early+childhood+report 2004

8/6/2019 Early+Childhood+Report 2004

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/earlychildhoodreport-2004 1/21

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF

ADMINISTRATORS OF

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Early ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly Childhood Programs and Programs and Programs and Programs and Programs andServices:Services:Services:Services:Services:

Report and Report and Report and Report and Report and Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations

A REPORT OF THE BIRTH TO 5EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

PROJECT WORKGROUP



A Report of the Birth to Five Early Childhood Services Project Workgroup • MAASE • June, 2004

Project ParticipantsProject ParticipantsProject ParticipantsProject ParticipantsProject Participants

MAASE Birth to Five Early Childhood Services Project Membership

Thomas Koepke MAASE Project Co-LeaderAssistant Superintendent for Special Education

Monroe County ISD

Larry D. Foster MAASE Project Co-LeaderDirector of Special Education

Muskegon Public Schools

Jovina Coughlin Supervisor of Special Education

Washtenaw ISD

Michele Cutcher Director of Special EducationBranch ISD

Connie Davidson Director of Special Education

Menominee ISD

Daris Delsi Supervisor of Early Childhood Services

Van Buren ISD

Catherine Herzog Director of Special Education

Waterford Public Schools

Lucy Hough-Waite Director of Special Education

Kent ISD

Susan Kabat Assistant Superintendent for Special Education

Eastern UP ISD

Joseph Kulkulski Director of Special Education

Livingston ISD

Stephanie Peters Supervisor of Early Childhood andSpecial Education Support Services/ Early On Coordinator

Ingham ISD

Elaine Smiley Supervisor of Special Education

Clare-Gladwin ISD




Early Childhood Consultants

Cheryl Granzo Early On Coordinator

Ionia ISD

Carl Ill Director of Early Childhood EducationAllegan ISD

Perry Lopucki Director of Early Childhood Education

Muskegon and Oceana ISD

Michigan Department of Education Representatives

Jacquelyn Thompson Director, Office of Special Education

and Early Intervention Services,

Michigan Department of Education

David Brock Supervisor, Office of Special Education

and Early Intervention Services,


Lindy Buch Supervisor, Early Childhood,


Dianne Easterling Program Staff, Office of Special Education

and Early Intervention Services,Michigan Department of Education

Sister Barbara Cline Early On Trainer and Technical Assistance,

Clinton ISD

Connie Robinson Lead Consultant, Michigan School Readiness

Program, Michigan Department of Education

The contents and recommendations within this report reflect the opinions of the MAASE Birth to FiveEarly Childhood Services Project Workgroup and the MAASE Executive Board. MAASE recognizes the specialefforts and expertise of the individuals and their organizations listed on this page. We are especiallythankful for the assistance of the staff of the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.By listing the individuals and organizations they belong to does not imply that OSE-EIS, MDE, or any of theISDs endorse all of the recommendations listed herein.

Special appreciation is given to the Monroe County Intermediate School District for the graphic design ofthis document.



Current funding structures

of early childhood

programs and services

are frequently disconnected

and discourage the

integration of children

with disabilities with

their non-disabled peers.

Introduction

Objective of the MAASE Early Childhood Services Project

The initial objective of the project was to propose a comprehensive continuum of educationaservices for children from birth through five years of age that incorporates the principle of providing

services within the natural1 and least restrictive environment in collaboration with other communityagencies. This continuum was to be a unified, seamless educational system for all of Michigan’spreschoolers.

The scope of the project was narrowed as a result of the project members’ concerns about feasibil-ity and funding. The majority of the project workgroup’s effort and time was devoted to discussionabout improving flexibility and integration within early childhood special education classroom pro-grams and services for children and the development of options for three to four year old childrenwho were eligible for Early On (Part C) service coordination, but not eligible for special educationSpecific recommendations include (1) expanding opportunities for the integration of disabled and

non-disabled preschool children and (2) enhancing flexibility in the provision of programs and ser-vices to better address the needs of the children and families served.

