Early Childhood Community of Practice

December 5, 2012

  1. Lydia Moore sharing her research
  2. See Handout
  3. Worked with Kent State around Performance Feedback
  4. Lydia’s role encompasses PD and Technical Assistance
  5. Five Part series
  6. Performance feedback with each other surrounding
  7. Single-Subject Design with three subjects
  8. At baseline the implementation was minimal to none
  9. Used rubric for evaluating feedback (from Autism Internet Modules)
  10. Behavior after feedback increased dramatically and remained above baseline for the entire study
  11. Teacher rated themselves and each other
  12. DEC Practices and OCALI information align beautifully!
  13. Highlighting Successful Programs
  14. See handout
  15. The goal is to develop capacity
  16. 75 minutes twice a week within the classroom regardless if there are children are in the classroom with special needs
  17. The amount of FTE 75 minutes twice a week equates to about .5 FTE (guesstimate)
  18. Caseloads range from 3-16, kids who are being supported but not in special education range from 3-30
  19. What will special education look like in kindergarten in five years?
  20. St. Joe has a level system and there is one classroom for students who need this level of support
  21. Level four classrooms there are four
  22. Who operates the GSRP programs? Local
  23. Who operates the ECSE program? Local for the 54 teachers, except the one level 5 center based teacher
  24. Braiding Fund
  25. Not at this point
  26. Funding in Head Start is around $8000 per slot
  27. Updates from other committees
  28. MiDEC
  29. Join DEC as membership is important
  30. MARSE 10
  31. Work group is complete
  32. Expanding Opportunities/Preschool Inclusion
  33. No update
  34. Inclusion Policy Paper from ECIC
  35. In September feedback was submitted
  36. There has not been any feedback from the company
  37. MAISA
  38. Foundation allocation in GSRP
  39. Increase in funding in number of slots, and increase per child
  40. Concerns capacity to grow and maintain quality
  41. Message was clear that children who are in GSRP this year do not need to reenroll and the first in
  42. Providing GSRP in a full day capacity
  43. There are multiple implications for ECSE and Head Start
  44. White Paper to Susan Broman on Great Parents, Great Start
  45. Recommendations
  46. Great Start Collaborative and Great Parents, Great Start remain in the block grant and the local level can make decisions surrounding this work
  47. Evidenced based program with specific outcomes
  48. MICC
  49. Highlights were shared in the MAASE general membership meeting
  50. Early On Family Survey
  51. There will be a change in the family survey with the 22 questions which are the family impact questions for this upcoming spring
  52. Update from OSE correction - Early Childhood Outcomes from birth to three can be entered into MSDS – this SHOULD BE 3-5 years
  53. Braiding of GSRP and Head Start
  54. Oxford Foundation
  55. ECSE Outcomes Data
  56. Lisa
  57. Every ISD data was sent out to ISD directors and as the 619 main contact on December 3
  58. Only for B7 – every ISD has a 1 through 4 level depending on how many targets you met
  59. Three attachments
  60. Letter of Acknowledgement
  61. Summary of Data (3 years worth of data if submitted)
  62. How many locals submitted
  63. Exit COSF were submitted and how many were matched
  64. Actual data report (10-15 pages)
  65. If you have any questions contact Lisa via phone or email
  66. OSEP is more results driven and brining this to the forefront
  67. Data Workshop for Administrators
  68. Wednesday on Michigan Collaborative Conference will contain the same content 1-4 on January 23rd
  69. Upper Peninsula has an early childhood conference on April 18 from 1-4 – space for 70
  70. Webinar in February
  71. Missing
  72. Matched data on 10 kids, means you have outcomes reported on two of the three outcome areas
  73. MSDS
  74. Locals are using a different system to get information into MSDS
  75. There are vendors who have not kept up on the business rules to ensure they are on top of MSDS rules
  76. There are some system glitches that are still being worked out
  77. The data is a results indicator not a compliance indicator and you will pull together a team to look at a root cause analysis in meaningful ways.
