Lewis, 1/31/06 Against 790 Page 2 CDS is Cheap Per-child incremental costs to the State are cheaper in CDS than in the public schools (even more so as State share of regular ed and special ed increase). CDS CDS is Staying Cheap Since FY00, per-child expenditures in CDS have been rising at rates near that of the Consumer Price Index, while per-pupil (00' I. expenditures in public school have been rising at more than 2.5 times that of Consumer Price Index. CDS Costs Per Child go up at close to overail in?ation rate. Public School Costs Per Chi!d go up at more than double CDS's rate! 1.20 K-B per-pupil expenditures went up 21% in only 3 years. That's 5.6% per year? Ln . Direct Service per kid up only 13% in 4 years. That's oniy 3.0% per year! per kid up only 11% in 4 years A Public Schools (old funding fon'nuia) Public Schoois (new funding formula) Special Ed 0 2000 4000 6000 Incremental Cost to State ($lyear/child) 00 Ad) enlieinwno 1.10 1.05 1.00 That's only 2.7% per year! Consumer Price index? rose 10% in 4 years That's 2.4% per year. admin.cmcf.cum.per.kid cum.cpi kB.per.pupi?.expendii ?Source: FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Moving to public schools will probably cause total cost to taxpayer to _l'i_SC! Sources: . Fiscal Note to LB 1960, 1215: Legislature Commissioner?s 2/14/05 testimony to Conunissioner?s Recommended Funding Level for FY 04?05, Delivered 12/10/03 1/31/06 Page 3 Alan Coho-Lewis, Against LD 1 772 and For LD 1790 LB 1790 could save in DOE Budget in FY 07?Without Dismantling Current System! FY06 FY07 DOE GF MECare GF $231,000 $166,667 FY07 DOE GF MECare GF $231,000 $166,667 inclusion (our idea for 100 kids in special purpose to spend 12 wks/yr in mainstream) $334,950 . 1-year moratorium on new 4~year?old programs (our idea, trees up money that could be moved from GPA to CD8) moratorium on CD8 hiring of admin and coordinator (our idea, no savings until FY08) $1,650,000 $726,000 adherence to current criteria for DD (Commissioner's 11/30/05 report, pp 6 17) $200,000 ESY (Commissioner's 11/30/05 report, pp 6 15) $334,950 $0 $0 $0 $1,650,000 $726,000 $400,000 $0 $1,762,821 $368,093? ,158 24,6 $1,068,359 $209,852 enrollment decline (350 kids; Commissioner's11/30/05 report, pp6&18) $65,000 16 to 15 dirs (HancockNVaIdo County, Commissioner's 11/30/05 - report, 6) ChiidFind/Screening (Commissioner's 11/30/05 report, pp 6 37) $65,000 $0 $55,000 $0 $55,000 $4,833,721 $1,260,765 total savings for LB 1790 5,759,536 - - $6,151,049 $1,194,098 $4,956,587 $1,035,852 total savings for LB 1772, according to Commissioner's $5 992 439 11l30l05 report, 6 . LD 1772 achieves 6M of DOE savings in FY 07 Another of FY 07 savings could be deappropriated from MeCare and appropriated into DOE. Assuming #s from 11/30/05 are reliable, this leaves only 61% of new money to fully fund CD8. Perhaps some could come from rolling over of FY 06 savings that #s anticipate. $7,345,1 47 Alan Coho-Lewis, 1/31/06 - Against LD 1772 and For LD 1 790 Page 4 Detail on Savings from Inclusion Assume a child in CD8 with high needs who gets 30 hours/week of Tier One Special Purpose Programming, 3 hours/week of individual Speech Therapy, and 2 hours/week of individual Occupational Therapy. What savings could be achieved if some such children were transitioned to inclusive (mainstream) programming with 1:1 aide for 12 weeks of the year? Procedure Assumed Service Code Max Reimb Source Reimb Occupational Ther ZT 493 $42.40/hr 10-144 CMR Ch 101 Ch Sec 68 $42.40/hr Speech~Language Ther 6022 $47/hr 10444 CMR Ch 101Ch Sec 109 $47/hr Dev Ther Speciai Purpose Tier One ER115 $40/hr 10-144 CMR Ch 101 Ch Sec 27 $40/hr Dev Ther in Inclusive (Mainstream) ERG $55/day 10-144 CMR Ch 101 Ch Ill Sec 27 $55/day 1:1 Aide in inclusive (Mainstream) EFHS $25/hr 10~144 CMR Ch 101 Ch Sec 27 $18/hr On 12/1/2004, Maine served 270 3?5wyear?olds with autism (source: On 12/1/2004, Maine served 309 3~5~year?olds in separate schools (source: Let?s say that we successfully implemented partial inclusion (inclusion for an average of 12 weeks per year) for 100 kids. DT in Special Purpose figured at $40/hr 30 hr/wk $1200/wk DT in Inclusive figured at $55/day 5 days/wk $275/wk? 1:1 Aide in Inclusive figured at $18/hr 30 hr/wk $540/wk [this is conservative, because most are $18/hr] Total for DT with 1:1 in Inclusive $815/wk Cost advantage of DT with 1:1 in Inclusive versus DT in Special Purpose is $1200/wk $815/wk 1? $3 85/wk If a child spends 12 weeks/year in Inclusion instead of Special Purpose that would save 12 wk $385/wk $4,620 If partial inclusion is thusly accomplished for 100 children, that would save 100 $4,620 2 With roughly 50% of ODS kids enrolled in MeCare, savings to DOE General Fund is 50% For the 50% of MeCare~enrolled kids, the state share is roughly 1/3 2 167K If inclusion involved 1:1 aide for fewer than 30 hr/wk, or if it allowed some OT direct service to be replaced by OT consult to the classroom, then there would be additional savings. There would also be additional savings if kids were enrolled in Head Start. Alan Coho?Lewis, 1/31/06 Against 790 Page 5 - Detail on Savings from 1-year Moratorium on New 4?year-old Programs Conservatively, a one-year moratorium on new 4-year-old programs would mean 145 additional students don?t enroll who otherwise would. Existing programs would continue at current enrollment levels. Conservatively, we estimate the EPS operating cost base for a typical district as $5,000 per child. Because 4?yearwold programs use K~n2 targeted funds, the EPS allocation for operating costs for these children would therefore be 1.1 $5 ,000/chi1d $5,500/chi1d. For 145 children not enrolling, we conservatively estimate the total EPS savings to state districts as 145 children $5,500/chi1d On the conservative assumption that the state pays 50% of costs (we don?t want to overstate the state share because we don?t want to overstate the savings), the sayings to the state amount to 50% Alan Calm-Lewis, 1/31/06 Page 6 2000 1500 1000 - Smallest recent hike 500 145 students iuatunmua 0 I 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Against 790 MAINE cos EARLY SYSTEM CDS Child Find Screening Activities . tr Primary Referral Sources 3 i Referral to Community lnitial Contact Resources and Services iv. it - VilQQt?i' 3.37791395 1945?- Jif- -. "r7355? 'Ei??m?m 715.. 'Ir i i i er-N Description of ODS - i i T?tii?g?ii - - Procedural Safeguards . QQ my E. ring, with: . 1.5.: . Developmental Screening Assessment of (only if appropriate) Family Routines and Priorities - Preparation for :f?rm r? u?na? 7m?? mg: ll- ?'53 ..J: it? ems-:33 ?nal? . A . .41. an. ?5:24 1 a ,Ew . . 3tlQ .a-urkwm as; .xf? vess- mite. r3213 Eu fag: :55 r. a ?24 ?sees, Interim (only if needed) .. . ?Tim-em. mm. w. . - .u?ELF?un. 1.2 .i .. the? .1. 1il:- . tarmien r. :1 l? Evaluation and'Assessment for Eligibility and Intervention Planning ail - Tr .. 174535? I it. itiitr lww-m 3in 1:3 .i i 513?" it 7 is 'gg'jriQ, flat?qu titQ ifeltgible tasselssaaewIMQ-QHHIamsa-sa u. 1 i "+3332: 35::au?r 57?: . . ., .14 CT eetl? a I Development of in itial . t1;- .. '1 ?g i 595use. 5? :11? liti?? i .t ire 3rlt1l'??ll: Q. ?i'Lyi' . '3 {tat-e. - .- 2 .g 33;; Provision Ongoing 73 35;: Q- of services Assessment $351 A Modifications and Reviews January 2006 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide Child Development Services early intervention personnel, including service coordinators and service providers, with guidelines on the process and the necessary steps that must be completed ?while working with children and families, beginning with referral to Part (children-birth to age three) through evaluation'and assessment, Individualized Family service Plan (IFSP) development, IFSP - implementation/ review, and transition. The guidelines are designed to streamline procedures, . provide a framework for consistent and quality practices, while ensuring compliance and supporting efficient use of existing resources. Information contained in the guidelines attempts to assist Part service coordinators and service providers in understanding the interconnectedness of the various steps of the process with the statewide forms and instructions for filling th'em oUt which were developed in conjunction with this guide. Information is provided regarding which forms are used and completed during the Specific steps of the process. The guidelines also emphasize steps and practices that support positive relationships with parent(s)/ caregivers and the use of family?s interests,vconcerns, and priorities for their child as the foundation for service provision. As a result, guidance is embedded through the document on how best to gather and use information from families when conducting the initial contact, first visit and evaluation and assessment, developing a meaningful IFSP, and implementing IFSP services and supports that are fluid, meet the