The Statement of the Problem

Michigan’s current systems for delivering early childhood programs and services to children frombirth through the age of five are categorical and inflexible in meeting the individual needs of childrenand families. The current funding structures of early childhood programs and services are frequentlydisconnected and discourage the integration of children with disabilities with their non-disabledpeers. The lack of flexibility partially results from complex funding and pupil accounting require-

ments, program guidelines, and certification requirements. The removal of these barriers is criticato meeting the objectives above.

Developing a Shared Vision for

Early Childhood Services

The MAASE Birth to Five Early Childhood

Project workgroup was assembled through anotification process that invited all MAASE mem-bers who were interested to contact one of thechairs of the project workgroup. Approximately30 MAASE members responded to the notice. Anattempt was made to encourage workgroupmembership from active MAASE members rep-resenting ISD and local districts, large ISDs andsmall ISDs, urban and rural districts, and repre-sentative of major geographical regions.




4

Prior Attempts to Address Integration, Inclusion, and Flexibility

in Early Childhood Programs in Michigan

The Michigan Department of Education has explored issues related to Early Childhood programs andservices, to some degree, for the past 10 years or more. In 1998, the Michigan State Board of Educa-tion Action Plan Priorities and Goals for Early Childhood Special Education2 included the following:

• Improve and support parent involvement in early intervention and preschool specialeducation services.

• Improve interagency coordination of early intervention services and community supportsfor young children with disabilities and their families.

• Assure that preschool children with disabilities are educated in settings with their peersto the extent appropriate.

• Provide options for early childhood education placements for young childrenwith disabilities.

• Create a coordinated system of early intervention and preschool services using a singlesystem of planning, due process, monitoring and quality assurance; align administrative

rules with Part B, section 619, and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

The Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) formed a workgroupduring 1998 and 1999. The workgroup consisted of professional staff representing several ISDs/RESAs, local school districts, pupil finance and accounting, Early On, special education, and highereducation. The workgroup reviewed practices pertaining to the provision of services in the naturaenvironment, pupil accounting rules, special education rules, and other policies and procedureswhich may create barriers to the provision of services to children in integrated settings. The workgroupcompiled documentation which clearly illustrated rules already existed that allowed for more inte-gration and the provision of services in natural environments. While barriers to integration and col-laboration do exist, documents from MDE and other sources indicate that partial solutions are avail-

able.

Memorandum3 from David J. Brock, Supervisor, OSE/EIS, to Work Group Participants regarding IDEA97 and Part B/C Integration dated September 16, 1998 covered similar ground as this MAASE project.Letters from Thomas Hehir4, 5, 6, Director, Office of Special Education Programs, USDOE dated April 30,1999 and March 15, 1994 clarify the use of Part B funds to serve infants and toddlers, stipulate therequirement to address the needs of first priority children, and state that some fees may be chargedfor services provided under Part H (now Part C of IDEA). These letters further clarify the use of fundsunder Part B of the IDEA for infants and toddlers. Looking for flexibility in funding these services, theMDE sponsored workgroup found little.

The Michigan OSE/EIS Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP) Progress Report (12/31/02) provided another update on the status of work on the Michigan Department of Education “Birth toFive” initiative. The strategic directive for this effort was to attain systems reform through policyand funding. Activities arising from this process included an October 2002 Early On LICC Conference,analysis of various service coordination models, the development of a set of competency-based personnel standards, the creation of a Transition Guide and statewide dissemination of the knowledgegleaned from the CIMP process.




As the State of Michigan entered the new millennium, a new comprehensive initiative was launchedentitled All Students Achieve Program - Parent Involvement and Education Program (ASAP-PIE). Thisgrant program targeted for intermediate school districts to enhance collaborative community effortsfor programs for families with young children birth to age five was initiated in 2000-2001 and discontinued in 2003. Initial funding was $45 million distributed to 23 ISDs in large competitive grantsacross the state. The purposes of the program were to increase children’s school readiness, reduce/

prevent the need for special education programs in elementary school, and to foster the mainte-nance of stable families. Five components were required: home visits, group meetings, develop-mental screening, community resource network referrals, and referrals to high-quality preschoolprograms. This program was eliminated and some districts were able to maintain components of theprogram after funding ceased.

The Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA), Michigan Association ofSchool Administrators (MASA), Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE)and many other professional groups sought continued support of the ASAP-PIE grants during the fiscalcrisis of 2002-2003. Awareness is building which supports the notion that the early childhood initia-tive is a school district’s opportunity to positively impact upon the achievement of students that

eventually enroll in kindergarten.

Most recently, Governor Jennifer M. Granholm proposed and implemented the Great Parents,Great St ar t grant program with intermediate school districts across Michigan. This initiative wilassist in the provision of both universal and targeted early childhood services to children from birthto five. Governor Granholm views this as a way to improve collaboration, enhance services to pre-school children, and ensure that more children are ready for school. The goal of the Governor’s GreatParents, Great Start initiative is far more comprehensive than the overall objective of this project.Prevention is an essential component in the Michigan Early Childhood Comprehensive System or GreatStart initiative. A comprehensive statewide prevention program, a requisite feature in the Governor’sproposal, was not specifically addressed within the context of this workgroup other than to recognizethe value of prevention services that are targeted, relevant and universally available to children andfamilies in the State of Michigan.

5




6

The current State of Michigan budget crisis

highlights the inadequacy

of the revenue stream

required to maintain

programs and services.

Adequate Funding: A Major Barrier to Progress

The current State of Michigan budget crisis highlights the inadequacy of the revenue stream re-quired to maintain programs and services. The State of Michigan’s financial structure was altered byProposal A in 1993 by the legislature and previous Governor. In addition to shifting school fundingfrom local control to Lansing, state sales tax now makes up a large portion of the funding stream.The current projected budget deficit is nearly $1 billion for the general fund. The picture for the

School Aid fund is somewhat brighter. However, the School Aid fund is dependent upon a transfer of$200 million from the General Fund for the 2004 school year. Due to this crisis, the membershipfoundation for K-12 education has not increased in two years and recently was reduced by $84.00 perstudent. It is also possible that further reductions in the payments to school districts will be made asthe crisis continues. Against the backdrop of this discouraging situation, it is nearly impossible topropose a new funding mechanism that will strengthen early childhood services across the State ofMichigan. The majority of funds available for early childhood programs and services are limited toEarly On (Part C of IDEA), Special Education (Part B of IDEA), Michigan School Readiness Program

(MSRP), and Head Start. Each program has categori-cal restrictions on eligibility.

The MAASE project workgroup refocused atten-tion to the design of a possible program model thatwould resolve some issues about integration for fouryear olds. The workgroup discussed the potentialadvantages of serving children under a unified,seamless system that allows the education of 12 to16 four year old children in one classroom who couldbe eligible for services under Part B or MSRP.

The potential funding sources for this combination are:

$55 million of special education funding$12 million in IDEA preschool funding$73 million in MSRP funding$12 million of competitive MSRP funding

_____

$152 million total available (estimate based upon 2003 data)

The MSRP funding is limited to $3300 per student. The revenue generated per student has beenreported by many districts to be inadequate to sustain a program. Frequently, school districts wiluse money from their general fund to support the preschool initiative. This is less likely to happen inthe current fiscal climate where K-12 funds are less today per student than even two years ago.While more and more school districts view “birth to 5 years of age” as an additional responsibility,decreasing revenues have prohibited school districts who ventured wholeheartedly into comprehen-sive early childhood initiatives to maintain their programs



