sonoma county selpa steering committee · 2016. 6. 8. · superintendents to determine if they are...

In compliance with Government Code § 54954.2(a), the Sonoma County SELPA will, upon request, make this agenda available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Individuals who need this agenda in an alternative format or who need a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Bonnie Tanner, Division Support Assistant to the SELPA Director, Sonoma County SELPA, 5340 Skylane Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, phone (707) 524-2752. Agenda and content materials are available for inspection at the SELPA Office located at the above referenced address.

SONOMA COUNTY SELPA

STEERING COMMITTEE Agenda

May 20, 2016 8:30 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.

Sonoma County Office of Education

Steering Committee Meeting Norms We agree to: 1. Allow each other to talk without interruption. 2. Treat each other respectfully: - Address each other by name. - Speak using a ‘normal’ speaking level. - Be aware of your body language and keep it positive. - Limit side conversations. 3. Participate fully. Seek clarification when needed. 4. Start and end on time. Respect “time” in discussion comments. 5. Allow for disagreement: - Disagree with the idea, not the person. - Once stated and responded to, we will move on. 6. Refrain from commenting on issues that are personal and/or confidential in nature.

I. OPENING

II. PUBLIC INPUT This is a time for members of the audience to address the committee regarding items that are not on the agenda. It is understood that the Steering Committee will not necessarily respond to presentations under the “Public Input” portion of the agenda. Presentations shall be limited to three minutes.

III. CELEBRATIONS and ANNOUNCEMENTS IV. ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA

V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of the Minutes from the April 15, 2016 Meeting Action

(Attachment, page 4)

of 74

VI. OPERATIONAL ITEMS Information A. SELPA Staffing

Catherine Conrado

B. Nonpublic School/Agency Items Information (Attachment, page 8) Catherine Conrado

C. Program Operator Updates Information Members

D. CAC Update Information Kristie Anderson

E. Calendar of Dates and Process for the NPS Consultation Group Information (Attachment, page 9) Suzanne Tribbey

F. Update on the CCS-MTU Re-Location Information (Attachment, page 10)

Catherine Conrado

G. Update on SEIS Data Integration Information Laura Buergler-Delgado

H. Review of Services for Students and Vaccination Requirements Information Carl Corbin

I. Program Specialist Updates Information Sharen Bertrando/John Fischer/Suzy Tribbey/Andrea Wells

J. Update on the California Alternate Assessment Information (Attachment, page 12)

Sharen Bertrando

K. Document for Reclassification of English Learners Information Note: This item will be re-visited in 2016-17 to ensure

we share a compliant worksheet (Attachment, page 20) Sharen Bertrando

of 74

L. Publication on Schools and Services to Students with Disabilities Information (Attachment, page 33) Catherine Conrado

M. ESSA Key Points for Students with Disabilities Information (Attachment, page 57)

Catherine Conrado

N. CADRE: National Recognition of our Independent Advocates Information http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/bowman.cfm

Catherine Conrado

O. Meeting Calendar for 2016-17 Action (Attachment, page 74)

Catherine Conrado

VII. Items for Next Meeting

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

of 74

In compliance with Government Code § 54954.2(a), the Sonoma County SELPA will, upon request, make this agenda available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Individuals who need this agenda in an alternative format or who need a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Bonnie Tanner, Division Support Assistant to the SELPA Director, Sonoma County SELPA, 5340 Skylane Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, phone (707) 524-2752. Agenda and content materials are available for inspection at the SELPA Office located at the above referenced address.

SONOMA COUNTY SELPA

STEERING COMMITTEE Minutes

April 15, 2016 Members in Attendance Mary Ann Carpenter Diane Conger Vince Hamilton Steve Mizera Cathy Myhers

Molly Nagel Nikarre Redcoff Vanessa Riggs Elizabeth Sanchez

I. OPENING Catherine Conrado called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

II. PUBLIC INPUT No public input was presented to the committee

III. CELEBRATIONS and ANNOUNCEMENTS • Mary Ann Carpenter and Maeve Mulholland acknowledged Suzanne Tribbey for her on-site

Managing Student Behavior (MSB) training in their respective districts. • Lisa Young shared that she spoke to Jeanne Bowman who said that Carlo misses everyone. The

recovery from his surgery was more complicated than he originally thought, and will likely not be able to return to work until the end of the school year.

• Melinda Susan acknowledged Lourdes Acuna, South County Consortium/La Tercera Instructional Assistant, who received the honor of being a Sonoma County finalist for the statewide Classified School Employee of the Year (CSEY).

• Vanessa Riggs shared an appreciation for Jennifer Ingels of Lattice Educational Services for her professionalism during a recent meeting.

IV. ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA Catherine Conrado requested to move item F (Report on Impact of AB403) to the first operational item.

V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Diane Conger made a motion, with a second by Mary Ann Carpenter, to approve the Minutes from

the March 18, 2016 Meeting. The motion passed unanimously by the committee.

VI. OPERATIONAL ITEMS

of 74

A. CAC Update Next meeting May 17, 2016. Sharen Bertrando announced that elections will occur at the next meeting. Pia Banerjea will be presenting on ERMHS/ERICS.

B. Nonpublic School/Agency Items

a. Approved 2016-17 Master Contract Language Changes b. Approved NPS/A Rate Changes c. RTC Documents Pilot

Catherine Conrado reviewed attached documents. She noted that the acronym ERICS (Educationally-Related Intensive Counseling Services) would be replacing ERMHS (Educationally-Related Mental Health Services).

C. Program Operators Updates No program operator updates were made to the committee.

D. Annual Performance Reports (APR)

Catherine Conrado presented the attachments and demonstrated how districts can access these reports on the CDE website (Specialized Programs – Special Education – Data Collection – Annual Performance Reports – Indicator Report, then scroll down to find district in alphabetical order). The APR displays information about district targets for graduation rates, dropout rates, statewide assessment results, and other indicators. Districts are encouraged to share these reports with their superintendents to determine if they are meeting targets. This information also ties in with the EL over-identification workgroup work that has been addressed this year with Sonoma County school districts.

E. Update on SELPA Staffing

Catherine Conrado reported that Andrea Wells, the new Program Specialist, will be starting on May 3rd and will be present at the next Steering Committee meeting on May 20th. The SELPA has also filled the AT Specialist position. Bob Raines announced at the last Superintendents Council that he has accepted a superintendent position in Marin County. Bob has been very involved in the EL over-identification workgroup, and districts will need to consider how to continue this valuable work considering the possible addition of Michael Fullan into this project.

F. Report on Impact of AB403: Continuum of Care Reform

Katie Greaves, Program Development Manager for Department of Human Services, presented on the upcoming changes resulting in the passing of AB403 as they relate to education. AB403 limits the number of days foster youth can stay in an emergency shelter to 10 days. It transforms group homes into a new category of congregate care facility defined as Short-Term Residential Treatment Centers (STRTCs). “Short-term” is defined as 12 months or less though depends on treatment needs of the student based on an assessment by County Mental Health. This has possible implications for how students in our county are served. For example, Plumfield serves students as a Level 8 and they will have to adjust to these new parameters or close. There will no longer be RTCs available for Level 10 or below. Katie Greaves is available to answer additional questions; steering members are encouraged to contact her at Human Services for further clarification as needed.

G. Review ERMHS Fund Balances Deborah Malone-Larson reviewed Fund Balance attachment. There is currently a large state balance of

ERMHS/ERICS funds. For this reason, the state is concerned that districts are not providing services for students since they are not fully using these funds. The Finance Committee will consider recapturing these funds if they remain unused. Steering Committee members are encouraged to discuss

of 74

this issue with district CBOs to ensure expenses are coded in 6512. Catherine Conrado reviewed ERICS attachments on pages 66-67. Districts need to be prepared to defend such expenses in an audit by fiscal auditors. Four (4) SELPAs have been audited and found inadequate and unresponsive to students with mental health needs. It was requested that Sonoma County SELPA provide appropriate service codes for each of the reimbursement examples.

H. Update on SEIS Data Integration

Robin Horwinski will be attending a meeting at CALPADS next week to possibly obtain additional information regarding data integration. It is recommended that Steering hold-off on committing funds to SEIS regarding the 2-way data integration upgrade until she reports back from this upcoming meeting. Maeve Mulholland recommended that district IT personnel be included in future conversations about this data integration program.

I. EL Reclassification forms in SEIS Sharen Bertrando reviewed the attached English Learner with Special Needs Reclassification Worksheet developed by Jarice Butterfield from the Santa Barbara County SELPA. SBAC results are now included. Parent and teacher input are required for EL reclassification, with CELDT results also being a valuable piece of information for IEP teams. Diane Conger reported that she has developed her own worksheet. She will share this worksheet for consideration at the May Steering Committee meeting. Gilda DeNiro reported that Bellevue has been financially audited, and the auditors required documentation for students who had been reclassified.