needs of children and families, and ensure positive results. A separate section on the roles of families in early intervention is also provided. . The guidelines are based on evidence-based practices that are reflected in current early intervention services literatUre. The information included reflects a paradigm shift from a the professional addressing the child?s development to the professional enhancing the family?s capacity to support their child?s learning and development through everyday routines and activities. A summary of the current early intervention literature (this is being developed) regarding evidenced based practices in working with infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families is included in the Appendices. Early Intervention Guidance Document <9 Maine Child Development Services <9 February 2006 <9 Page 1 cos MISSION AND MODEL The mission of Maine?s Child Development Services (CD5) system for infant and toddler services is to identify young children (birth through two years of age) with developmental delays and established conditions; to provide services and supports to families that meet the individualized developmental needs of their?child; and to facilitate the child ?5 learning and participation in family and community life through the partnerships of families, caregivers and service . providers. The purpose of CBS is to promote the child?s learning through participation in everyday routines and activities while Supporting parents in enhancing their child?s development, learning and participation in family and community life. . To accomplish its mission, the CDS system promotes the following approaches as its service model: . 0 Use of a collaborative partnership with regular communication among team members as professionals and families work together 9, ,Use of a transdisciplinary family-centered approach in the evaluation and assessment process a Use of fu?nctional outcomes on the individualized family serviCeVplan to address family concerns and priorities 9 Use of a primary service provider inlthe team approach for service delivery In Use of coaching, modeling and information sharing to support families? and caregivers? confidence and competence - . - Use of a relationship-based approach that increases positive interactions betWeen' parent and child as the foundation upon which new developmental skills can be built a - Use of naturally?occurring routines in which instruction is embedded as selected and preferred by thechild's family. Early intervention Guidance Document Maine Child Development Services 46> February 2006 Page 2 CDS GUIDING PRINCIPLES Children are special and unique: . All children are unique, with their individual and?talents. The preSence of a disability or special need is not the defining characteristic of a child. . Children grow, develop and learn in the context of relationships with their families and other caregivers within the activities of everyday routines in their caring environments as well as activities within their community settings. . Early intervention services enhance and support the capacity of community partners in serving and including young children with disabilities and their families. All children have the right to belong, to be welcomed and to participate fully in their community. Families are central to decision making: . Each family?s priorities, values, hopes and diversity are honored throughout the service delivery process. . Families are partners and decision makers in all aspects of services; they are the experts about their child?s and family? 5 needs. The early intervention role: - - Service providers across all disciplines value and encourage family participation and collaboration throughout delivery of intervention services. - The family? provider relationship builds on family and is characterized by mutual trust respect, honesty and open communication. 1 Services and supports: - . Services, supports and resources need to be timely, flexible, individualized and responsive to the changing needs of each child and their family. - Services and supports must be in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, fiscally respons1ble and coordinated with other agencies. CDS PROCESS The follovving flow chart illustrates the CDS process-of service delivery, beginning'With referral to CD5, intake (initial contact and first visit), eligibility/ assessment, IFSP development, followed by intervention/ services, ongoing assessment and IFSP modifications and reviews.. Early Intervention Guidance Document Maine Child Development Services <9 February 2006 <9 Page 3 DEV ENG FUNCTIONAL TH AT EU s' . 3331? my tie .311: 3.. an. . 51 "am-1 \xiz-nll? a .1'12. - ?g?t?imiwi . [Table of COntents- Page Introduction Guida?nte 1. . Family Rou?tin'ies and Priorities Fornis IFSP Cover Page 2 3. "Present Abilities-,? and Needs 4. Child Family Outcomes 5. 6 7 8 Transition Plan and Conference . Supports and Services Needed to Achieve Outcomes . IFSP SignatUre-s . PeriOdic Review of 1. IFSP Cover Page 2. Family Routines and Priorities 3. Present Abilities, and Needs 4. Child Family Outcomes 5. I 6 7 8 Transition Plan and Conference -. Supports and Services Needed to Achieve. Outcomes IFSP Signatures . . . Periodic Review of the APPENDICES . . Appendix Calvin?s IFSP Example Appendix Resources on Family Assessment: Routines Based Interview (RBI) Robin McWilliam Every Day Routines Mary Beth Bruder State Examples of Family Assessments ECO Mapping Appendix Resources on Natural EnvirOnments: ITCA Position Paperlon Services in Natural EnVironments <9 IFSP Guidance Document <9 Maine Child Development Services <9 February 2006 6) Page 2 IFSP FORM 1 Maine Child Development Services Part Program FAMILY SERVICE PLAN (IFSP) Child?s Name: Referral Date: Eligibility Determination Date: IFSP Date: This Plan isthe: (check one) El lnterim IFSP Initial CI Annual EFSP (requires new form) Date Of Birth: Female Cl Male 90 Day Timeline Date: A Date of Third Birthday: Expected Date for IFSP Review: Actual Review Date(s): Expected Date for Annual IFSP Meeting: Transition Conference Date: Parent/Guardian: Relationship: Telephone: Relationship: Telephone: Parent/Guardian: Child?s Physical Address: Service Coordinator: Phone Number: Email Address: Primary Care Physician: Phone Number: Email Address: ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page I of 18 FORM 2 page ?l'of 2 Child?s Name: DOB: FAMILY ROUTINES AND PRIORITIES Where and with whom does your child spend Describe activities that your family Would like timethe future and that you Would Please tell us a little about your child?s and family?s routines like some help with. and activities. in addition to your child?s day-to?day activities, H: there 1-5 nothing like this that is important to you right now you might want to tell us about some of the things that you do we will just write ?none". . every now and then that are important to your child/family, like visits to friends andfamily members, religious or spiritLial celebrations, community and/of cultural activities. DeScribe the people; toys, attivities, I Describe the people,?toys, activities, routines, routines, and places your child enjoys the and Places Your Child ?nds Challenging or most: difficult: ME Individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 - _Page2 of18 IFSP FORM 2 Child?s Name: DOB: . - page-2 on FAMILY ROUTINEs AND PRIORITIES I choose not to share information about my Family concerns, and Resources . concerns, priorities and resources and/or related to enhancing the child's development and mClUde this 1Hf0?mati0n the I challenges in everyday activities and routines - underitar?d that ?f m? cm.? ?5 El?g?ble? he?s?? . . . can still receive serwces if I do not complete this section.