8

Creative Solutions That Are Possible Under Current Rules

Newaygo County

Denise Gasper, Early On Coordinator at Newaygo RESA, described an integrated model of servicethrough the combination of the MSRP and Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Programs. In the2002-2003 school year, Newaygo County had 15 classrooms in 5 school districts (morning and after-noon sessions). Each classroom educated a combination of students eligible for special education andMSRP. In addition, the districts accepted tuition-based children ($3.00 per hour) in these classrooms.Classroom teachers are certified with ZA endorsement (Early Childhood) and are paid on communityeducation contracts rather than through the teacher’s contract. Special education related servicestaff provide services to children within these classrooms which generates membership (.4 FTE ormore). Children may be enrolled in these classrooms for two years. Children eligible for speciaeducation and children formerly eligible for Early On may begin the program at age 3 or younger.The Parents as Teachers component, equipment and supplies are funded by a community grant.

The Newaygo County staff report having an aggressive Child Find system and work in collaborationwith seven other agencies. All eight agencies use the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and they collabo-rate in providing program brochures and trainings/workshops for families. There is a pre-K to12th

grade county-wide curriculum in place, and there are essential outcomes for early childhood/pre-Kchildren. The information is entered into a computer system and is passed on to the kindergartenteachers. All children are screened using play-based assessment with parents present. Transportationis provided to those children who are MSRP or special education eligible, but not to children whoseparents pay tuition.

Joe Gasper, Deputy Superintendent, reported that districts within Newaygo County serve 10,000 K-12 students with about 400 being served in the preschool classrooms. There are never more than 16children in a session at one time. The number of students with disabilities per classroom is held atabout 30% or less. Consultants from the ISD meet with teachers and help determine the makeup andclass size of these classrooms. Newaygo County no longer has any early childhood special educationclassrooms. The children who receive special education services under Rule 55 are typically seen 2 to3 times per week in these classroom programs.





9

Branch County

Branch County ISD is one of the few ISDs in Michigan that operates the Head Start and MSRP pro-grams within their county. The BISD has a full continuum of programs and services for preschoochildren. Early Intervention/Home Based services begin the continuum. Children, who are ap-proaching their third birthday, then have several options for early childhood programming after par-ticipating in the home-based program. The most restrictive program is the ECSE classroom located atthe Waldron Center. This program is a self-contained pre-school program for children with moresevere disabilities. The ECSE classroom at Waldron Center has access to two Head Start classroomsfor inclusive and mainstreaming activities. Next, on the continuum is a co-teaching pre-school pro-gram located at the Branch Area Career Center (BACC). This language-enriched classroom is used asa “lab” for the childcare program at the BACC and is staffed with a certified speech therapist/earlychildhood teacher, a regular pre-school teacher and two paraprofessionals. High school studentshave an opportunity to work in this classroom as their “lab” experience for the BACC childcareprogram. There are preschool students with and without disabilities enrolled in the program. Stu-dents without disabilities pay tuition to attend. Next on the continuum are six co-teaching HeadStart/Michigan School Readiness Programs (MSRP). The six programs are located within close proxim-ity for efficient utilization of support staff and other resources. Children in the Head Start programs

are able to receive special education services daily from a certified special education/early child-hood teacher or other staff person who provides instructional services under the direction of a cer-tificated special education teacher.

Branch County serves preschool students with disabilities through the collaborative efforts of theteacher for the ECSE and Head Start programs working not only in close proximity but also in conjunc-tion with each other. Most of the students are eligible for early childhood programs and services dueto an Early Childhood Developmental Delay (ECDD) and/or speech and language impairment. Theinclusive nature of Head Start often encourages parents to forego the more restrictive special educa-tion classroom placement. Frequently, students with more moderate to severe disabilities will re-main in Head Start with the appropriate special education support.



The team consists of one ECSE teacher, two paraprofessionals, a speech therapist, and the HeadStart team. The ECSE teachers (1.5 teachers) are responsible for six different inclusive Head Start/MSRP sites. The special education teachers follow a weekly schedule that places them at each siteevery other day. The paraprofessional works directly with the Head Start and ECSE teachers toimplement instructional strategies with the students. The speech therapist works two days per weekwith each student and focuses upon speech and language goals. His schedule is on opposite days fromthe ECSE teacher. Fridays are typically home contact days and the ECSE team schedules home visits.