J. Correspondence from the Interim State Director of Special Education

RE: Adults in County Jails Catherine Conrado reviewed a letter from state director in regards to student’s aged 18-22 with IEPs. In summary, the responsible LEA (where the student’s parents reside) will need to assist and provide services for the adult incarcerated student. It is not necessary to send district personnel to the student; however, the responsible LEA will need to pay for such services.

K. Behavior Intervention Plan Forms

Suzy Tribbey presented on the two available Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) forms. Currently, our SELPA uses a form developed by Sonoma County behavior specialists. This can present a problem when students move in and out of our county. Also, by using the current form, BIPs can be easily lost if they are not attached to the student’s IEP. It was proposed that we change from using the Sonoma County developed BIP to the form integrated into SEIS. Cathy Myhers made the motion to use the SEIS BIP form, which was seconded by Nikarre Redcoff. This action passed with the approval of eight (8) ‘aye’ votes and one (1) abstention from Mary Ann Carpenter on the condition that training for the SEIS form will be made available as well as the development of a “snapshot” reference form for general education staff.

L. Program Specialist Updates

a. CANS grant update: Suzy Tribbey reported that this grant will not be continued next school year. John Kolhoven will no longer be contracted through the SELPA via this grant.

b. NPS Consultation Group: Suzy Tribbey presented additional question for clarification. Three meetings will be scheduled for next school year at the next steering meeting. Districts will be asked to volunteer staff to participate in this group. Other members of this group could include SCOE school psychologists and administrators, SELPA staff, and possibly community agencies.

c. Supporting English Learners with Disabilities Symposium May 3rd at CDE in Sacramento from 8:30am-4pm. Contact Sharen Bertrando for more information.

of 74

VII. Items for Next Meeting There were no items for next meeting suggested.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT Catherine Conrado adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m.

of 74

Seneca Family of Agencies is thrilled to announce the opening of our newest Non-‐Public School, Hillside High School!!

Hillside High School, projected to open in the Fall of 2016, is located at 365 Kuck Lane in Petaluma, CA. The goal of Hillside High School is to provide a high quality educational and therapeutic opportunity to students with intensive mental health needs, and the necessary skills to transition successfully into a less restrictive setting. Our school will serve students in grades 9th-‐12th referred to us from local school districts in Sonoma and Marin Counties due to their academic, behavioral, and emotional struggles in mainstream settings or when stepping down from residential programs. Typically, students accepted into our program qualify for special education services under the category of Emotional Disturbance, however, students may additionally qualify under the categories of Mild/Moderate ID, OHI, and SLD. Our small school community has a capacity of 24 students, with class sizes between 8-‐10 students. We will offer an individualized academic program with coursework that meets local high school graduation requirements, including elective courses, physical education, and opportunities for fieldtrips and extracurricular activities. Course content will be delivered through multiple learning modalities, including project-‐based learning and online courses. We will participate in the WASC process, and intend to serve students on a diploma track. Through rigorous, individualized education, intensive therapeutic learning environment and milieu, and a positive behavioral support system, we aim to create a safe learning environment for students to grow and thrive. Our team strives to work collaboratively with families and district partners to engage students in the learning process and help them to develop skills needed to successfully transition back into a mainstream setting and achieve their high school diploma and/or further career goals. Students attending Hillside High School will have access to a continuum of comprehensive services tailed to each individual’s transition plan. Our mental health-‐focused academic program is designed to offer students one hour of Individual Therapy weekly, at least two hours of Counseling and Guidance/group therapy weekly, at least one hour of family therapy weekly, and behavioral intervention. In addition, based on an individual’s IEP, students can receive Speech and Language Services, Psychological Services, and Case Management services. Integral to our philosophy of helping students and families through struggling times, we can also provide community based services through our collaboration with Seneca’s NPA program. Under this unique service delivery model, students can receive comprehensive, collaborative, and consistent service from a team of highly skilled mental health and education providers.

For further details, please contact School Director, Noelle Anderson, at 707.480.1357 or [email protected]

of 74

RTC/NPS Advisory Group Meeting Dates 2016-‐17

Fall

Monday, September 19, 2016 _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

Friday, October 7, 2016 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

Thursday, November 3, 2016 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

Meetings will be held at: 9:00 a.m.

SELPA Conference Room Sonoma County Office of Education

*Future dates will be determined after these three sessions.

of 74

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress and the California Alternate Assessments

Special Education Local Plan Area Directors May 5, 2016

Don Killmer, Administrator I

Terry DeBoer, Consultant Assessment Development Office

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public

Instruction

2

What Have We Been Up To?

Total number of students who started the CAA: SSC: 13,468 of 35,488 ELA: 8,790 of 35,471 Math: 8,083 of 35,467

Total number of students who completed the CAA: SSC: 13,379 of 35,488 ELA: 8,277 of 35,471 Math: 7,790 of 35,467

Total number of LEAs that have completed the CAA: 492 of 788

of 74


Instruction

New CAA Web Page http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/altassessment.asp

3


Instruction

May 2016 State Board of Education Meeting

Agenda Items

4

of 74


Instruction

Mechanisms for Conveying Meaning of the CAA Results

•  January 2016 General performance level descriptors – short policy descriptors or labels that convey the degree of student achievement in a given achievement level.

•  May 2016 Performance level descriptors – descriptors of what students at each achievement level know and can do by grade and content area.

•  Fall 2016 Threshold scores – scores on an assessment that separate one level of achievement from another.

5


Instruction

Example of the PLDs

6

of 74


Instruction

CAASPP CAA Student Score Report (SSR)

7


Instruction

CAASPP CAA SSR (cont.)

8

of 74


Instruction

CAASPP CAA SSR Sample Grade 5 (cont.)

9


Instruction CA NGSS Alternate Assessment Core Content Connectors

(Connectors)

10

of 74


Instruction

What are Connectors?

•  “Are defined content bridges” (National Center and State Collaborative [NCSC], 2015) between the CA NGSS and the estimated progressions of learning that are captured in the K-12 grade-level science curriculum.

•  Represent the grade-level content that is most critical to address for students with significant cognitive disabilities to enable students’ progression across grades.

•  Retain the connection with the grade-level PE

•  More complex PEs can be broken down into smaller segments to help clarify targets for instruction.

11


Instruction

What are Essential Understandings?

•  Are identified for each Connector.

•  Define a basic, foundational key idea or concept based on the Connector that builds increasing understanding of the grade-level content.

12

of 74


Instruction

DRAFT CA NGSS Alternate Assessment

Connectors

Life Science 1

Components of CA NGSS for the alternate assessment

Grade Five

Performance Expectation

5-LS1-1. Support an argument that plants get the materials they need for growth chiefly from air and water.

Core Content Connector

Recognize that plants acquire material for growth chiefly from air and water, not from soil.

FKSA 1 FKSA 1: Ability to match the materials most used for plant growth to air and water.

FKSA 2 FKSA 2: Ability to match the material least used for plant growth to soil.

Essential Understanding

Identify that plants cannot grow without water or air.

13


Instruction

How to Get Involved in the Development of the CA NGSS

As California moves through its transitional phase toward the implementation of the CA NGSS summative assessments (including CA NGSS alternate assessment) there are many opportunities for professional development.

Opportunities for CA educator involvement include:

•  Item writing •  Item review •  Data review •  Form review

To get involved complete the content reviewer application at http://caaspp.org/reviewers.html.

14

of 74


Instruction

Contact Information

California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Assessment Development Office

(916) 445-8765 [email protected]

15

of 74

Ventura County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Mary E. Samples, Assistant Superintendent

www.venturacountyselpa.com

Adapted with permission from the Orange County Office of Education

Alternate Language Proficiency Instrument (ALPI)

2014

Contact: Joanna Della Gatta, Director, Technical Support & Transition

805-437-1560

Ventura County Comprehensive Alternate

Language Proficiency Survey for Students with

Moderate-Severe Disabilities (VCCALPS)

of 74

http://www.venturacountyselpa.com/

This survey instrument may be used to assess language proficiency of students with disabilities characterized as moderate or severe. It is for students who, because of their disability, cannot access all or part of the CELDT, and is designed for students who participate in the CAPA. It assesses in all areas required by the California Department of Education, including listening, speaking, reading, and writing. It establishes levels in both the primary language as well as English. If unsure about which English Language Development assessment a student will best respond to, the IEP team may consider the “CELDT Participation Criteria.” Because students with moderate or severe developmental and intellectual disabilities usually have delays in the areas of general language development and cognition, it often is difficult to establish the level of English language proficiency. Therefore, an analysis of proficiency in English as compared to proficiency in the primary language becomes very informative. The information from this survey can be used to determine whether the student is considered to be an “English Learner” or a student with disabilities in language and cognition, across languages. Students who are considered to be ELs will receive targeted instruction in English Language Development (ELD), including vocabulary, syntax, morphology, and pragmatics unique to the English language. Students who are considered to be delayed in any language will receive targeted instruction in general development of language and communication. Students who are ELs will have an identified ELD goal in the IEP. In addition, all other goals must be linguistically appropriate, which means that they are at the appropriate EL level, with special consideration given to the language in which the goal is taught (English or primary language). For our students with moderate-severe disabilities, this may mean that they will be taught to make simple requests or express needs first in the primary language, or, that instructions for functional skill activities are given in both English as well as the primary language, (or primary language only). The VCCALPS can also be used to assist in reclassifying a student to Fully English Proficient (RFEP) who has formerly been considered an EL. For students who perform at low levels in both English and the primary language, the IEP team may recommend to the district English Language Development department that the low proficiency level in English is due to the disability. Although the IEP team may make the recommendation, the final decision about reclassification lies with the ELD Department, with input from parent(s). For two years following reclassification, students will continue to receive support and monitoring of their English language development.