- (parent?s initials) ONLY what the parent wants to share) SUMMARY OF FAMILY (based on challenges in everyday routines) Family would like to learn ways to help their child: I. With crying/colic El Cairn down Sleep/ bedtime I Eat better/ nutrition See better Hear better Sit up Cl Stand up El Move around Use hands or fingers better Talk or express wants and needs Better understand what other people COmmUmcate. PRIORITIES OF THE FAMILY: (based on concerns Identified aboVe) Learn new things . Play with toys Have fun with children Express feelings Behave/deal with challenging behaviors Use the toilet Dress himself/herself Family wants more information about:- Playing with child Ideas for involving brothers, sisters, and friends Meeting with other families who have . Child care El Respite . (include family, friends, community groups, financial supports, etc. that are Managing stress hE?leUl to YOU) More ways to have fun as a family Child?s conditioner disability Finding or working with doctors/dentist Equipment, supplies and/or assistive technology . Money for costs related to the special needs of their child Housing, job, food &/or phones Safety El Legal issues Getting a GED or other schooling Substance abuse DUEIU El DU in addition to the information you have already provided, is there anything else you would like to tell us that Would be helpful in planning supports and services with you to address what is most important to your child and family? ME Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 . I Page 3 of 18 FORM 3 Child's Name: DOB: Current Age: 1 of 5 PRESENT ABILITIES, AND NEEDSFUM This form is for recording information gathered at the developmental evaluation/assessment with your child. This information helps us understand yourchild?s developmental as well as some of the things that are challenging for yourchild and may be affecting how he/ she is able to participate in family and community activities. Enough information should be recorded on this form to substantiate eligibility decisions and to be meaningful to families and service'providers for developing a plan with outcomesand strategies that fit well with your child?s developmental and needs. A. Summary of Relevant Health Status (including Vision and Hearing, so Age Level ?range: B. Using Hands and Moving Body (Gross and Fine Motor Skills) so, Age Level or range: Things child likes and does well: I Things that child doesn?t like and needs help with: . ME individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 Page 4 of 18 . FORM 3 Child?sNarne: DOB: Current Age: . 2 of 5 PRESENT ABILITIES, AND NEEDS Understanding/Communicating (Receptive Expressive Language] SD Age Level or range: -. Things child likes and does well: Things that child doesn?t like and needs help with: - D. Playing, Thinking, EXploring (Cognitive Skills) SD, Age Level or range: . Things child likes and does Well: . Things that child doesn?t like and needs help with: ME Individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 - Page 5 ofl8' . .. a . 1. *r .I 3 1F5PFORM3 Child?s Name: DOB: . Current Age:m . 30? PRESENT ABILITIES, AND . E. Expressing and Responding to Feelings Interacting with Others - - A . (Social and Emotional) 1 Level or fangs-m Things child likes and does well: Things that child doesn?t like and needs help With: F. Eating, Dressing, and Toile?ting (Self-help or AdaptiVe Skills) SD, Age Level or range: Things child likes and does well: Things that child doesn?t like and needs help with: ME Individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 6 01?18 Child?s Name: DOB: - . Current Age: I I . 3 PRESENT ABILITIES, AND NEEDS Printed Name Credentials Role/Organization I Signature Date ME Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 . Page 7 of I 8 Child?s Name: . DOB: Current Age: 3 PRESENT ABILITIES, AND NEEDS Developmental Evaluation Results Area of Development (may include age levels and ranges, percent delay) Methods/Instruments Used Evaluation Date Cognitive (Thinking and learning) Communication Expressive (Makes sounds, gestures and talking) - Receptive (Understanding sounds, words, and gestures) Physical - Gross Motor (Moving and using large muscles) - Fine Motor (Using hands and fingers) Social/Emotional (Interacting with others) Adaptive (Feeding, eating, dressing and sleeping) Vision: Hearing: CI Child is eligible for Part Services because he/she has (check one or more below and describe): CI Developmental Delay A 25% delay (or 2 Standard Deviations below the mean) in one area of development A 15% delay (or 1.5 Standard Deviations below the mean) in two' or more areas of development List areas: Cl Informed Clinical Opinion Explain: CI Established condition that is likely to res Name condition(s): ult in developmental delay: Child is not eligible for Part service because he/she does not meet the above?criteria. As a result, this form serves as an evaluation record only. ME Individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06. Page 3 of 18 Child?sName: . DOEW IFSP1E93RM4 1 1 OUTCOME Outcome Statement The family will receive assistance in fulfilling the Individualized Family Se: vice Plan {also 'cali ed the plan 01 care) through intervention or the Service Coordinator such that the child and family receive the supports and sewices they need Short Term Goals . What short term goals will help us make progress toward the outcome? Short-Term Goal Target Date Date Met The family?s identified concerns, priorities and resourcesare addressed in the 1 2. The services provided to the childffamily are appropriate and adequate. 33. The "family?s rights are protected.? Strategies The service coordinator: assists the'family with the development and ongoing review and revision of the {plan of care) .1 reviews the to make sure that it is in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations maintains ongoing contact with the family to monitor and reviewiFSP implementation 11 informs the family of all available servicesand providers and links them with appropriate community resources communicates with the t'amiiy and alt individuals/agencies that provide support, assistance or services about any changes and progress . '1 assists with problem solving *1 determines family satisfaction assists in any program transitions DRAFT LANGUAGE - EXAMPLE - NEEDS TO BE REVISED FOR MAINE Progress When will we as a team measure progress towards-this outcome? (timeline) At all Early Childhood Team (ECT) meetings Annually {in writing) How will we, as a team, measure progress towards this outcome? (procedure) Progress towards the outcome will be measured by: Family 1eport at ECT meetings Feedback from all providers Evaluation form at er it from Part Our team will be satisfied we are finished with this outcome whzen (criteria) The child and family are receiving the supports and services they near The services are coordinated and relate eto the child and family outrom as identified 1111 the The family and child experience a smooth tran ition at ag?eE. or when the (hild exits the Par? p1 ogram ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 9 of18 . . 7 - IFSP FORM 4 Child?s Name: DOB: Zof3 OUTCOME - OutcomeStatement (What does the famiiy want to see for their Child/ family as a result of early intervention supports and services?) Short Term Objectives (What short term objectives will help us make progress toward the above outcome statement?) Short-Term Objective Target Date Date Met 1. 2. 4 Strategies (Who will do what in which everyday routines, activities and places?) Progress (What will progress look like?) Procedure (How will we, as a team,- measure progress towards this outcome? Criteria (What do we'need to see for the team to be satisfied we are finished with this outcome?) Timeline (When will we, as a team, measure progress tovVards this outcome?) ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 10 of 18 gnarl MAINE CDS EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM Primary Referral. Sources CD3 Child Find 8? 7 Screening Activities . ?1 Referral to Community Resources and Services Procedural Safeguards lop ental Screening only if ~1 Assessment of -- Family Routines and Priorities Preparation for Provision of ServiCes. Evaluation and Assessment forEligibili?ty and Intervention Planning ECT Meeting and Development Of Initial IFSP -l .l Ongoing Assessment IFSP Modifications? and Reviews Child?s Name: DOB: PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE IFSP IFSP FORM 8 Zofl age. th FS 1.. 13"" I have received a written I participated fully in the development of this plan; and may of and verbal explanation of: my rights. I Understand these rights. I give informed consent for this Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) to be carried out as written. (Consent means that I have been fully informed of all information about the activity(ies) for which consent is sought, in my native language (unless clearly not feasible to do so) or other mode of communication; that I understand and agree in writing to the carrying out of the activitylies) for which consent is sought; the consent describes the activity(ies); and that the granting of my consent is voluntary and may be revoked in writing at any time); or I do not accept this IFSP to be carried out as written however I gig give consent for the following servicels) to begin: I understand that my child is eligible to receive all of the services listed on the service(s) being offered and that i must give written consent in ord implementing the IFSP. Parent/Guardian Signature: Parent/Guardian Signature: that declining a service or services does not jeopardize any other early intervention service(s) through CDS. I understand that I may change my mind and, if so, will call my service coordinator. i understand that my child?s EFSP will be shared among the CDS providers who are working with my child and family and the am fully aware of the nature of er to receive the service(s). i understand my child or family