Students must meet the Head Start low income qualification in order to be accepted. There is anexception made for 10% of the students on these criteria. The Head Start program is limited to 5 to8 students with disabilities. The ECSE teacher works with students on an individual basis and as a co-teacher. The speech therapist provides similar services as the ECSE teacher but on the opposite days.Funding is partially provided by a claim of .2 FTE membership for each day of service under rule340.1755. Therefore, each student generates .8 FTE. Some students also receive instructional ser-vice on Fridays. In those situations, a full 1.0 FTE membership is claimed.


10



11

Recommendations of the MAASE Birth to Five Project Workgroup

Recommendations will be organized into four groups:1. Recommendations that could be acted upon under current rules and regulations.

The project workgroup found examples of possible solutions to issues of

inclusion and integration.

2. Recommendations that would require rule modifications and regulatory changesin order to achieve greater flexibility in the provision of early childhood services.

3. Recommendations or broad reaching goals that the State of Michiganshould strive to attain.

4. Recommendations that include further research for models of best practices.

1.0 Under current rules, the workgroup provides the following recommendations:

1.1 Recommendation - Location of Classroom Programs.

Place or locate ECSE (Rule 54)8 classrooms in close proximity to Head Start, MSRP, andother publicly offered preschool programs in order to encourage collaboration. Theclose proximity of the two or more classroom programs also offers efficiency forteachers and other instructional or related service staff to work with students notdirectly assigned to an ECSE classroom.

Barriers to implementation of Recommendation 1.1.

• More than one agency is responsible for Head Start, MSRP and special educationservices.

• The Head Start, MSRP and ECSE curriculum are frequently different. Teachers mayutilize instructional approaches that are incompatible with co-teaching.

• Lack of suitable space to locate two or more programs in same building or area.

• Transportation is a key issue for access to programs.




1.2 Recommendation – Curriculum alignment.

The collaboration between classroom programs would be greatly enhanced if theteachers provided a similar instructional approach and curriculum. Utilizing a re-searched based preschool or early childhood curriculum would also improve outcomesfor students.


• Teachers and paraprofessionals adhere to models of instruction and curriculumstandards that may provide adequate instruction for some children but not all.Specialized methods may be required for children with disabilities.

1.3 Recommendation – Increase opportunities for school districts to provide earlychildhood special education services (Rule 55)9 in inclusive settings.

The majority of 3 to 5 year old children with disabilities are educated in specialeducation classrooms with other children with disabilities. Based upon exampleshighlighted in this document, alternative settings and models do exist. These alterna-tive models are acceptable to parents and teachers, provide free and appropriatepublic education (FAPE), and the districts are able to receive the membership.


• Educators and parents perceive that the special education classroom programmodel is the required placement.

• A lack of collaboration and respect between programs and agencies.

• Categorical funding restricts flexibility in offering inclusive opportunities.

2.0 Recommendations that will require rule changes.

2.1 Recommendation – Flexible school year for ECSE (Rule 54)8 classroom programs.

The traditional school calendar begins in August or September and ends in early June.

Children benefit from comprehensive early childhood programs and services duringthe full year. Rules should allow programs to operate throughout the summer monthswithout penalty.

Distributing the typical 180 day full year program across 12 months instead of 9months would provide this benefit.


12




• MDE would need to change pupil accounting rules to support the more flexiblemodel.

• The operation of classroom programs during the summer may be difficult for some

districts due to the maintenance of the facility during the summer months.

• Transportation for summer programs may present challenges for school districts.