Introduction/Purpose

of 74

Student Name:_______________________ DOB:______ Date: _____________ School: ___________________ Grade: ____

Worksheet CELDT Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment

Alternate assessments provide an alternate means to measure the English language proficiency of students with disabilities whose individualized education program (IEP) teams have determined that they are unable to participate in the CELDT even with variations, accommodations, and/or modifications. In order to aid an IEP team in its determination of whether a student should use alternate assessments, the following may be considered: Circle “Agree” or “Disagree” for each item: Agree Disagree The student requires extensive instruction in multiple settings to acquire, maintain, and generalize skills necessary for application in school, work, home, and community environment. Agree Disagree The student demonstrates academic/cognitive ability and adaptive behavior that require substantial adjustments to the general curriculum. The student may participate in many of the same activities as their non-disabled peers; however, their learning objectives and expected outcomes focus on the functional applications of the general curriculum. Agree Disagree The student cannot address the performance level assessed in the CELDT, even with accommodations or modifications. Agree Disagree The decision to participate in the alternate assessment is not based on the amount of time the student is receiving special education services. Agree Disagree The decision to participate in the alternate assessment is not based on excessive or extended absences. Agree Disagree The decision to participate in the alternate assessment is not based on language, cultural, or economic difference. Agree Disagree The decision to participate in the alternate assessment is not based on the deafness/blindness, visual, auditory, and/or motor disabilities. Agree Disagree The decision to participate in the alternate assessment is not primarily based on a specific categorical label. Agree Disagree The decision for alternate assessment is an IEP team decision, rather than an administrative decision. If the answer to any of the statements is “Disagree,” the team should consider including the student in the CELDT with the use of any necessary accommodations or modifications. IEP Team Decision: _____________________________________________ is eligible for participating in the CELDT. IEP Team Decision: _____________________________________________ is not eligible for participating in the CELDT.

of 74

This instrument should be used in a similar manner as the CELDT, and must be used for all students with a language other than English in questions #1-#3 on the Home Language Survey. (Question #4 is discretionary for the districts). WHEN: For all students entering school, the assessment should be administered within the first 30 days of enrollment. It should be readministered annually during the testing window for CELDT. HOW/WHO: The listening, reading and writing portions of the assessment are to be administered in multiple sessions in short lengths of time as tolerated by the student. Because there is a great deal of overlap in the content of the items in English and primary language, it is suggested that those sections be administered in random order, with at least an hour between sessions. They should be administered by classroom staff who know the student well, to assure maximum performance. The speaking session should be completed by those who know the student well, at minimum the teacher and primary caregiver. Some sections require that directions and/or prompts be given in the primary language, so a person who is fluent in that language is required. The assessor is advised to use the least intrusive prompting or adaptations necessary to obtain a response from the student. If he/she is capable of pointing, speaking, etc, they should be required to do so. If not, eye gaze, head nod, or indicating yes/no to adult model will suffice. For each section, jot down the items or words the student correctly responds to or performs. Circle the number which best correlates with performance, place in points column and total the number of points per page. Record totals from each page on the Summary Sheet, which will indicate levels in each area to be used for decision making and planning. Note: In 2016, the EL levels will be changing in the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) which will be replacing the CELDT.

Instructions

of 74

Listening – Primary Language

VCCALPS

Listening: Provide oral requests in primary language only. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation. In response to the primary language, the student: Points 1. Turns head when called (describe):

Never 0-1/5 times Rarely 2/5 Times (2 pts) Occasionally 3/5 Times (3 pts.) [0-5] Often 4/5 Times (4 pts) Frequently 5/5 Times (5 pts.)

2. Identifies body parts by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model. (May use pictures or have student point to self.) (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2 (2 pts.) 3 (3 pts.) 4 (4 pts.) 5+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

3. Identifies family members/familiar people, by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model. (May use people or pictures.) (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2-3 (2 pts.) 4-5 (3 pts.) 6-7 (4 pts.) 8+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

4. Identifies foods/food items by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2-3 (2 pts.) 4-5 (3 pts.) 6-7 (4 pts.) 8+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Responds to commands (record highest level obtained):

1 part command with light physical prompt (1 pt.) 1 part with visual prompt (2 pts.) [0-5] 1 part, no visual (3 pts.) 2 part, visual (4 pts.) 2 part, no visual. (5 pts.)

Total Listening Points (Primary) [0-25]

Listening/Primary Language of 74

Listening – English

VCCALPS

Listening: Provide oral requests in English only. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation. In response to English, the student: Points 1. Turns head when called (describe):

Never 0-1/5 times Rarely 2/5 Times (2 pts) Occasionally 3/5 Times (3 pts.) [0-5] Often 4/5 Times (4 pts) Frequently 5/5 Times (5 pts.)

2. Identifies body parts by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model (May use pictures or have student point to self.) (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2 (2 pts.) 3 (3 pts.) 4 (4 pts.) 5+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

3. Identifies family members/familiar people by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model. (May use people or pictures.) (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2-3 (2 pts.) 4-5 (3 pts.) 6-7 (4 pts.) 8+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

4. Identifies foods/food items by pointing, eye gaze or indicating yes/no to adult model (list):

0 1 (1 pt.) 2-3 (2 pts.) 4-5 (3 pts.) 6-7 (4 pts.) 8+ (5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Responds to commands (record highest level obtained):

1 part command with light physical prompt (1 pt.) 1 part with visual prompt (2 pts.) [0-5] 1 part, no visual (3 pts.) 2 part, visual (4 pts.) 2 part, no visual. (5 pts.)

Total Listening Points (English) [0-25]

Listening/English of 74

Speaking – Primary Language

VCCALPS

Speaking: Use input from people who know the student (parents, siblings, teachers). Describe on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. In the primary language: Points 1. Student indicates toileting needs (describe):

Not at all (0pts) Gestures (1 pt) Vocalizations (2pts) Word (primary language)(3 pts) [0-5] Phrase (primary language)(4 pts) Sentence (primary language)(5pts)

2. Student indicates need for assistance (i.e., more of an item, physical help, negations, etc.)(describe): Not at all (0pts) Gestures (1 pt) Vocalizations (2pts) Word (primary language)(3 pts) [0-5] Phrase (primary language)(4 pts) Sentence (primary language)(5pts)

3. Student uses words in primary language (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21+(5 pts.) [0-5]

4. Student uses phrases in primary language (may not be semantically correct) (list):

0 2 word phrase (2 pt.) 3 word phrase (3 pts.) 4 word phrase (4 pts.) [0-5] 5 word phrase or more (5 pts.)

5. Student uses complete sentences in primary language (may not be semantically correct) (list):

0 1 sentence (1 pt.) 2 sentences (2 pts.) 3 sentences (3 pts.) [0-5] 4 sentences (4 pts.) 5 sentences or more (5 pts.)

NOTE: If student uses an augmentative communication system, records words or phrases used in the primary language (if any). Total Speaking Points (Primary) [0-25]

Speaking/Primary Language of 74

Speaking – English

VCCALPS

Speaking: Use input from people who know the student (parents, siblings, teachers). ). Describe on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. In English: Points 1. Student indicates toileting needs (describe):

Not at all (0 pts) Gestures (1 pt) Vocalizations (2pts) Word (English)(3 pts) [0-5] Phrase (English)(4 pts) Sentence (English)(5pts)

2. Student indicates need for assistance (i.e., more of an item, physical help, negations, etc.)(describe): Not at all (0pts) Gestures (1 pt) Vocalizations (2pts) Word (English)(3 pts) [0-5] Phrase (English)(4 pts) Sentence (English)(5pts)

3. Student uses words in English (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21+(5 pts.) [0-5]

4. Student uses phrases in English (may not be semantically correct)(list):

0 2 word phrase (2 pt.) 3 word phrase (3 pts.) 4 word phrase (4 pts.) [0-5] 5 word phrase or more (5 pts.)

5. Student uses complete sentences in English (list): 0 1 sentence (1 pt.) 2 sentences (2 pts.) 3 sentences (3 pts.) [0-5] 4 sentences (4 pts.) 5 sentences or more (5 pts.)