receives Date: Date: ME Individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06. Page 180f18 ll'bl" Child?s Name: DOB: ?my. PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE lF SP A review of the IFSP must occur at least every six months. Note dates of all revisions on cover page. Revise the Child/Family Outcome page(s) and the Supports and Services page if: 1) the strategies or?services need to be changed or added; 2) an outcome is being modified; or 3) a nevi/outcome is being added; Note: The periodic review of the IFSP must include the include parenus)! guardian and the service coordinator and others as appropriate. Status (Check One) Outcome Date Describe Progress Reviewed . CI Outcome reached CI Continue with outcome CI Modify outc0me strategies services Cl Outcome reached CI Continue with outcome CI Modify outcome strategies services CI Outcome reached El Continue With Outcome CI Modify outcome - strategies services CI Outcome reached CI Continue with outcome CI Modify outcome strategies services El Outcome reached Continue with outcome CI Modify; outcome strategies services Print Name Method of Agency/Contact "1'1 Sinature- .. . . (fi?g??s?gf?gfi?gi?gf) - Date Partic1pation Information ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 . Page 17 of 18 . IFSP FORM 7 Child?s Name: DOB: iof1 INDIVIDUALIZED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN SIGNATURES The .following individuals have participated in the development of this and/or will assist in carrying it out. This form must also be used to document signatures of participation in theTransition Conference. Note: The IFSP team must include parent(s)/ guardian; service coordinator; person(s) directly involved in conducting the evaluations and assessment; others as requested by parents (family, friends, advocates); and personnel providing services to the child and famiiy. Print Name Method of Agency/Contact (inciude role/discipii'ne . . . . . ?censure/certi?cation) Signature Date Part1c1pation Information Service Coordinator In addition to the team members listed above, this IFSP should also be mailed to Prima Care Provider: A Note: Complete authorization to release form Other: I have received a written copy of and verbal explanation of my rights. I understand these rights. I participated fully in the development of this plan; and I give informed consent for this individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) to be carried out as written.- (Consent means that I have been fully informed of all information about the activity(ies) for which consent is sought, in my native language (unless clearly not feasible to do so) or other mode of communication; that I understand and agree in writing to the carrying out of the activity(ies) for which consent is sought; the consent describes the activity(ies); and that the granting of my consent is voluntary and may be revoked in writing at any time.); or pop" El - I do not accept this IFSP to be carried out as written however i do give consent for the following service(s) to begin: i understand that my child is eligible to receive all of the services listed on the I am fully aware of the nature of the service(s) being offered and that i must give written consent in order to receive the service(s). I understand that declining a service or services does not jeopardize any other early intervention service(s) my child or family receives through CD5. understand that I may change my mind and, if so, will call my service coordinator. El I. understand that my child?s IFSP will be shared among the CDS providers who are working with my child and family and implementing the IFSP. Parent/Guardian Signature: Date: Parent/Guardian Signature: Date: ME individualized "Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 I Page 16 of18 quv I Child?s Name: DOB: 2 0f 2 SUPPORTS AND SERVICES NEEDED To ACHIEVE OUTCOMES . Funding Sources. or Steps to be Taken to Ensure Services are Available . Service Provider Location Setting Codes and Funding Source Codes. are listed in Appendix. ME Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 . Page 15 of18 . FORM 6 Child?s Name: DOB: SUPPORTS AND SERVICES NEEDED TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES This is a summary of the deCisions made by the Early Childhood Team (ECT) regarding supports and services needed to achieve ALL Outcomes. The method of service delivery is documented on each Outcome page. l? allIFSP 32 5 Qualified Enrolled Provider Start End 3 - .U - 0 Date Date Supports and 3 .5 .5 .21. at Sewices Service All Coordination ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 14 of i8 Child?s Name: DOB: than 90 days prior to the child?s third birthday. TRANSITION CONFERENCE A Transition Conference must be convened at least 90 days prior to the anticipated date of transition but no later FORM 5 Zofz invite parents, early intervention personnel, local education agency, Head Start, and other community providers as appropriate. *Use Signature Page to docUment attendance/participation of team members. - Transition Conference- Requirements Action Steps Activities Person (5) Responsible "Date Initiated Date to be Completed a) Review with parents the program options for their child from the child?s third birthday through the remainder of the school year b) With parental consent, transfer records (including evaluation and assessment information and current IFSP). c) Decide what other activities need to be completed before the child moves into the new service setting (including enrollment; immunizations; transportation issues, medical needs etc. d) Review current evaluation 'and assessment information. Decide if any further evaluations are needed to determine eligibility prior to transition. e) Schedule meeting date (at least 15 days before first day services are to be provided) if the child will transition into preschool special education. f) Help family to decide where their child will transition to and when. Child will transition to: Date: g) Decide if there is a need for post transition follow~up (including service coordination, consultation with new staff). h) Decide how to evaluate whether the transition process was smooth and effective. ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 13 of 18 DOB: FORM 5 Child'sName: ion TRANSITION PLAN Date of child?s 3rd birthday: - Anticipated Date of Transition: Beginning of the school year in which child turns 3 Date for Transition Conference?: Ci Beginning of the school year following child?s 3rd birthday Other date during the school year in which child turns 3 Date Child Exited from El- Program; . - I ["At least 90 days but no more than 9 months prior to date of transition, but no later than 90 days prior to third birthday.) Priorities and goals for child?s transition: HM wulbeputentia?veli?sfn voduse precede. Transition Person(s) Date Date to be Planning Requirements and Activities Responsible Initiated Completed a) Discuss with parents what ?transition? from early intervention means, including eligibility and age guidelines for early intervention services. and what can be done to plan for this transition. b) Discusswith parents possible program options (including preschool special education services;' Head Start; child care and other community services) that may be available when our child is no longer eligible. c) Provide notice of the child?s name; address, phone number and date of birth to the school div' r. i disagrees. .. d) Provide opportunity for parents to meet and receive information from pre-school or other community program representatives as apprOpriate. - e) Help the child and family prepare for the changes and adjustments to a new setting. . f) With parental consent, pass on information (including evaluation and assessments and the g) Assist pa rents to understand their rights and to develop advocacy skills. h) Schedule the transition conference and invite participants. i) Other transition planning activities: ME Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 1/24/06 Page 01?18 FORM 4 Child?s Name: DOB: 30f3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT JUSTIFICATION Supports and services must be provided in settings that are natural or typical for children of the same age (i e, natural environments). if, as a team, we decide that we cannot achieve an outcome in a natural environment, we need to describe how we made that decision and what we will do to move services and supports into natural environments as soon as possible Explanation of Why OutcomeCannot be Achieved in a Natural Environment: Plan for Moving Service(s) and/or Support(s) into NatUral Environments: ME individualized Family Service Plan 1/24/06 Page 11 of 18 My name is Heather Bowie and I live in Berwick with my two sons, Liam and Aidan. My son Aidan is almost ?ve years old and spent three months in. the hospital when he was born. They