  78. You have a snapshot
  79. Are you increasing child match?
  80. Increasing overall entries?
  81. Increasing local entry?
  82. This does not put your job at risk from the state perspective, this is not the intent from the state level
  83. Discussion at the state training about how and why the targets were selected
  84. Targets were selected from one years worth of data from about 2000 kids who were mostly speech and language eligibility and that was the determination was selected
  85. Crosswalks being looked at in terms of assessment:
  86. The assessments have not changed
  87. ECSE manual will be updated and a FAQ will be there and the crosswalks have not changed
  88. ECSE classrooms can encompass 2.5 years and they do not go below 36 months and so how do you assess a 30 month child
  89. Look at assessment, educational expertise, and parent input and you can still develop a rating for the child
  90. Results transmittal responsibility will be clarified
  91. Email:
  92. Proposed Rules
  93. Elaine and Tom
  94. Inconsistency in wording and definitions
  95. More clarification is needed about the REED and evaluations and a lot was left undone
  96. Made some suggestions as it concerns infants and toddlers
  97. 1702 and 1703
  98. Students with a disability ages 3-26 and reference to IFSP (students over 3 do not have IFSP)
  99. Michigan mandatory mandates birth to 26 – and all refer to a student with a disability, in school code a student with a disability is defined as under 26 and has not graduated
  100. The only thing we have legally is Part B 3-21, the only thing we have for under three is in Michigan mandatory
  101. Bottom line if it goes through like this is means that there is no special education for under three
  102. If you do not comment there is no way to change
  103. 1702 – birth to 26 and eliminate 1703, which makes clear that all children under 26 are eligible for special education
  104. This was the same comment that Early On Staff made
  105. FAPE – children with a disability are entitled to a maximum potential effort should be offered FAPE
  106. There is FAPE birth to three
  107. Important to get this information out to the larger MAASE group
  108. What does the law say and the rules should support the law, rules cannot change laws
  109. Important to submit comment as an EC COP as well
  110. Activity
  111. Not about coming to consensus but to gather information so we can make comment individually
  112. Rule 1702 – COP Language
  113. Change to cover birth to 26 age range
  114. Align language birth to three and less than three
  115. Including calendar days versus school days, eligibility determination, etc.
  116. We support this as a COP
  117. Rule 1703 – COP Language
  118. Elimination of 1703 – it is not necessary
  119. We support this as COP
  120. Rule 1721 – COP Language
  121. Benefit of holidays and weekend
  122. Calendar
  123. Split thought – Recommend 10 school days (keep) – add 0-3 or 10 calendar days for 0-3
  124. Please clarify that 2.5 years is allowable for Part B
  125. Please clarify evaluation timelines birth to three since this is not clarified in Part C for all situations. e.g. Reevaluation, or previous Part C qualified or suspicion of Special Education.
  126. Recommend change from age 3 to 2 years 6 months to align with age as defined in other rules such as R340.1754 and R340.1755
  127. Not unity so not making comment as a group
  128. Rule 1754 – COP Language
  129. Research based curriculum – there are very few-no definition provided – Recommend: remove research based – then looks good.
  130. Nice clarity on age parameters, particularly September 1, age five
  131. Used to be six before count day – proposed five years by 9/1 – we are concerned about the gap. Some children could benefit from an extra year in ECSE – should be six years of age
  132. Consider going by strictly days – not hours and days
  133. Agree should be six years of age, it allows for greater individualization
  134. Rule 1755 – COP Language
  135. Academic Year? Recommend: School Year
  136. Age gap is still problematic (i.e., currently children not six by fall count date can be served in ECSE services)
  137. If 0-3 is to be included in 1862 vs. 1755 funding needs to follow per FTE
  138. Rule 1862 – COP Language
  139. Clarification on redetermination at age three eligibility determination
  140. Recommend returning to child instead of infant/toddler
  141. Add 1B – child eligible for Michigan Special Education on an IFSP may transition to an IEP no sooner than 2 years 6 months
  142. Unclear on #5, educational direction
  143. Why inclusion of MI Part C in MARS?
  144. Not all students with disabilities or infants and toddlers need 72 hours/yr.
  145. Retain FTE = Foundation
  146. Why is Michigan Part C State Plan and nowhere else does it mention Part B state plan?
  147. Not less than 72 clock hours over a year (we may have children who need special education who do not need 72 hours or parents may not want 72 hours) – this is problematic – where did 72 hours come from this does not fit? This creates an all or none scenario and this needs to be reviewed – needs to be addressed here because 1832 is most likely going to be revised
  148. Additional clarification is needed on how services are calculated, ancillary services only, etc
  149. Submit:
  150. The Department continues to see 1862 (4) are instructional services and therefore continue to be allowable costs for foundation allowance.
  151. 1862 (2) and (3) are in conflict with each other, if (3) were to stand without further clarification special education numbers would greatly increase funding would need to follow if this were to stand or eligibility criteria for Part C would need to be amended.
  152. Items from Last Meeting
  153. Information sharing from the field
  154. ECSE
  155. Birth to Three Topics
  156. Count Issues
  157. Discussion on METS
  158. Foundation Funding
  159. Are local administrators signing IFSPs as they did the IEPS?