NOTE: If student uses an augmentative communication system, records words or phrases used in English (if any). Total Speaking Points (English) [0-25]

Speaking/English

of 74

Reading – Primary Language

VCCALPS

Reading: Present student with text in primary language. Present directions in both English and primary language. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation. 1. Matches letter or character when presented with choice of two in primary

language (pointing, eye gaze, or indicating yes/no to adult model). Present at least 10 trials (list): 0 2 correct (1 pt.) 4 correct (2 pts.) 6 correct (3pts) 8 correct (4pts) 10 correct (5 pts.) [0-5]

2. Indicates sounds of letters/meaning of characters in primary alphabet (making sound or indicating yes/no to adult model) (ie, “What sound does this make?”) (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

3. Matches word from primary language when presented with choice of two to

match with. Present at least 5 trials of different words (matching, pointing, or eye gaze) (ie, “Which word is the same?”) (list): 0 1correct (1pt) 2 correct(2pts) 3 correct (3 pts.) 4 correct (4 pts.) 5 correct (5 pts) [0-5]

4. When presented with two words in primary language indicates correct choice when read aloud (pointing or eye gaze). Present at least 5 trials (list):

0 1 correct (1 pt.) 2 correct (2 pts.) 3 correct (3 pts.) 4 correct (4 pts.) 5 correct (5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Reads site words in primary language (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

Total Reading Points (Primary) [0-25]

Reading/Primary Language of 74

Reading – English

VCCALPS

Reading: Present all text in English. Present directions in both English and primary language. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation. 1. Matches letter or character when presented with choice of two in English

(pointing, eye gaze, or indicating yes/no to adult model). Present at least 10 trials (list): 0 2 correct (1 pt.) 4 correct (2 pts.) 6 correct (3pts) 8 correct (4pts) 10 correct (5 pts.) [0-5]

2. Indicates sounds of letters/meaning of characters in English alphabet (making sound or indicating yes/no to adult model) (ie, “What sound does this make?”) (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

3. Matches word from English when presented with choice of two to match with.

Present at least 5 trials of different words (matching, pointing, or eye gaze) (ie, Which word is the same?”) (list): 0 1 correct (1 pt.) 2 correct (2 pts.) 3 correct (3 pts.) 4 correct (4 pts.) 5 correct (5 pts.) [0-5]

4. When presented with two words in English indicates correct choice when read aloud (pointing or eye gaze). Present at least 5 trials (list):

0 1 correct (1 pt.) 2 correct (2 pts.) 3 correct (3 pts.) 4 correct (4 pts.) 5 correct (5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Reads site words in English (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

Total Reading Points (English) [0-25]

Reading/English of 74

Writing – Primary Language

VCCALPS

Writing: Present student with directions in primary language and English. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation.

1. Traces letters/characters in primary language (present at least ten - include any letters unique to primary language) (list): (Record most common prompt level) [0-5] Hand over hand-all letters (0pts) Hand over hand 5 or more letters (1pt) Hand over hand 4 or less letters (2pts) Intermittent physical prompts, all letters (3pts) Verbal Prompts (4pts) Independent (5pts)

2. Copies/types letters/characters minimally legibly in primary language when presented with model (present at least ten) (list):

(Record most common prompt level) [0-5] Hand over hand-all letters (0pts) Hand over hand 5 or more letters (1pt) Hand over hand 4 or less letters (2pts) Intermittent physical prompts, all letters (3pts) Verbal Prompts (4pts) Independent (5pts)

3. Prints letters from model minimally legibly when shown briefly and then removed (list):


4. Prints/types/stamps alphabet letters/characters in primary language when read aloud (list):

0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Writes/types words in primary language (either words read aloud or word

he/she chooses) (list): 0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

Total Writing Points (Primary) [0-25]

Writing /Primary Language of 74

Writing – English

VCCALPS

Writing: Present student with directions in both primary language and English. Describe responses on lines provided, then circle the score which best applies and record in the points column. It is permissible to score items based on extensive observation in classroom settings, in addition to responses in the testing situation. 1. Traces letters/characters in English (present at least ten) (list):


2. Copies/types letters/characters minimally legibly in English when presented with model (present at least ten) (list): (Record most common prompt level) [0-5] Hand over hand-all letters (0pts) Hand over hand 5 or more letters (1pt) Hand over hand 4 or less letters (2pts) Intermittent physical prompts, all letters (3pts) Verbal Prompts (4pts) Independent (5pts)

3. Prints letters from model minimally legibly when shown briefly and then removed (list):


4. Prints/types/stamps alphabet letters/characters in English language when read aloud (list): 0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

5. Writes/types words in English (either words read aloud or word

he/she chooses) (list): 0 1-5(1 pt.) 6-10(2 pts.) 11-15(3 pts.) 16-20(4 pts.) 21-25(5 pts.) [0-5]

Total Writing Points (Primary) [0-25]

Writing/English of 74

Summary Sheet

Ventura County Comprehensive Alternate Language Proficiency Survey for Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities (VCCALPS)

Student Name District School

Administrator DOB Disability

Language (other than English) on Home Language Survey (Primary Language)

Listening 25 possible Primary Score Level English Score Level

Levels for each area: 0-6 – Basic (B) 7-12 – Early Intermediate (EI) 13-17 – Intermediate (I) 18-22 – Early Advanced (EA) 23-25 – Advanced (A)

Speaking 25 possible Primary Score Level English Score Level

Reading 25 possible Primary Score Level English Score Level

Writing 25 possible Primary Score Level English Score Level

Overall Level Primary Language __________ Overall Level English ____________

Overall Levels: 0-24 – Basic (B) 25-48 Early Intermediate (EI) 49-68 – Intermediate (I) 69-88 – Early Advanced (EA) 89-100 – Advanced (A)

VCCALPS Administrator Signature Date

of 74

Failing Grade:How California’s School Districts Have Abandoned Children with Disabilities

[ A P R I L 2 0 1 6 ]

of 74

Acknowledgements

Contributions

Dean Conklin, Learning Rights Law Center

Antionette Dozier, Western Center on Law & Poverty

Michael Herald, Western Center on Law & Poverty

Jim Preis, Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.

Nancy Shea, Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.

Mona Tawatao, Western Center on Law & Poverty

Special Thanks

Ira Burnim, Bazelon Center on Mental Health

Walter S. Johnson Foundation

The parents, special education advocates, mental health providers

and school administrators who graciously took the time to share

their thoughts and experiences

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Lenard Weiss, John Libby, Emil Petrossian, Brandon Reilly,

David Kim, Molly Wyler and Claudia Norris

of 74

Failing Grade | i

Table of Contents

Introduction and Summary ....................................................................................................................1

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................2

Background and Methodology ..............................................................................................................3

Survey and Interview Results ................................................................................................................4

Students in need of mental health services to succeed in school are receiving

fewer services since AB 114 was enacted. .............................................................................4

Schools are not following the Child Find Requirement: Too few children are

identified and referred for services and end up in the juvenile justice system. ...............5

There is reported intersectionality between limited English proficiency and

difficulties in obtaining school-based mental health services. ...........................................7

Schools define “related services” too narrowly and thereby deprive students

in special education of the opportunity to learn and thrive. ...............................................7

When students are provided services, they are often inadequate or

the wrong services. ....................................................................................................................9

Children with challenging mental health conditions are often segregated rather

than placed in an integrated classroom setting. .................................................................11

Parents, teachers, and school personnel are often not trained on specific

behavioral interventions for students with mental illnesses. ...........................................12

Services are not provided as part of a coordinated individualized behavior

intervention plan that is designed to be implemented at school and

in the community. ....................................................................................................................13

Policy Recommendations .....................................................................................................................14

Improve and support parent participation ...........................................................................14

Parent Peer Advocacy Programs should be expanded. .......................................14

Improve Access to Services ...................................................................................................15

of 74

Failing Grade | ii

Table of Contents (cont.)

Each LEA should develop and publish an annual “Mental Health Plan.” ..........15

As a function of the Child Find mandate, LEAs should develop protocols

to assess for special education services any student brought to the LEA’s

attention by a parent or mental health provider as needing

educationally related mental health services. .......................................................16

The CDE should require LEAs to provide a wider variety of mental

health services as mandated by federal law. .........................................................16

All LEAs should make available an array of school-based mental

health services, including crisis services. ..............................................................16

Transparency and Enforcement .............................................................................................17

The CDE should take action to hold LEAs accountable for providing

mental health services that produce positive education outcomes. .................17

The CDE should hold LEAs accountable in measuring expenditures and

outcomes of mental health services. ......................................................................17

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................18

Endnotes ..................................................................................................................................................19

of 74

Failing Grade | 1

“Veronica”1 was 14 years

old when she witnessed

the murder of her twin

brother. Following this

traumatic event she

became withdrawn and

uncommunicative at school,

but she was never referred

for mental health services.

One day she became so

upset at school that she

tried to leave the school

grounds. The school

resource officer tried to

stop her and a scuffle

ensued. Rather than try

to understand what was

happening with Veronica

and whether she needed

mental health services, the

school had her arrested

and she was made a ward

of the court. Only after

being placed on probation

was Veronica referred for a

mental health assessment,

diagnosed with post-

traumatic stress disorder,

and provided mental health

services.