2.2 Recommendation - Flexible school year for ECSE (Rule 55)9 services.

Part C Regulations of IDEA require year-round services to be available to children,age’s birth to three. Typical school programs follow a 9 month calendar and usuallystop in June and begin again in September. Young children with disabilities benefitfrom services full year or year-round services, yet, Rule 55 (b) states that “services

shall be provided for a minimum of 2 hours per week, but not less than 72 clock hourswithin 180 school days. Services may be provided in appropriate early childhoodcommunity or family settings.”

In addition, the Pupil Accounting Manual7 stipulates that services must be providedfor “a minimum of two hours per week.” This minimum time allotment provides anincentive and recognition of the 2 hour-long service when families may need andwant only 45 minute or 1 hour and 15 minutes per week service. There is no recogni-tion of the benefits of a service tailored to the child’s and family’s needs.

The Pupil Accounting Manual regulations create a program model inadvertently bydisallowing any time less than 2 hours per week. This “One-Size-Fits-All” concept isnot driven by the child’s or family’s needs, but by accounting standards that shouldbe modified and more flexible.

This pupil accounting rule discourages districts from the provision of services outsidethe 180 school day period. Regulations should allow:

(a) flexibility to distribute time across 12 months,(b) staff to tailor instructional visits to time allocations that would take into con-

sideration the individual needs of preschool children with disabilities.

2.3 Recommendation – Require classroom teachers and para-educators for all statefunded early childhood programs to have similar certification and credentials.

Barrier to implementation of Recommendation 2.3.

Pay or wage differentials between programs may cause inequities.


13



2.4 Recommendation – Allow classroom programs to consist of students with variousdeterminants of eligibility. Students with a disability, tuition pay only students,low income students, and other students at-risk for developmental problems orlearning failure may all be enrolled in the same program.

Barrier to implementation of Recommendation 2.4.

State and local authorities have little control over Head Start.

Inadequate funding for most programs creates waiting lists.

2.5 Adopt uniform quality standards for all early childhood preschool programs. Thestandards would include stipulations for parent involvement/contact, number ofdays and hours, credentials for staff, nutritional component, and curriculum.

2.6 By implementing recommendations 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, the State of Michigan willhave designed a fully inclusive, high quality, standards-based preschool classroomprogram that would be available for any preschool child. The foundation ormembership grant provided for students with disabilities would follow the student.

3.0 MAASE also supports the following recommendations that would have a systemic impacton all preschool children.

3.1 Improved training and professional development for all early childhood servicesstaff.

3.2 Establishment of a set of universal quality standards.

3.3 Support for a more comprehensive array of accessible and affordable programs forearly childhood education and intervention services including:

3.3.1 Expanding public awareness.3.3.2 Offering universal developmental screening.3.3.3 Providing for more and improved parent education/parent

involvement.3.3.4 Creating universally available preschool options from age three

for all at-risk children.3.3.5 Providing ongoing services past the age of three for the at-risk

and developmentally delayed children such as an expandedMSRP type option.


14



4.0 Future Directions: A Search for National Best Practices

Michigan has one of the longest histories of early childhood special education in the nation.We have provided mandatory special education services to children birth to five since 1971. Adisadvantage of being pioneers in special education is that we have years steeped in tradition,where funding systems and special education programs are out-of-synch with the principle ofleast restrictive environment and other national best practices.

Our challenge for the future is to begin to implement researched-based practice in our earlychildhood programs for children birth through preschool age. Some of the practices that de-serve our attention include the following:

• Using routines-based needs assessment as a tool for the development of outcomesfor IFSPs.11, 12

• Integrating therapy and special instruction in natural and/or inclusive early child-hood environments.11, 12

• Embedding intervention in daily routines by incorporating a designed intervention

into a typical activity or routine.13

The efficacy of these methods is partially based on the principle that most interventionoccurs between specialists’ visits. Therapy and instruction are most effective when they takeplace in the environments where the child needs to use skills, and that regular caregivers (suchas parents and preschool teachers) need to have more “ownership” of the process in meetingthe goals of these children with disabilities. We will need to embrace substantive change inMichigan to be able to take our early childhoodprograms and services to a new,more effective level.