tested him for everything under the sun. but came up with no diagnosis other than Developmental Delay. He ?nally came home with 02 and a feeding tube and .immediately started receiving OT, PT, and Speech therapy from CBS in York Connty. Aidan had dif?culty swallowing, could not hold his head up, nor did he gaze at my face when I spoke. All of these things were dif?cult to deal with as a mother, but Aidan worked very hard with his therapists and has made tremendous progress. Two years ago, when Aidan was 3, we had the Opportunity to buy our ?rst home. My husband works in NH but I was'adamant about buying in Maine for the sole reason that Aidan?s services with CDS were exemplary. Had we moved to NH, Aidan would have gone directly to preschool and received fewer than the 8 hours of therapy he was getting at the time. All of this would be provided at school, out of my care. I did not feel those circumstances were right for my son and I have never regretted moving to Berwick. Because of my deep gratitude and overall satisfaction with the services Aidan has received through CDS, I need to share some concerns about the proposed legislation. It is perfectly reasonable for the governor and the taxpayers to require CDS to account for their money and spend it wisely. However, we need to consider the rami?cations of . budget cuts on our children?s services and consider what this legislation will cost elsewhere, namely our school budgets. For example, combining the administration of 16 agencies into a central agency in Augusta will have an adverse affect on services. Fewer people would be expected to do the monumental amount of paperwork involved and do it ef?ciently. There is paperwork for every contact and every small change made to my child?s plan, multiply this by 16 more agencies and we expect it to get done in. a timely manner? Would my case manager be waiting for someone else to dot her ?F?s and cross her someone I don?t have contact with, while I am waiting for answers, or changes, or action? ?Will providers be payed in a timely manner? This has certainly been a problem in the recent past. I?m also very concerned about combining the local boards into one state board of directors. We will lose local control. It should be clear that the issues faced in York County are different from the issue faced in Penobscot or Androscoggin or any other county. We cannot expect one board located in Augusta to have a pulse on the people throughout the state. Having 16 boards consisting of parents, school personnel and committed community members, allows for a rich exchange of ideas, ease of communicating to their local towns, and an opportunity to be involved in local government. These voices would be lost should the boards be My last concern, the reason I stayed in Maine, is in regard to a public pie?school. While I agree that all 4 year olds should have the opportunity to go to school, I am unclear as to what this would look like in this proposed legislation. When Liam, my typically developed child, went to preschool we could send him anywhere we chose. I looked hard for the best Would children with disabilities lack that choice? Would they really have typical peers at school with them? How would they qualify for services? The standards for qualifying at school are different from those at CD3. Would the kids ?on the fence? be passed over for services and cost us more later as they fall behind in school? Would there be a choice to receive services at home as there is now? I?ve always believed that What?s best for Aidan has to been seen in context of what?s best for my entire family. Living in Maine has allowed me the ?exibility to decide what?s best and I want to preserve that choice for other families. Aidan is beginning to walk. He has excellent. receptive language skills and he loves his friends at school. He is the product of a system that works. Please do not rush to pass this legislation. I urge you to get answers for questions asked today. Thank?you for your time and consideration. Heather Bowie dhowiest??hig hstreamnet 207?69?5986 Therapy ?ea? mes 1318 Route 202, See ite Winthrop, ME 04364 Phone: 207-377~5902 Fax: 2076776904 January 31, 2006 Dear Committee Members: Here we are once'again trying to rearrange the Child Development Services system in spite of countless hours of testimony, committee time and Department of Education staff time which occurs every year. Since I opened my occupational therapy practice in 1992, this issue has come up in One form or another every single year. Every year, the Department of Education, living in its reality vacuum, Proposes drastic changes to the system and every year providers and families turn out to oppose changes that will only harm children in this state. Every year, they hypothesize that they can ?improve? the syStem by cutting money and decreasing services. Every year, they cite that other states have ?better? systems a story that we do not hear from families that have relocated to Maine. I What we hear ?om families is that they feel that we have a far better system. It is child driven rather than politically driven and they are abl to obtain much needed services for their children with a high level of family involvement. It is my understanding that the- state is now proposing to move services for at least the 3-5 year olds into the public schools and I am even hearing that some are suggesting that all children birth to 5 should be serviced out of the schools. As if the public schools do not struggle every day with funding issues, special education services problems and special education directors who sometimes work strenuously to deny services to needy- children because their budgets require them to decrease services. Public school based 3 ervices will also certainly cut parents out of their child?s services and decrease family inVolvement in services such as occupational, physical, developmental and speeCh therapy. I Yes, the CDS system is costly and use of services has increased every year but at what price do we want to deny these children services? The research is solidly in that early intervention services are critical in reducing the need for much more costly services in later years. Are we willing to settle for high school students who do not even marginally meet learning results expectations? Of course, we could simply exempt them ?em meeting the standards, but are we willing to keep them on public assistance programs or costly supported employment and living situations? When we make decisions about how to provide early intervention services we are very de?nitely ultimately making decisions about long term outcomes for our youth. I have now heard many proposals for how this system will work and I do not??nd any of them based in reality. One proposal is to provide home based services for the birth to 2 p0pu1ation. Does anyone believe that private practice providers will be able to travel 4 hours per day to provide 4 sessions of therapy for the unbelievably low rates paid by MaineCare and the CDS system? So will we then transition all services to the CDS sites where productivity expectations are already at 50% in many sites? Has anyone even bothered to objectively monitor the huge expansion of ?necessary hires? in the CDS system? The cost of providing services through CDS is realistically almost double that of using private practice providers but those costs are now buried in accounting areas that make it look like CDS is providing more services, helping to justify their huge budget increases. Another proposal is to move children into the public schools. In all of the public schools where we provide services space is already at a minimum and all facilities are built and sized for children 5 years and older. Does anyone believe that putting a special needs 3 year old onto a school bus with 5L11 and 6th graders makes any sense or is even safe? Or perhaps we can add some special education bus runs again not cost effective. We are already hearing that shifting services to schools will not result in loss of jobs for CD8 caseworkers (not really the issue on the table) but realistically, I believe that already overworked special education teachers will simply add another task to their schedules. There is also a reason why colleges offer different degrees including early intervention and primary level teachers. The skills are vastly different and the training is also different. Do schools expect to simply transition teachers familiar with children ages 5-12 into a preschool classroom with special needs students? Does anyone anticipate that schoolnbased therapists will be able to add this population to their caseloads without dif?culty? Has anyone looked at the fact that therapists are being paid more for school?