Chancellor S Office

Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges

Title 5 Rewrite Workgroup February 10, 2014 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM

Meeting Summary

Title 5 Rewrite Workgroup members present: Michelle Christenson– Student Senate Representative Sarah Funes – Student Senate Representative Maria Gonzalez – Faculty/Counseling Academic Senate Representative Scott Hamilton – Faculty/Counseling Academic Senate Representative Grace Hanson – CAPED Representative Jon James – Regional Coordinators/Academic Senate Representative George Marcopulos – LD Field Advisory Group Representative Denise Simpson – C2C & Autism Representative Patie Wegman – Deaf & Hard of Hearing Advisory Group Representative Stephen Johnson – Chief Student Services Officers Representative (via phone) Willy Duncan - - Chief Executive Officers/Presidents Representative CCCCO Staff: Scott Valverde - DSPS Scott Berenson - DSPS Chelle Ellenberger - DSPS Julia Blair – Legal Affairs staff attorney Contractor Jan Galvin – The Galvin Group Catherine Campisi – The Galvin Group

Review the purpose of the workgroup; review agenda

Jan Galvin reviewed the purpose of this meeting which was to discuss and where possible, reach consensus on proposed changes to the 10 Disability Sections and engage in further discussion and consensus on staffing, minimum qualifications, provision of academic adjustments, auxiliary aids and services and replacement term for SEC. Opening Remarks

Scott Valverde discussed his conversations with Julia Blair from Legal Affairs regarding proposed changes and suggested revisions due to legal considerations. He reminded the workgroup that it was advisory in nature. Many stakeholder opinions need to be taken into consideration as part of shared governance, but ultimately the Chancellor will make the final decision on which regulation will move forward. However, the workgroup will be kept abreast of the process.

Legal Review

Julia Blair – Legal Affairs reminded the workgroup not to exceed the authority of the statute, and to avoid vagueness. The regs are intended to provide clarity and specificity to what is authorized in statute. The workgroup needs to refer to the Education Code as it develops proposed changes to ensure congruence with the Education Code.

Any changes, however minor will require an explanation and defense in a “Statement of Reasoning.” For example, changing the terminology of DDL to ID. Jan will begin that process and communicate with workgroup members for the required information. In addition, the ‘Definitions Page’ will be developed to define new words or taxonomy used in the regulations and how they connect to the authorizing statute. For example, we will need to explain that support services include auxiliary aids and academic adjustments.

Review of Disability Categories

Historically, the Disability Sections of Title 5 regulations have been a mix of functional limitations and specific diagnoses. It was suggested that Section 56030 Reporting Requirements would be a good place to clarify that categorization should be a result of the functional limitations of the student rather than the actual disability, and provide examples of preferred placement such as a student who is blind due to diabetes being counted in the Blind and Low Vision category. Patie Wegman suggested a revised verification form might be helpful to assist coordinators in making the correct decisions. The workgroup agreed that consistency in required documentation throughout the sections was important and to ensure student self report was identified as a critical part of the verification of disability discussions. There was some discussion about the colleges that categorize students with the highest weight factor. It is hoped that the data from the forthcoming weight study may lead to the Chancellor’s Office adjusting the weights to better reflect the actual cost of services including the time, services and auxiliary aids provided to students in each cohort. Scott Hamilton, with concurrence from both the CEO and CSSO representatives, agreed that DSPS program reviews were helpful in ensuring that colleges report correctly and accurately, among other overarching benefits, and should be reinstated. District audits would also incorporate reviews for compliance with the new regulations. Section 56032 – Physical Disability. Regulation approved with suggested changes, some corrections/additions to the implementing guidelines. Section 56034 – Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Regulation approved with changes, implementing guidelines sent back for changes/additions Section 56036 – Learning Disability. Discussion centered on whether the draft language proposed by the LDFA “verification by a CCC certified LD Specialist” in the regulation would be considered creating an additional mandate, as the Learning Disabilities Eligibility and Services Model (LDESM) is not currently defined as such in the authorizing statute or in the Title 5 regulations. Therefore, colleges testing for LD using the LDESM (although supported at the system-level as the CCC’s model) is not currently a statutory or regulatory mandate. We have been advised in previous meetings that using the regulation process to create additional, unfunded mandates could be problematic. A vote was taken and there was a clear majority (10-1) to move the terminology requiring verification by a Certified LD Specialist to the implementing guidelines. Several people indicated the Guidelines need to have clear and strong language on this issue. It was pointed out that ABI and LD can coexist, therefore the language saying they cannot needs to be changed. Julia Blair – Legal Affairs clarified that any such statement basically indicating that students with ABI should not be counted as LD should be placed in the implementing guidelines. There was much discussion on the large number of students who do not have their functional limitations verified under the LDESM. Currently they are placed in “Other” and one outcome of the Disability Policy Workgroup was to further define that section and remove that number of students either into the LD category or some other category such as Information Processing Disorder. Much more discussion was required to refine the regulations for this section and it was agreed that both Scott Valverde and Jan Galvin would address this issues with the Learning Disabilities Field Advisory group at their February 21st meeting.