15



Suggested Next StepsSuggested Next StepsSuggested Next StepsSuggested Next StepsSuggested Next StepsThe Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE), a professiona

group of more than 500 school administrators, is in a unique position to effect change in thedelivery of early childhood programs and services within the State of Michigan in collaborationwith other stakeholders. Following the approval of the Executive Board, MAASE through advo-cacy in public education and early childhood forums can and should encourage the adoptionand implementation of the recommendations in this report. The project workgroup identifieda partial list of activities that would accomplish this overall goal.

• Seek answers and solutions from MDE about implementation of recommendations that onlyrequire minor rule or policy adjustment (such as flexible calendars).

• Obtain MDE support for implementation of pilot “best practice” models so that schools arenot penalized by a loss in student membership.

• This report is by no means comprehensive nor conclusive, further research identifying bestpractices would be warranted. Fully investigate national best practices occurring in otherstates.

• Identify national demonstration sites and consultants that could serve as resources to policyholders and potential change agents in Michigan.

• Visit other national sites to observe alternate practices.

• Seek support for recommendations from other professional educational organizations such asMAISA.

• Encourage MAASE representation, as a major stakeholder on statewide and regional boardsand committees, to further the recommendations of this report.


16



17

Gov. Granholm letter



ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

1. Early On Michigan State Interagency Coordinating Council, Implementation Guide for

Natural Environments, March 31, 2004.

2. Michigan State Board of Education Action Plan Priorities and Goals for Early Childhood

Special Education.

3. MDE Memorandum from David Brock to the IDEA 97 and Integration of Part B and CWorkgroup Participants, September 16, 1998.

4. Memorandum to Birth Mandate Coordinators from Ms. Jo Shackelford and Ms. ShelleydeFosset regarding letters from Mr. Thomas Hehir clarifying the use of funds under Part Bof IDEA to provide services for infants and toddlers.

5. Letter to Ms. Julie Curry, Iowa Department of Education from Mr. Thomas Hehir regardingthe use of special education funds to serve infants and toddlers.

6. Letter to Dr. Gillung, Department of Education, Connecticut regarding the permissibilityof parents paying for services.

7. Michigan Department of Education, Pupil Accounting Manual, Special Education EarlyChildhood Programs and Services, Revised 08/02. Pages 5K-1 to 5K-3.

8. Rule 340.1754, Early childhood special education programs. Michigan Administrative Rulesfor Special Education, OSE-EIS, MDE, 2002.

9. Rule 340.1755, Early childhood special education services. Michigan Administrative Rulesfor Special Education, OSE-EIS, MDE, 2002.

10.Memo from Jacquelyn J. Thompson, Ph.D., Director, OSE and EIS, MDE, February 6, 2004,Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C, Transition Guidelines fromthe Early On System.

11.Jung, L.A. (2003). More is better: Maximizing Natural Learning Opportunities.Young Exceptional Children, 6 (3), 21 - 26.

12.McWilliam R.A., & Scott, S. (2003). Integrating Therapy into the Classroom. National

Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project, Center for Child Development, VanderbiltUniversity Medical Center, 415 Medical Center South, Nashville, TN. (August 2003).

13.Cripe, J.W. & Venn, M.L. (1997). Family guided routines for early intervention services.Young Exceptional Children, 1 (1), 18 - 26.

18



A Report of the A Report of the A Report of the A Report of the A Report of the

Birth to 5 Birth to 5 Birth to 5 Birth to 5 Birth to 5Early ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly ChildhoodEarly Childhood

ServicesServicesServicesServicesServices Project Workgroup Project Workgroup Project Workgroup Project Workgroup Project Workgroup

Co pies of this doc ument are ava ilab le throug h theMichigan Association of Administrators

of Special Education (MAASE)by c ontacting the Monroe County Intermediate

Sc hoo l District at 734.242.5799, ext. 1410.

It is a lso a va ilab le on our we bsite:

early+childhood+report 2004

Documents