- based services than private practice services? It feels to me that this entire discussion is an attempt to refocus concerns and divert attention from the very real issues around waiting lists, families not getting services they need and manipulation within the CDS sites to avoid providing and paying for services. This issue will not be resolved by simply shaking up the entire system. I believe that while change has been slow and resistance has been high at some sites, the CDS system is generally moving in a positive direction. Approximately 3-4 years ago a large committee of people carefully studied the CDS system and proposed changes that would be bene?cial. As far as I can tell, that work was simply an exercise in placating concerned Legislators and families. That Work was valuable and has not been utilized. It also sometimes feels like staff members in the Department of Education do not have day- to~day work to consume their time and therefore, they start these ?changes? every year. Has anyone even tried to account for the vast amounts of staff and legal time that we as taxpayers dish out money for to keep these efforts going in spite of votes every year that clearly state ?We want to improve what we have and continue providing for our children and families that need CDS support.? As a provider who has been relatively active in following these yearly debacles, I must admit that they are ?nally wearing me down, which may well be part of the plan. Providers turn out every year, at their own expense, to support the families that we serve. State workers are fully paid for these outings at no cost to themselves. Families travel to Augusta and testify every year about the needs of their children. In spite of all of these efforts, our concerns are simply forgotten year to year and we start all over again. I am begging you to help to come up with some resolution that stops these ongoing, persistent attempts to take services away ?'om young children. These attempts are devastating to the system, to the children who need services and most obviously, to the budgets of the Department of Education and each separate CDS site. We have some good foundation pieces and need to work together for continued improvement, not divisively to the detriment of the overall program. Thank you for taking the time to read this diatribe and if you have any questions or would like any substantiation of my claims in this letter, please feel free to contact me at any time at 754-9394. I remain committed to working for the children that we serve in a way that provides them the best chances of gaining good functional skills to support the remainder of their developmental years. Sincerely, Mai/?" erg/?4W! Cindy Spencg Occupational Therapist Thank You for your attention. i am here today as a mother of a child with disabilities who has been well served by the current CDS system; and as a member of the board of directors for York County .CDs. I am terribly concerned about what will happen to children like mine if drastic changes are put into place too rapidly. I?m especially concerned that the impetus for such dramatic change is ?nancial, since the commissioner was charged with cutting 6.4 million dollars from the CD8 budget. While she has painted a rosy picture of ?nancial savings, it appears to me that the costs were simply shifted into other pockets of responsibility. When the committees consider the commissioners proposals, these are things i ask you to pay attention to. First, and always, consider our children. They don?t ?t into molds in the ?rst place, and consolidating them into one program seems a lot like institutionalizing them. Successful early intervention is dependent on individualized plans, which include an array of circumstances and sewices. Families and communities deserve to have a choice in how their children receive services. . If our youngest, most vulnerable children become the school district?s responsibility, who is actually going to be there to meet their varied and crucial needs? How will we hire, train and certify enough quali?ed people? Who pays for that? Currently our kids have service providers who are pediatric experts. bur 0-5 year olds are dramatically different from-the graders current certi?cation covers. What about accountability? How is it possible for ail this to be overseen from Augusta? Local contact, communication and networking, along with easy access between providers and parents and familiarity between providers, are all key elements to our kids? success. In the big picture, it?s more cost~effective to keep track of children?s progress, changing needs and even attendance, locally. Lack of good early intervention is going to cost all of us when in the future we have to make up for preventable errors. These are children who change constantly, and their local Early Intervention Specialists know the nuances of every child?s case. Speci?c plans can be adjusted in relevant ways without significant delay, due to ease of communication and familiarity. Attention to these important details is simply not possible if we are centralized in Augusta, and our kids become anonymous case numbers. . Space is an issue, and so is transportation. How wiil we get the children to school? Won?t we need buses, and won?t they need appropriate seating for birth to age 5 year olds? Even more basic a concern..-how are the school administrative districts and communities responding to these proposals? Our district battles the budget every heaping this responsibility and expense on top of skyrocketing local taxes. it seems more reasonable to devise ways of combining resources at the local level, than to throw the whole system out and expect each district regardless of its expertise with birth to 5 year olds, to effectvely respond to a state mandate. We would be wise to enlist the knowledgeable aid of our experienced CDS workers, service providers and parents. Their ?eld experience would prove invaluable in realistically streamlining the process and progress that would best suit our deserving children. In addition we would pay respect to those who have worked so hard to get our kids where I they are now. Pushing this proposal through as emergency legislation is insulting to all of us involved, from the children and'families being served who ?nd themselves in limbo as their providers and programs struggle with their future, to the CDS workers who maintain a positive and professional attitude with our kids while morale is spiraling downhill. At the very least we need to slow this down and consider the impact on children if the plan is put into place without thoughtful and informed preparation. Consider who these families are, and who the people are that have cared for them None of this is easy for any of us, from asking for help with our children El"! the ?rst place to standing In front of you today. But this system has served us well and we want to preserve crucial aspects of it for families to come We want to continue to be proud I of how Maine cares for its children Thank you- Betsey Mahoney 57 Heath Rd Kennebunkt Maine 04043 207-985-7798 cazoe1 @netscape. net l?m a voting taxpayer, and mother of a child with multiple disabilities. Cole was born with Down and contracted bacterial meningitis as an infant. After two weeks in the hospital, half of that in a coma, he returned home uhaving iost much ground both physically and cognitively. Our team of therapists, headed by our local CDS case manager, went to work reassessing what services would best serve Cole. His physical therapy was increased to two times per week, yes, at additional cost to taxpayers. He began developmental therapy two times per week. yes, at additional cost to taxpayers. For about to 2 years, Cote received these additional therapies (some of which were paid by our private insurance). The results have been dramatic. Whereas doctors told us he might never be able to read, he?s in ?rst grade today and reading at about grade ievei. (Please stop for a minute and imagine this proud Mommy beaming!) i am con?dent that when he grows up he will be a contributing member of society, and a taxpayer. I know in my heart he wouldn?t have come this far without those intensive early intervention services. 