Regarding students with learning issues or who were classified as LD by another entity, by consensus, (10-1) it was agreed to propose a new category such as Information Processing Disorder or LD Other. Section 56038 – Acquired Brain Injury. Regulations approved with changes, implementing guidelines approved with changes. Section 56040 – Intellectual Disability. Regulation and implementing guidelines approved with changes. 56042 – Mental Health Disability. Currently there are exclusionary conditions specified in the regulations. This regulation and implementing guideline will be sent back for further review and go to the CCCO Mental Health Specialist for input from her advisory committee. Section 56044 – Health Conditions and Other Disabilities. Regulation approved with changes. Patie Wegman will review the Speech Disorders part of this section implementing guideline. New Section – Blind and Low Vision. Consensus to add this new section and regulation and implementing guidelines approved with changes. New Section – Autism. Consensus (10-1) to add this new section, send back for further review and feedback regarding use of the term “Autism Spectrum Disorder which includes ’Asperger’s”, and rewriting the Guidelines where symptoms are listed to make them more education related including the provision of examples of the types of accommodations required in a post-secondary education setting. New Section – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD). After discussion, consensus was reached (10-1) to add this new section. The regulation and guidelines sent back for changes.

It was also suggested that in the definitions section it be made clear that academic adjustments do not include fundamental alterations to the curriculum. That statement will also be written in to the guidelines for student responsibilities and in the definition section. NOTE: As each draft regulation and guideline section is amended based on your feedback, it will either be posted to the website with notification via email or each section sent to you as an attachment.

Coordinator/Director

The discussion covered the role of the DSPS Coordinator/Director, including greater explanation of the day-to day duties and whether to advocate for a full-time coordinator in the regulations. Pattie Wegman posted the question to the listserv and received 85 responses. Albeit, the questions were posed without the contextual background, but the response was: 45 would prefer a Full-Time Coordinator; 35 would prefer a Full-Time Coordinator with waiver (based on number of students served and amount of the DSPS allocation) and 1 for expanded list of Coordinator duties.

Willy Duncan, representing the CEO’s and Stephen Johnson, representing the CSSO’s were not willing to recommend mandating a full time coordinator without additional funding to support that position. Jon James suggested a threshold for the requirement such as over 750- 1,000 students and a budget exceeding $500,000. Willy Duncan suggested investigating the use of Student Success funds to support part of the cost of the DSPS Coordinator salary and benefits, as, it can be asserted that a FT Coordinator is needed to address student needs in a timely manner so that students with disabilities have the best chance to succeed in their postsecondary education experience. George Marcopulos recommended tying the base amount to a full time coordinator. Scott Hamilton reiterated that program reviews would be extremely helpful in ensuring the coordinator overseeing DSPS met the minimum qualifications and had sufficient time devoted to the program.

Based on a vote of 9-2, the workgroup felt strongly that they would like to move forward with the recommendation for a full time coordinator with a waiver criteria. The group realizes they are advisory, but felt the need to reflect the clear consensus of the field for the need for the FT Coordinator in most cases. Counting Contacts

Patie Wegman surveyed the field on the ideas raised by the workgroup at the last meeting regarding how many contacts should be required to count a student as having been served by DSPS. Currently, the regulations require 4 contacts per year. The votes were: 31 for one contact per year; 38 for one contact per term/semester/quarter; 11 counting all contacts, and 5 for leaving the current regulation of 4 contacts per year. Willy Duncan indicated it was hard to understand the rationale for the current requirement of 4 contacts. He and Stephen Johnson were not in favor of increasing the number of contacts required. Jan Galvin and Catherine Campisi will work on wording for the concept of 1contact per term.

Minimum Qualifications

The workgroup ran out of time to have the discussion on minimum qualifications. In hand we have proposed minimum qualifications for counselors and LD specialists that will be discussed at next meeting. Work will continue on suggested changes to the Coordinator minimum qualifications and development of HTC/Alt Media minimum qualifications.

The new term Educational Accommodations Plan was proposed (10-1) as a replacement for the term Student Education Contract

Special Classes

The term Educational Assistance Classes was approved (7-4) by the workgroup as the new term for Special Classes.

Priority Registration

Although only mentioned as a support service in the current regulations, there have been many questions from the colleges to the Chancellor’s Office DSPS staff on how students with disabilities obtain and keep priority registration under the new Student Success regulations. Priority registration is in another area of regulations and guidance will be forthcoming on how this affects students with disabilities. Nothing significant will be added to our regulations concerning priority registration.

Next meeting date

The next meeting will be held at the Chancellor’s Office on: April 7, 2014

Next Steps

There is a lot of work scheduled to be completed by all workgroup participants prior to the final meeting in early April. Many sections where you gave approval for the regulation have moved on to Julia for legal review. If Julia requests substantive changes these will be sent back out to you for your approval. Otherwise, as the relevant guidelines are drafted they will either be posted to the CO website with notification to you via email or sent to you as an attachment.

As we move closer to April, we may decide we need a conference call to further discuss some issues. If so one will be scheduled.at a time to suit the majority of workgroup participants.