Introduction and SummaryVeronica’s story is just one of many reported

by California families with children in need of

mental health services at school, indicative of

an alarming trend—that many school children

who have a need for mental health services to

benefit from their education are going without

and, as a result, ending up in the juvenile

justice system. These stories have been

particularly prevalent since the obligation to

provide mental health services to students in

special education was transferred from county

mental health agencies back to local education

agencies (LEAs) five years ago. For the

previous 25 years, special education students

in California received educationally related

mental health services through an interagency

partnership between school districts and

county mental health agencies. In a dramatic

shift in 2011, the state enacted Assembly

Bill (AB) 114 eliminating the state-mandated

partnerships, charging the LEA with the sole

responsibility of providing all educationally

related mental health services needed by

students in special education. Accompanying

this transfer of responsibility was an annual

state budget allocation of over $400,000,000

earmarked for mental health services for

students in special education.2 This amount

was significantly more than the mental health

allocation under the prior system.3

Based on reports from families about their

difficulty in obtaining needed mental health

of 74

Failing Grade | 2

Summary Conclusions and RecommendationsThe major conclusions of this report are:

� Many LEAs are not complying with their

legal obligations to identify children in

need of school-based services, teach

and provide necessary school-based

mental health services and supports in

integrated settings, and to provide intensive

behavioral support services that meet each

child’s individualized, unique needs.

� Many children in need of school-based

mental health services are not getting

services or getting too few services,

resulting in school discipline or juvenile

arrests.

� Since the enactment of AB 114, there have

been fewer students receiving mental

health services in their Individual Education

Program (IEP) and fewer types of mental

health services available for students with

emotional or behavioral problems.

� Too many children who have severe mental

health conditions are learning and receiving

services in segregated settings, instead of

in classrooms with their peers.

This report recommends:

� That LEAs take immediate action to comply

with the law by (1) identifying children

in need of services, particularly before

services from LEAs, advocates for families

grew increasingly concerned. This concern

was shared by the legislature, leading Senator

Beall, Chair of the Senate Select Committee

on Mental Health, to request a state audit of

how services for students in special education

were affected by AB 114. The request focused

particularly on outcomes and accountability

for how state funds were spent.4 The final

state audit report, issued in January 2016,

confirmed the suspicions of concerned

parents, advocates and public officials. The

audit reports that there may be as many as

580,000 children who are not getting needed

school-based mental health services, and that

the California Department of Education (CDE),

the state entity responsible for AB 114 funds, is

tracking neither expenditures nor outcomes.5

Consequently there is simply too little data

for auditors to determine whether the LEAs

are meeting their responsibility to provide

necessary mental health services to school

children in special education.

Meanwhile, several advocacy organizations

whose focus includes children’s mental

health and education issues, led by Western

Center on Law and Poverty, Mental Health

Advocacy Services, and Learning Rights Law

Center,6 launched their own investigation

into the status of mental health services in

schools. Sadly, this group’s findings paint

a darker picture than the state audit, and

reveal that many LEAs are not meeting their

responsibilities to provide mental health

services to children in school, and that

California’s children are suffering as a result.

of 74

Failing Grade | 3

Background and MethodologyIn order to capture what was happening

around the state regarding the provision of

educationally related mental health services,

Western Center on Law and Poverty, Mental

Health Advocacy Services and Learning Rights

Law Center conducted written surveys and

key stakeholder interviews of parents, school

administrators, mental health providers and

special education advocates soliciting their

experiences with obtaining mental health

services as part of an IEP. We received

responses from school administrators

representing 15 school districts, special

education advocates representing more than

900 children and youth each year, mental

health providers serving children and youth

in 20 counties, and over 70 parents. The data

from the surveys were analyzed by Lois A.

Weinberg, Ph.D., Professor, California State

University Los Angeles and Jenny Chow,

M.A., Gina Cobin, M.A., Paul Luelmo, M.A.,

and Bryan Thornton, M.A., doctoral students

in the Joint Doctoral Program in Special

Education between California State University

Los Angeles and University of California Los

Angeles. This information was compiled and is

the basis of the preliminary findings below.7

taking disciplinary actions or engaging

law enforcement, and (2) providing

robust behavioral support services, like

Wraparound and Intensive Home Based

Services (IHBS), to meet children’s needs

during general class time.

� Expanding state funding for parent-peer-

advocacy programs to support parents and

families seeking services through the IEP

process.

� That each LEA develop and publish

an annual “Mental Health Plan,” in

consultation with stakeholders, which

describes in detail the full array of mental

health services available in school,

including specific behavioral support and

evidenced-based services, commitments

and plans for coordinating community-

based and school-based mental health

services, and training parents and school

personnel to engage in individualized

treatment plans, and the process and

procedures for obtaining such services.

� The legislature should require the CDE

to report annually on the outcomes for

students receiving mental health services,

develop a mechanism for tracking and

reporting expenditures related to mental

health services, and monitor the provision

of services.

of 74

Failing Grade | 4

Survey and Interview ResultsStudents in need of mental health

services to succeed in school are

receiving fewer services since AB 114

was enacted.

The overall picture painted by survey and

interview respondents is that there are fewer

students receiving mental health services as

part of an IEP and fewer types of mental health

services available for students with emotional

or behavioral problems. Moreover, students

who are receiving services at school receive

them less often and are less likely to receive

services in their general education classroom

where they are needed the most and likely to

have the greatest impact. Parents of children

with severe emotional and behavior conditions

were asked about what services, if any,

their children were receiving at school. The

following chart shows their responses.

Behind the Numbers

“Educationally Related Mental Health

Services are incredibly inconsistent

across school districts and LEAs. You

can have a great [service array] in one

area and lack quality services in another.

This lack of consistency is problematic.”

—Special Education Advocate

of 74

Failing Grade | 5

Mental health providers and special education

advocates provided similar feedback. They

also indicated that foster youth and children

in the juvenile justice system are particularly

impacted by the changes brought about by

AB 114. They often face the same problems

in obtaining mental health services at school

as other students. In particular, foster youth

are equally likely to face delays in obtaining

school-based services and difficulty in

obtaining services that are individualized and

of sufficient intensity to meet their needs.

Foster youth are also unlikely to see their

community-based providers coordinate and

align services and intervention goals with

school-based providers. For these children,

these failures often have particularly negative

outcomes, including arrests and incarceration

for school-based behavior that is directly

linked to mental disabilities.8

Schools are not following the Child

Find Requirement: Too few children are

identified and referred for services and

end up in the juvenile justice system.

According to the state audit, there are an

estimated 700,000 California children with

serious emotional disturbances but only

120,000 receiving mental health services as

part of an individualized education plan.9 Fifty

percent of parents responding to our survey

reported that their children with emotional

or behavioral disorders were not receiving

mental health services as part of an IEP.

Survey respondents and key stakeholder

interviews also revealed that many LEAs are

of 74

Failing Grade | 6

particularly unresponsive to direct requests to

provide special education services to children

with emotional and behavior problems.

They also reported that school personnel

may be aware that children are receiving

community-based and home-based mental

health services or are exhibiting symptoms

indicative of a mental health condition in the

classroom, but often do not refer the children

for a special education evaluation because

teachers and other school personnel do not

see a connection to mental health needs, and

mislabel the behavior as “bad behavior” or

criminal conduct.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) includes the Child Find mandate which

requires all school districts to identify, locate

and evaluate all children with disabilities,

regardless of the severity of their disabilities.

This obligation to identify all children who may

need special education services exists even if

the school is not providing special education

services to the child.10

This failure to identify mental health needs

often results in harsh school discipline such as

suspensions, expulsions or arrests.11 Ironically,

it is often not until a child is arrested, and

convicted, for school-based behavior, that they

are assessed and referred to mental health

services.12 There may be several causes for

this type of inaction. AB 114 realigned the

fiscal incentives for identifying students in

need of educationally related mental health

services. Since the enactment of AB 114, all

mental health services are paid out of the

Behind the Numbers

Michael is a 9-year-old, male student

with social phobia and anxiety disorders,

which included symptoms that made

leaving his room a serious obstacle.

Michael’s mother informed the school

numerous times about his condition,

and made multiple requests for a special

education assessment. The district

replied that they could not assess the

student because he could not attend

school, essentially using the child’s

mental health condition against him as

an excuse for their inaction to address it.

of 74

Failing Grade | 7

their child needed to thrive at school made

navigating the system extremely difficult.

LEAs and school districts must be held to their

obligation to provide appropriate language

access assistance to parents with limited

English proficiency so as to facilitate, rather

than erect additional barriers to such parents’

participation in IEPs and related actions

affecting their child’s school-based mental

health service needs.13

Schools define “related services” too

narrowly and thereby deprive students

in special education of the opportunity

to learn and thrive.

IDEA requires a school district to provide a

free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to

each qualified person with a disability who

is in the school district’s jurisdiction.14 The

legal definition of FAPE, as defined by IDEA,

includes both special education and “related

services.”15 The term “related services” is

intentionally broad; IDEA lists a number of

examples, including psychological services,

social work services, and counseling services,

“as may be required to assist a child with a

disability to benefit from special education.”16

The broad definition of related services

naturally correlates with the broad definition

of education performance, which includes

consideration of a student’s “academic,

social, health, emotional, communicative,

physical, and vocational needs.”17 Despite

an intentionally broad definition of related

services to support an intentionally broad

definition of educational performance, many

school districts’ general fund. This has led

mental health providers to report that school

personnel have discouraged them from

recommending that families apply for special

education services.