1 don?t know what we would have done without theadvice of our case worker, who knew us so well, and the collective input of our entire group of therapists. To deny Cote that chance wouid have been a disservice not only to this little boy, but to society as a whole, who would not have the opportunity to ultimateiy bene?t from the results. We heard in this new plan the buzz words of "improved service,? but what We heard much more often is "cost savings." Let's not kid ourselves. The true motivation here is reducing immediate taxpayer costs, and its being sugar-mated with political rhetoric. This is being proposed without regard to the cost to our children and anyone who?s read anything about early intervention services knows what the studies all show: a little, spent early, saves a lot of taxpayer money down the road. if you support this Dept. of Education proposed change, you wit! be deferring the burden to your children. Not to mention, you?ll be wasting a few lives atong the way; My son would have probably been one of them. Can we do a better, more ef?cient job of making sure that the children who need services get the most appropriate ones? Yes. Can we save some money in the way we deliver child development services? Yes. But should we do it by allowing the current system, accountable at the local level, which works so well, to be sucked into the abyss of a state agency? Absoiuteiy not! The state has enough to worry about just trying to keep track of what it oversees now. Let the experts, the local 603 of?ces and their Boards, work out ways to become more ef?cient. Each of?ce is constantly challenging itself to develop new options for best serving our constituents, in an ef?cient manner. What works in the County won?t work in southern Maine w? we all know that. Please don't let the Department of Education force a cookie?Cutter answer on all the children and families of this great state, because that answer is no solution to the problem - it only creates newproblems- Please don't let that happen. Thank you. Sincerely, Karen L. Gervasoni 710 Aiewive Rd. Kennebunk, Maine 04043 (207) 985?5654 kgerv@adeiphia.net Therapy ?ames 1318 Route 202, Suite Winthrop, ME 04364 Phone: 207-377-5902 Fax: 207-677-5904 January 31, 2006 To Whom It May Concern, I am a pediatric occupational therapist for a clinic in Winthrop, Maine. I have been in practice for 11 years and worked with children my entire career. I have serviced children, age birth to sixteen, in the clinic setting, home setting as well as the public school setting. - I have concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Child Development Services system. I do not feel that the public school system is the appropriate setting to service many of our children. There may be a few children that could be serviced in that setting, for example, the public school that I provide services to, MSAD 39, has a pre- kindergarten program for typical as well as atypical preschoolers. This program is run . very well and they provide a mainstream preschool program to those children. The special needs students in that program receive their services outside of the program at clinics or Child Development Services locations. As a provider in this community, I feel it is important to voice my concerns regarding the placement of preschoOlers or younger children in with children ages 5+ and providing them with the same level of serVice delivery. Young children and their families require a different level of care than school age children which is the reasoning behind early intervention services. The home carryoVer and family support that a young child requires is more intense and more directive than that of older children so that these children may not require services in the later years. In closing, I would like to state that I do not feel that it is appropriate to move all special education services for children birth to ?ve years of age into the public school setting. Thank-you for your consideration in this matter,- Oriana/{315390 3 Michelle Richardson, I January 31, 2006 Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton and Members of the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee My name is Amy Bragg. I am a speech-language pathologist working in the Bangor area, serving primarily preschool children in the clinic, in Head Starts, in day cares, and in their homes for 10 years. I?ve worked with Child Development Services for all of those years, through good times and bad. 7 I am also the President of the Maine Speech Language Hearing Association, representing nearly 400 speech?language pathologists in the state. The Maine Speech Language Hearing Association is opposed to this bill as written because the process of transition is unclear. Members across the state, in urban and rural areas, are all expressing concern regarding the public schools capacity to manage additional children. Schools are already-over burdened, just trying to meet existing needs. You will hear that schools can not handle this shift in services. These concerns were quoted in a recent article in the Lincoln County News, Wiscasset Superintendent Jay Readinger stated ?The CBS is not prepared for the shift and we?re not prepared for it either.? - This plan lacks the details of sound purposeful planning. The plan doesn?t address how services will be made better through this consolidation; building in quality after the fact will be dif?cult. We are also concerned that the proposed CDS consolidation offers no clear guidance of how existing, successful community based service collaborations will be preserved and strengthened. Our members are ready, willing and able to provide leadership in building high quality, relevant approaches. We appreciate that Commissioner Gendron has invited us to participate in the commission to Study Early Childhood Education 8. The members of the Maine Speech Language Hearing Association and I look fonivard to working with the Education Committee to develop a plan for a truly high quality system that meets the federal requirements that are of concern to commissioner Gendron. We ask careful consideration for detailed and thoughtful planning to consider the of the system already in place and how those services can best be improved to serve the children and families of Maine. Thank you for consideration, jg. .2 I 9 Maine Sp ech Language Hearing Association Senator Mitchell and Representative Norton, co-mchair and the rest of the do not support LB 1772. My name is Wesley Faloon. I am'a Father of a child with special needs. Our son was diagnosed 15 months ago with He was 30 months old. IN less than 30 days he was enrolled and attending an early intervention program for children with special needs. I cannot imagine where our son would be today and what his quality of life would be if not for the services provided during this past year. Our experience has been a good one. One ?lled with success. CDS served as a springboard for our family? launching us into a direction of hope, a plan for our son?s future, overwhelming support from the servic3e providers and miraculous results for our son. We consider all this a huge blessing whenever we look at back at where we began?. Through the therapists and resources provided to us for our son he has been given-his life. And we have been given our son. We have been encouraged and given hope and a plan for our son?s future to help him be successful. An asset to our community and not a burden. You cannot imagine how he has grown. In her beginning he made no contact, would not respond to his name, there was no communication, he could not tolerate physical touch or affection, had multiple oral sensitivities, countless safety issues, no functional play, was easily over stimulate and would bolt whenever given the chance. He is a different child now! We were presented tools to get our son the BEST help possible. Please remember we are talking about the politics and money in the budget, but a child who like many others has been served well. We could not have navigated on this journey successfully without the guidance of CD5. We could not be more grateful for the care he had been receiving and the support offered to our whole family. We have been amazed at our son?s progress in the last year! He is a changed little boy, well on his way to a successful future. We hav3e felt very blessed that our son was diagnosed at such and early age. I have since spoken with many parents who regret the amount of time that passed in their child?s little life before they even detected the problem, More than detecting the problem was the great feeling of hope because there was help and guidance available on an individual personalized level. I have seen our son go through such amazing periods of growth and learning. If he were not being continually stimulated and challenged in a way speci?cally tailored to his needs the full potential of these growing periods would have been missed. No two children with special needs are alike. I fear that this proposed bill will threaten the future successes of other children in need of the early intervention such as our son has received. They will be lost in the public school system. One that is not equipped to meet the specialized needs that reach beyond just educating children with special needs. I just dOn?t want any families to be robbed of the same joy we have experienced with our son. Certainly a change of this magnitude will take longer to iron out than just 2 years! Please consider'the children and families that will be lost due to the hastiness of this decision. We know that the existing system is not perfect. Maybe the money looks attractive to the public schools, but what is most important seems to be getting lost. The children with the special needs. We are the proof.? Our family is one of many with great results. Things may not be perfect, but they are successful and working. Fine?tuning is not a good reason to do away with everything. It will be less harmful to those involved in the system right now and to the children who will be in need in the future. No child should miss out. Time is precious for these kids. The early intervention program makes so much sense. I just can?t understand how delaying this help at any child is the right thing to do. It has made all the difference in our we hope other families can have the same success story in the future. Who knows how just one year could change a child?s life forever WE Our son is part of this proof. Thank you for the opportunity to share. Our family hopes that you take our situation along with similar ones of countless parent into serious consideration. This may sound clich?, but just imagine if it were your child. We are so proud of our son?s progress. We are so grateful for the help that is being given to him! Sincerely, Our concerned family ~Wesley, Susie, Kaitlyn, and Seth Faloon Gail Donahue, PILD., 1083 Washington St Bath, ME 04530 Senator Libby Mitchell, Chair Representative Jacqueline Norton, Chair Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, NIE 04333-0100 Dear Senator Mitchell, Representative Norton, and Members of the Committee: My name is Gail Donahue. I am a speech-language pathologist with 35 years experience working with young children. For the last 15 years I have provided speech-language services to children birth to 5 and their families through the Child Development Services system in Maine, most recently as a private practitioner associated with Lincoln County CDS. I have done this work for so long because I strongly believe that early intervention is the best way to save both human potential and treatment costs by helping young children to gain skills during the critical period for speech-language development rather than waiting until the child has a history of communication failure and the low self-esteem that often goes with it. I am writing to express my opposition to and deep concerns about LD 17 72 An Act to Improve Early Childhood Special Education. This bill would dismantle CDS, a system that may have some ?aws but generally works well for young children, and move services for birth to 5 year old children into the public schools. The impetus for this move is to save money, but it seems that little real planning has gone into how the relocated services will work, how the schools will house the services, how or if the school personnel will gain the necessary skills to work with young children, or how the new centralized management of these services will work. Will the new system really save money while continuing to provide services to the children who need them, or will it actually decrease services that could prevent later human and ?scal costs? In short, will LD 1772 destroy a working early intervention system, and through lack of planning and inappropriate or denied services, leave Maine with older children and young adults who need more extensive and more costly services? My greatest concern at this time centers on the plan to disband all local CDS boards and create one State Board of Directors and centralized ?scal management by July 1, 2006. How will one small group understand the different issues of the very different sites? How will payment to providers be handled? Will billing CDS become as difficult as being reimbursed by MaineCare has sometimes been? If so, it?s just not worth continuing to provide services under this system. LB 1772 is just the most recent of many assaults on early services for Maine children with developmental problems. It gives me little hope for being able to continue to provide quality services for young children and their families. Please ?nd a better way to solve any real problems that exist with the CDS system. Thank you, Jan Gail Donahue, Testimony of Warren F. MacDonald M.D. Concerning LD1772 31 Jan. 2006 i am Warren F. MacDonald, I am an employed physician at the Mayo Regional Hospital. I am here today to speak against LD1772, and for LD1790. My son Drew age 2 years and 10 months is Autistic. With delayed speech and other . We were referred to CD8. He was rapidly evaluated locally, and in home intervention was started immediately. We have just completed a day long evaluation at Eastern Maine Medical Center. There the diagnosis was Confirmed. was impressed with the completeness and compassion of that evaluation. More intensive therapy and a broader spectrum of therapy was prescribed. Drew presently attends the UCP Bridges program in Sangerville, and is making progress that can be appreciateddaily. When Susan Gendron came to Dover?Foxcroft, was privileged to hear her speak. i found her intelligent, committed, and passionate about all the youth of Maine. i believe we are very fontunate to have her guiding our educational system. I disagree however with her plans at this time, My first objection is strictly. personal Drew is making such great strides. Therefore if the system is not broken do not attempt to fix it! Should there be major changes made, Drew would be awash during the most critiCal phase of his treatment. My further objections are more conceptual. Autism is a medical problem. The neurol- ogy is altered. Just because the principal therapeutic modality is educational, does not make it an educational problem. The team should be guided by practitioners of a medi? cal persuasion not educational. The people Caring for Drew and his confederates are dedicated to that age group. Their goal is to correct as much as possible his condition so he can be mainstreamed and come under the expertise of the special education practitioners. I do not believe that special education teachers should be shoe horned into early developmental problems. In the early 1990?s, when America realized it had a healthcare crisis, were advo? cated as a solution. The public rejected them as untenable. It may be unfair to equate LD1772 as having an HMO character, but the basic principals are very similar. Health- care is a local phenomenon, best delivered and controlled locally. i believe that LD1790 better serves my son and those like him. if I might ask the committee?s indulgence for one further point. Whatever program you ultimately choose, please make sure it is adequately funded. All are in agreement that early intervention gives this patient population an excellent chance at being productive citizens rather then wards of the state. That is what I want for Drew and i know you do too. Thank you for your time ,attention, and consideration. 9% MAINE ADVISORY THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Senator Elizabeth Mitchell, Chair Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0100 Testimony on LD 1772 Public Hearing January 31, 2006 The Maine Advisory Council on the Education of Children with Disabilities (MACECD) has three concerns related to LB 1772. The ?rst concern is that as written, Sec of LD 1772. seems to leave the consideration of a child?s developmental delay (for eligibility purposes) up to the discretion of the state Intermediate Education Unit (IEU) or Local Educational Agency (LEA) MACECD recommends that the Legislature remove the phrase . .at the discretion of the intermediate educational unit or school administrative from the paragraph so that the paragraph reads: (1) Signi?cant developmental delays for a child at least 3 years of age and under 6 years of age, as de?ned in rules adopted by the department in one or more of the following areas: cognitive development; physical development, including vision and hearing; communication development; social or emotional development; adaptive development; or The second concern is that the word ?signi?cant" in the context of the de?nition of developmental delay differs from the federal de?nition in the Individuals with Disabilities Education hnprovement Act 4 MACECD recommends that the use of the word "signi?cant? be deleted and that the language in Maine statute be aligned with the federal expeCtation. The third concern is that the membership of the proposed Early Childhood Special Education Board of Directors is too narrow in focus. MACECD recommends broader membership, e. g. a skilled early childhood person e. higher education), a child advocate legal rights, etc), parents, a member of MACECD, and geo g1 apluc rep1 esentatlon (e g. one member from each of the 16 sites) These recommendations were made by the full Maine Advisory Council on the Education of Children with Disabilities at the January 20, 2006 regular meeting. Respectfully submitted, Sue Henri-MacKenzie, Chair