The survey responses clearly indicate that

the schools are not following the Child Find

obligation. As a consequence, LEAs and the

CDE should take action to require districts to

perform an independent evaluation of each

student’s eligibility for special education,

and secure an assessment of mental health

service needs whenever certain “triggering”

events occur, such as a student’s involvement

in a certain number of disciplinary incidents,

reaching a certain number of suspensions, or

when the school is contemplating contacting

police due to behavior.

There is reported intersectionality

between limited English proficiency

and difficulties in obtaining school-

based mental health services.

A common complaint made by survey and

interview respondents was that schools were

disrespectful to both the parent advocates and

the parents of students with mental health

service needs, especially for parents with

limited English proficiency. At least one legal

advocate reported that school dysfunction

coupled with lack of language access posed a

significant barrier to obtaining educationally

related mental health services. One parent

advocate stated that she could take the poor

treatment, but for parents, being mistreated

when simply trying to obtain the services that

of 74

Failing Grade | 8

bleak. Students are left without the resources

that federal law clearly intended them to have

and are forced to navigate an overwhelming

landscape without support or direction. It is

no surprise to see students underserved when

we see school districts cut holes in IDEA’s

deliberately expansive canvass.

LEAs must immediately take steps to develop

written policies and procedures to define

“related service” broadly, and to develop

a holistic review of a student’s needs. The

definition of “related service” must be clarified

so that LEAs and school districts can meet

their obligation to educate students in special

education with mental health needs on par

with their peers.

school districts have taken a remarkably

narrow view.

The school districts’ view is inconsistent with

several aspects of special education law. Child

Find is not limited to the realm of academic

performance when it comes to identifying

students who may need special education.

Federal regulations specifically include social

and emotional status, among others, as an

area of suspected disability, and educational

performance includes consideration of a

student’s academic, social, health, emotional,

communicative, physical, and vocational

needs, per the Ninth Circuit court decision in

Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v. B.S. (1996).18

Many survey respondents reported that

students need services and supports to

address behaviors stemming from mental

health conditions that impact the student’s

ability to engage in positive social peer

interactions, but that school districts do

not see such needs as part of a student’s

educational needs. The survey and interview

responses indicate that many school districts

are telling students that their mental health

and emotional well-being are not aspects of

their educational performance, or, when it

is, that the only service available to meet the

student’s unique needs is on-site counseling.

The decision to artificially extract the mental

health component from a child’s education,

or resort to a uniform service to address

varied, complex needs, reflects a myopic and

inadequate understanding of both related

services and special education. The results are

Behind the Numbers

“The kids don’t get enough, don’t get

them on time, and get them at a time

during the day that isn’t convenient, such

as during class or on a place on campus

where it’s obvious and the kids are

embarrassed.”

—Special education advocate on how

many schools deal with the need for

mental health services

of 74

Failing Grade | 9

Anna, a 16-year-old

female student, had a

history of severe behavior

and diagnoses of Major

Depressive Disorder and

Bipolar Disorder. She had

been placed in an out-of-

state residential treatment

center. When Anna came

home, the school district

offered virtually no step-

down services. She went

from 24-hour care at the

residential treatment center

to just 60 minutes a week

of in-school counseling

upon returning home.

Legal intervention was

required to halt the

regression experienced

by the student as a

result of the steep drop-

off in services and clear

systematic breakdown.

Anna is now attending

school with one-on-one

services.

When students are provided services,

they are often inadequate or the wrong

services.

Survey respondents reported that students

with challenging mental health conditions—

conditions severe enough such that counseling

or therapy is not sufficient to produce needed

behavioral changes—are receiving too few,

ineffectual, and the wrong services in school.

The services are often limited to individual

counseling services, once or twice a week.

Most reported that even when the student

received behavior support services, they were

too infrequent and were not targeted enough

to be effective.

Research shows that students with

challenging mental health conditions can

thrive in classrooms with their peers when

they receive behavioral support services,

skills training, including social skills training,

behavior coaching, mentoring services, or

other services that are designed to produce

behavior changes.19 Studies show that when

these students receive these types of services,

their school attendance and performance

improves and disciplinary actions, law

enforcement contacts, and out-of-home

placements decrease.20

Effective school-based interventions are:

� individualized, flexible, and strengths-

based;

� designed to improve behavior, social, and

communication skills;

of 74

Failing Grade | 10

behaviors in, natural settings at the school,

and giving feedback to the student.

� Skills training, including social skills

training. A teacher, a mental health

professional, or a paraprofessional under

the professional’s supervision works with

students on skills, including identifying

and addressing skills deficits and teaching

new skills or enhancing existing skills.

Many students need such assistance with

learning social skills (behaviors the student

uses to advance social objectives), anger

management skills, self-management skills,

conflict resolution skills, study skills, and/or

decision-making skills. After learning and

rehearsing skills, perhaps as part of a small

learning group, the student should practice

skills in natural settings at the school. The

trainer should observe the student in these

settings and provide feedback.

� Mentoring activities. A paraprofessional

mentor provides training, coaching and

support to further the student’s social and

communication skills at school. Mentoring

may focus on helping the student enhance

interpersonal communication, problem

solving, and conflict resolution, and relating

appropriately to other students or school

staff. The mentor engages in structured

activities to advance the goals in the

student’s school-based intervention plan.

� Periodic check-ins. The student checks

in, at the beginning of school, during the

day, and/or at the end of school, with an

adult at the school with whom the student

� provided in sufficient quantity, intensity,

and duration to prevent placement outside

a general education setting; and

� designed to be implemented in the settings

where the student naturally spends time,

including the general education classroom,

the hallway, the playground, the cafeteria,

during extracurricular activities, and for

older students, activities that support the

transition to postsecondary education or

work.21

Specific Common School-based Interventions

that are effective:22

� Individualized positive behavior supports.

School staff use what they have learned

about the student’s strengths and interests

to develop a set of individualized rewards

for the student for exhibiting appropriate

behavior. Such rewards may include

consistently delivered public praise, the

ability to earn points toward a specific

reward, or “dollars” to spend in the school’s

store on items the student chooses or

a special lunch or outing with a favorite

classmate or teacher.

� Behavior coaching. A mental health

professional, or a paraprofessional under

that professional’s supervision, helps the

student develop replacement behaviors for

behaviors that interfere with the student’s

success in achieving educational objectives.

Usually, this should include observing the

student in, and practicing replacement

of 74

Failing Grade | 11

competitive employment helps students

improve their confidence and provides

them with an opportunity to practice

social skills outside of school. School staff,

including mentors and peers, can assist

students in identifying job opportunities

and provide feedback about successes

and challenges on the job. Other services

promoting a smooth transition to adult

life, such as preparation for postsecondary

education and teaching independent living

skills, may be helpful behavior interventions

as well.

Children with challenging mental

health conditions are often segregated

rather than placed in an integrated

classroom setting.

Children with serious mental health

conditions are often sent to community day

schools, nonpublic schools, or segregated

in classrooms or resource rooms away from

their peers in general education schools. In

these schools, families and special education

advocates surveyed indicate that students

are not afforded the same opportunity to

achieve academic success as their peers or

to participate in the extracurricular activities

with their peers. Students with disabilities

and students without disabilities must be

placed in the same setting, to the maximum

extent appropriate to the education needs

of the students with disabilities. LEAs must

place a student with a disability in the

regular education environment, unless it

is demonstrated by the recipient that the

has developed, or can develop, a positive

working relationship. The staff member can

“take the student’s temperature,” and help

the student stay focused on the student’s

academic and behavior goals for the day

while taking care that the student does

not ask to check in to avoid instruction.

Also, teachers may check in with students

periodically during classes to ensure the

student is focused on goals for the day,

including during unstructured class time.

� Evidence-based therapy. A licensed

Master’s-level therapist provides therapy to

the student to help ameliorate the student’s

mental health symptoms. The therapist

should use Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or

other evidence-based practices that meet

the student’s needs. The therapist should

investigate and address the impact of any

trauma the student may have experienced.

� Peer support. Another student who has

received or is receiving behavior services

helps develop and meet goals; serves as

an advocate, mentor, or mediator; and links

the student with peers or with school-

based activities. The peer can mentor and

facilitate in ways that are both accessible

and acceptable to the student. Peer support

can be especially helpful for students

transitioning to a new school.

� Transition services, including work

opportunities. Work opportunities

incentivize students by engaging them in

vocational areas of interest, or areas in

which they have specific skills. Achieving

of 74

Failing Grade | 12

student’s needs cannot be met satisfactorily

with the use of supplementary aids and

services. Students with disabilities must

participate with nondisabled students in

both academic and nonacademic services,

including meals, recess, and physical

education, to the maximum extent appropriate

to their individual needs.

Studies show that students with disabilities,

including behavioral disabilities, who are

meaningfully included in general education

classes and other nonsegregated learning

environments with appropriate supports,

especially continuously from an early age,

have better academic outcomes such as better

attendance and higher math and reading

scores.23

Parents, teachers, and school personnel

are often not trained on specific

behavioral interventions for students

with mental illnesses.24

Because students are not provided

individualized strength-needs-based behavior

intervention plans, school staff is unaware of

school conditions or actions that might trigger

negative behavior, or how to promote positive

behavior. Parents, advocates and providers

report that school staff are rarely trained

to participate in a student’s individualized

behavior intervention plan, which often means

that a student’s negative behavior is attributed

to delinquency or behavioral problems rather

than their mental illness. They also report that

parents are almost never trained in how to

of 74

Failing Grade | 13

support school-based interventions at home

or in the community.25

Training is especially effective when done

by a trusted colleague who models the

intervention, such as the instruction of the

replacement behavior or the delivery of

positive reinforcement in the classroom.

Supervisors and trainers can observe

the teacher and provide feedback about

plan implementation. The student may

need training on working with staff on

implementing the plan, including if the student

has a role in collecting behavior data. Parents

should be trained on how to implement

interventions at home that support the

school’s plan and the child’s education goals.26

Services are not provided as part of a

coordinated individualized behavior

intervention plan that is designed to

be implemented at school and in the

community.

Although often flawed, the interagency

collaboration mandate under AB 3632, the

predecessor to AB 114, linked schools with

outside agencies. The repeal of AB 3632

dismantled that system overnight with

no replacement system. Parents, special

education advocates and providers report that

in many school districts, there is now a lack

of communication and coordination between

community-based mental health providers and

school providers, which can result in school

counselors and community providers working

at cross-purposes, or a misalignment between

school- and community-based interventions.

of 74

Failing Grade | 14

evaluation and to give a detailed rationale if

they disagree.

The IEP is supposed to serve as “the

cornerstone of a quality education for each

child with a disability,” and creating an

effective IEP, according to the U.S. Department

of Education, requires parents, teachers, other

school personnel and often the student to

“come together to look closely at the student’s

unique needs.”27 When school districts fail to

work with or even consider the assessments

of mental health providers, or to work with

parents and parent advocates, the very

purpose of an IEP is turned on its head.

Policy RecommendationsImprove and support parent

participation

Parent Peer Advocacy Programs

should be expanded.

With few exceptions, parents reported

difficulties getting appropriate mental health

services for their child. “Disrespect” was often

the word used by parents to describe their

interaction with schools when seeking mental

health services for their children, even though

by law they are equal members of the IEP

team. While respect cannot be legislated (or

litigated), there are changes in the process that

can be made to ease the problems that parents

often encounter. Expanding parent peer

advocacy programs is an important way to

address this problem. These programs would

They all reported that school-based services

are developed based on, as part of, and in

concert with, community-based intervention

plans that are designed to produce positive

behavioral changes infrequently and

inconsistently across the state.

Survey respondents working in or interfacing

with several Southern California school

districts report that their ability to advocate

effectively for mental health services for

students in special education has been

significantly hampered since the end of AB

3632. According to parent advocates, before

the end of AB 3632, they felt they had played

an important role in identifying children who

needed mental health services. Now they

report that the schools are disinterested in

working with them to obtain appropriate

mental health services for the children who

need them and are generally reluctant to

provide services at all. Before the end of AB

3632, these parent advocates could turn to

their local department of mental health to

troubleshoot if they ran into problems at a

school, but now this support is no longer

available. Survey respondents also reported

that outside providers have been denied

access to the campus or a classroom for

students they treat.

Further, mental health evaluations done

by community-based providers are often

excluded from the special education

assessment. While schools have the

responsibility to conduct the assessment, they

should be required to consider any outside

of 74

Failing Grade | 15

the unmet need for mental health services

and an analysis of the barriers to meeting

the need and document the aggregate

use, cost, including funding source, and

education outcomes of mental health

services administered within the district

from the prior academic year.

� Service use should be reported by type of

services students had been provided the

year prior and should include the frequency

and location of those services.

� Discuss protocols for coordinating

interventions with community-based

providers.

� Include a training plan for parents and

school personnel to support the school-

based and community-based mental

health interventions for each student with

services.

� Have service outcomes that include, on an

aggregate basis, academic achievement,

behavior, discipline, juvenile justice contact,

relevant testing results, and graduation

rate of students who receive mental health

services before or during the academic

year.28

� Be made publicly available.

include experienced peer advocates who

can support and mentor the parent through

what often seems like a very intimidating and

complicated process.

Improve Access to Services

Each LEA should develop and publish an

annual “Mental Health Plan.”

The Mental Health Plan should be developed

in consultation with stakeholders, including,

but not limited to, parents, special education

and mental health advocates, community

mental health providers, child welfare

advocates, and county mental health

professionals, and should:

� Describe in detail the full scope of mental

health services that are available to children

with low, moderate and severe mental

health conditions.

� Identify individuals within the district

who work with parents in obtaining

educationally related mental health

services as part of an IEP, and coordinating

community-based and school-based

interventions, whether through an IEP

or not.

� Include aggregate data, by race, ethnicity,

national origin, color, gender, gender

identity, sexual orientation, age, and grade

level, showing the number of students

receiving mental health services as well

as the number of students receiving each

type of mental health service provided.

The plan should also include an estimate of

of 74

Failing Grade | 16

designed to meet a student’s unique needs

and prepare him or her for further education,

employment, and independent living. IDEA’s

implementing regulations state that federally

mandated related services include, but are

not limited to: behavioral services, outpatient

mental health counseling services, parent

training and counseling, family therapy,

social work services in schools, planning and

case management, psychological services,

psychiatric services for diagnostic and

evaluation purposes, therapeutic recreation,

and/or some combination of these services.

This list of related services is not exhaustive

and may include other services if required to

assist a child with a disability to benefit from

an education.29 The mental health needs of

California’s students are complex and unique;

surely they cannot all be addressed with the

same uniform treatment that the authors

are presently seeing. IDEA lists a variety

of services for a reason, and LEAs should

consider this array when developing an

individualized program for their students. The

LEA mental health plan described above will

assist in ensuring that LEAs no longer resort to

a singular service when attempting to address

multiple, complex needs.

All LEAs should make available an array

of school-based mental health services,

including crisis services.

School-based mental health services,

including behavioral services, are necessary

to afford students with emotional and

behavioral problems equal opportunities to

As a function of the Child Find mandate, LEAs

should develop protocols to assess for special

education services any student brought to the

LEA’s attention by a parent or mental health

provider as needing educationally related

mental health services.

LEAs should be required to formalize a written

procedure to assess all such children brought

to the LEA’s attention by a parent or provider.

LEAs should immediately develop a plan to

require districts to perform an evaluation of

each student’s eligibility for special education

(or authorize an independent evaluation) and/

or facilitate/secure an evaluation of whether

mental health services are needed. In addition,

LEAs should develop protocols to evaluate

students’ mental health needs whenever

certain “triggering” events occur; for example,

the student is involved in a certain number of

disciplinary incidents, has a certain number

of suspensions, has been referred to school-

based police, or has been arrested.

The CDE should require LEAs to provide a

wider variety of mental health services as

mandated by federal law.

One of the recurring complaints in our findings

is the lack of an array of effective mental

health services offered by the schools. Instead,

counseling is often the only service available;

even then, it may be delivered as academic

counseling rather than mental health therapy.

IDEA requires that public schools provide

a free and appropriate education which

includes “related services” to its students in

special education. These services must be

of 74

Failing Grade | 17

survey and interview responses used for this

report indicate this is not being done. Explicit

requirements for behavioral services and

supports and evidence-based mental health

programs in schools are needed, and only CDE

can provide the leadership to ensure that this

happens.

The CDE should hold LEAs accountable in

measuring expenditures and outcomes of

mental health services.

The state audit revealed that currently, no

mechanism is in place to track mental health

expenditures and practical outcomes for

students who receive these services. Data and

information is crucial in judging a program’s

effectiveness, both with regard to cost and

outcomes. This report’s recommendations

above for LEAs to implement annual mental

health plans must be supplemented by

better oversight from the CDE. Monitoring

is essential to ensure that these services are

being provided in a manner according to state

and federal law, and that inconsistency—in

so much as meeting a child’s needs—is

minimized between districts. The nonfeasance

of the state has created a situation where a

child in “LEA A” might be getting significantly

different services than a child with a similar

need in “LEA B,” with neither being able to

testify with any certainty as to the strength

or success of the education these children

receive. The CDE must hold LEAs accountable

to the annual mental health plan established

above, continually monitor the spending

and outcomes of these LEAs to ensure their

advance academically and graduate. They also

provide students with the opportunity to be

educated in neighborhood schools along with

their peers without disabilities. For example,

Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports

(PBIS) is a framework or approach for assisting

school personnel in adopting and organizing

evidence-based behavioral interventions

into an integrated continuum that enhances

academic and social behavior outcomes for

all students. Only 53 percent of the school

administrators surveyed reported that they

had a clear policy for handling a student in a

mental health crisis. To serve their students,

schools need to identify effective programs

for treating mental health concerns, provide

school environments that are positive and

conducive to mental wellness, and ultimately

ensure that systems are in place to prevent

and respond appropriately to any mental

health crisis.

Transparency and Enforcement

The CDE should take action to hold LEAs

accountable for providing mental health

services that produce positive education

outcomes.

Since the repeal of AB 3632, the CDE has

offered some clarification, but essentially no

direction. With little guidance from the state,

LEAs adapted to the best of their ability, but

with varying results. A major criticism raised is

the inconsistency and inadequacy of services

across districts. Variability is not a problem

as such, so long as individual needs are

being met within each district; however, the

of 74

Failing Grade | 18

effectiveness, and work with LEAs that are

shown to be substandard to ensure that every

child in California receives the services he

or she deserves to benefit from his or her

education.

ConclusionThe parents, mental health providers,

special education advocates, and school

administrators who responded to surveys

about the state of educationally related mental

health services provide much-needed insight

into actions that must be taken to ensure that

all children have an opportunity to do well

academically, to graduate and to build the

academic, social and life skills necessary for

success.

of 74

Failing Grade | 19

Endnotes1 The real names of the children described in this report have been changed to protect their privacy.2 California Department of Education, Available Funding and Spending Parameters (September 2013), http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/avlblfndsrcspndngpar.asp.3 See AB 3632–AB 114 Transition of Educationally Related Mental Health Services Q & A (California Alliance of Child and Family Services) at http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/CSI_2013_06_03c_AB_3632_AB_114b.pdf.4 The California Department of Education (CDE) and four special education local plan areas (SELPAs) were selected as subjects for the audit.5 California State Auditor, Report Number 2015-112, “Student Mental Health Services: Some Students’ Services Were Affected by a New State Law, and the State Needs to Analyze Student Outcomes and Track Service Costs,” January 19, 2016, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2015-112/index.html.6 Western Center on Law and Poverty is a statewide legal organization that advocates in the courts, counties and capital to secure health care and other basic needs for low-income Californians. Western Center’s work on behalf of children with mental health needs includes obtaining a groundbreaking settlement obtained in 2011 that requires that California children in foster care or at risk of removal from their families receive intensive home- and community-based mental health services. Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. (MHAS) is a private nonprofit law firm established to provide free legal services to people with mental disabilities. MHAS assists both children and adults, with an emphasis on obtaining government benefits and services, protecting rights, and fighting discrimination. MHAS has advocated for children and their families to obtain educationally related mental health services for over 30 years. Founded in 2005, Learning Rights Law Center seeks to achieve education equity for low-income and disadvantaged students through direct services, direct advocacy litigation, and parent training. Learning Rights seeks to ensure that all students are provided with equitable access to the public education system, especially those students with mental health needs. Mental health services are an essential aspect of many students’ lives, and Learning Rights fights daily to ensure that these services are delivered with the appropriate care and continuity.7 In addition to conducting surveys and interviews, the authors of this report made Public Records Act (PRA) requests to the California Department of Education and six local education agencies seeking information on the expenditure of AB 114 funds for mental health services and descriptions of the services provided. A review of the responses to this PRA revealed that there is no uniform way that the local education agencies

and school districts track AB 114 money, making it difficult to discern how the money is being spent and on what services, if any. Further, there appear to be great discrepancies between school districts in terms of transparency, expenditures and services. This supports the findings of the state audit that the lack of transparency in the expenditure of AB 114 funds makes it impossible to monitor, assess and ultimately improve services.8 See Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), School-to-prison pipeline, http://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/.9 California State Auditor Report 2015-112, p. 58, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-112.pdf.10 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3). The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Education Department has accepted child find plans that include door-to-door surveys, brochure mailings, public education programs and other public meetings, physician referrals, contacts with day care providers, and surveys of private school personnel. See Luling, TX Indep. School Dist., 1975–1985 EHLR 257:417.11 Bazelon Center For Mental Health, The Role of Specialty Mental Health Courts in Meeting the Needs of Juvenile Offenders, discusses the connection between school discipline, failures to identify children with mental health needs and the juvenile justice system. See pp. 8–9. Available at http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DkVxLF-KoUI%3D&tabid=142.12 Id.; see also Department of Health Care Services, Expanding Juvenile Mental Health Courts in the Children’s System of Care (discussing California’s juvenile mental health courts), available at http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/dataandstats/reports/Mental%20Health/JMHCPaper.pdf.13 See U.S. Department of Education’s Internal OCR Staff Guidance: Title VI Standards for Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents (November 5, 2010) at https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Documents/ESOL/OCR%20Guidance%20on%20EL%20Parent%20Communication.pdf.14 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).15 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).16 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(a).17 Seattle School District v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1996).18 Id.19 See U.S. Dep’t of Education, New Accountability Framework Raises the Bar for State Special Education Programs (Jun. 24, 2014) (quoting U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: “Every child, regardless of income, race, background, or disability can succeed if provided the opportunity to learn. We know that when students with disabilities are held to high expectations and have access to the general curriculum in the regular classroom, they excel. We must be honest about student performance, so that we can give all students the supports and services they need to succeed.”).20 Way to Go: School Success for Children with Mental

of 74

http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/avlblfndsrcspndngpar.asp

http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/avlblfndsrcspndngpar.asp

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/CSI_2013_06_03c_AB_3632_AB_114b.pdf



http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2015-112/index.html

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2015-112/index.html

http://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/

http://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-112.pdf

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-112.pdf

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DDkVxLF-KoUI%253D%26tabid%3D142

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DDkVxLF-KoUI%253D%26tabid%3D142

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/dataandstats/reports/Mental%2520Health/JMHCPaper.pdf



https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Documents/ESOL/OCR%2520Guidance%2520on%2520EL%2520Parent%2520Communication.pdf




Failing Grade | 20

groundbreaking-collaboration/.29 34 C.F.R. Section 104.33(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. Part 300 Appendix A (2001).

Health Needs (Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law) at http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=oVwByHXIK20%3d&tabid=104.21 Ira Burnim, School-Based Behavior Services, p. 3 (Memorandum on file at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, October 2015).22 Bullet points are quoted from id., pp. 3–6.23 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education, Policy Statement of Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (September 14, 2015).24 Mental health advocates representing well over 20 counties reported that mental health services for children with severe emotional or behavior conditions are often provided by interns, rather than licensed and experienced child psychiatrists, clinicians, or trained and experienced paraprofessionals who are guided by such licensed professionals. Survey respondents reported that the school-based personnel providing counseling services often do not have the credentials, education, or training to provide evidence-based mental health services or behavior support services that have been shown to produce positive behavior changes.25 A report describing the benefits of parent training and optimism in the intervention plan on student outcomes. Combining Parent Education in Positive Behavior Support and Optimism Training to Improve Child and Family Outcomes, NADD Bulletin Volume XI Number 6 Article 1, available at: http://thenadd.org/modal/bulletins/v11n6a1~.htm.26 The Official Comments from 1999 to the Federal Regulations under IDEA, published in the March 12, 1999 Federal Register (Volume 64, No. 48, at p. 12,406 et seq.) state: “The definition of ‘parent counseling and training’ should be changed to recognize the more active role acknowledged for parents under the IDEA Amendments of 1997 as participants in the education of their children. Parents of children with disabilities are very important participants in the education process for their children. Helping them gain the skills that will enable them to help their children meet the goals and objectives of the IEP or IFSP will be a positive change for parents, will assist in furthering the education of their children, and will aid the schools as it will create opportunities to build reinforcing relationships between each child’s educational program and out-of-school learning” (emphasis added) (at p. 12,549).27 U.S. Department of Education, A Guide to the Individualized Education Program at http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html.28 Some school districts are conducting reviews of their disciplinary practices and special education services with particular attention to identifying implicit biases, stereotype threats, racial anxiety and other unconscious phenomena that could produce disparities. More school districts should take steps to examine the intersection between race, disability, and school discipline as part of the Mental Health Plan development. http://dredf.org/2015/03/26/antioch-school-officials-agree-to-

of 74

http://dredf.org/2015/03/26/antioch-school-officials-agree-to-groundbreaking-collaboration/

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DoVwByHXIK20%253d%26tabid%3D104

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DoVwByHXIK20%253d%26tabid%3D104

http://thenadd.org/modal/bulletins/v11n6a1~.htm

http://thenadd.org/modal/bulletins/v11n6a1~.htm

http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html



Proposed on 05/13/16

SELPA STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE

2016-2017

Date Room August 26 TBD September 16 Oak Room D October 21 Oak Room D November 18 Oak Room D December 16 Oak Room D January 20 Oak Room D February 17 Oak Room D March 17 Oak Room D April 21 Oak Room D May 19 Oak Room D

Regular Meetings are held Monthly on Friday's

8:30 – 11-30 a.m Chair: Adam Stein, SELPA Director

####################################################################################

of 74