Skip to Content


Improving Special Education Services (ISES)
Stakeholders Meeting

Workgroup Recommendations
December 5, 2007

Workgroup #1: CA Strategic Plan for the Recruitment, Preparation, and Retention of Special Education Personnel Workgroup

Workgroup Purpose and Projected Outcomes:


  1. Look at the existing state assessments in terms of program improvement (e.g., APS,LRE)
  2. CFTL-Systemic Approach (community college to BTSA) Special Education needs to be considered in the survey; result in legislation; explore legislative approaches; pay attention to all geographical aspects
  3. Labor Relations Environment-must be recognized in CA. Look for common threads. Possible: Legislation Policy Committee Representatives involved with process
  4. Legislative Policy Committees - CFT, CTA - may be key stakeholders
  5. Safeguards in Legislation and Integrity of Process

Prioritized Recommendation:
Move forward with an E-Survey on Teaching and Learning Conditions and focus on the school site as the unit of analysis.

Workgroup #2: LRE Workgroup

Indicator #5: Least Restrictive Environment


Workgroup #3: Preschool Workgroup

Indicator #12: Part C to Part B Transition


Transition is the accountability to timelines at the third birthday and the facilitation of family services continuing from infant into preschool with the support of the DR access tool.

  1. Target recruitment for leadership people/SELPA to attend SEECAP
    • Transition is a key focus for symposium and special events
  2. SEEDS Transition handbook
  3. Look at how data relates to change in practice
  4. Training over time (ex: Special Quest)
  5. Further explore National Early Childhood Transition Initiative (WRRC)

Indicator # 7: Preschool Assessment


  1. Recognize the growth and development of DR Access
  2. Encourage continued awareness and capacity building by all stakeholders (ex:Family, Head Start, ECSE)
  3. Previous recommendations to continue:
    • Statewide level list serve (IHE, SELPA, etc)
    • Collaboration between CDE, CDD, and DDS
    • Quarterly website updates
    • Information access for ECSE
    • Continued need for all on DR Access

Indicator # 6: Preschool Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)


LRE is more than the presence of children with disabilities in early childhood programs. It is the full, active participation in the curriculum and activities with appropriate supports, accommodations, and adaptations as needed.

  1. Leadership awards
    • Contact Kathleen Finn to bring back awards
    • Special Quest teams- give awards for team building
    • SEEDS model sites
  2. Interagency Handbook (SEEDS/CDE)- available on web and for purchase from CDE press

Workgroup #4: Parent Involvement Workgroup

Indicator #8: Parent Involvement


  1. Summaries of the self-monitoring data are prepared and distributed by districts to local partners (PTIs, FECs, FRCs, etc)
  2. Have CalSTAT set a date and venue for a forum/workgroup to prepare a plan for using the NCSEAM and the transparent, collaborative use of the tool and its findings
  3. The spacing between questions on the parent survey be increased (but maintain the two page length) to make it more visually accessible

Workgroup #5: Disproportionality Workgroup

Indicator #9: Disproportionality Overall
Indicator #10: Disproportionality Disability

Recommendation #1:

  1. Look at School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT) document
    • Components of solid instruction
    • Aligned to framework
    • Existing tool/common use
    • Coherent message from the state
  2. Analyze existing date pull out factors common to SPP #9 and #10(CDE analysis)
  3. Review New Jersey document to augment and enhance existing state analysis and monitoring
  4. Components of RtI model used within district
  5. LRE document (SAIT)

Recommendation #2:

  1. Develop a set of questions that identify or explain disproportionality within a district:
    • Allow for disproportionality exceptions. Factors external to district that explain disproportionality (private NPS/group homes within a district)
    • Look at CAPA waiver/exception process

Recommendation #3:

  1. Develop methodology/tool to structure corrective actions based on tools/evaluative processes based on Recommendation #1 and #2
  2. Corrective actions tied to specific improvements

Workgroup #6: Transition Workgroup

Indicator # 13: Secondary Transition Goals and Services
Indicator # 14: Post-school


  1. Workability and CASEMIS data systems to be totally merged.
  2. CDE to enter into a MOU with DR, EDD, Community Colleges,and CSUs to extract data based on social security numbers from CASEMIS one year out
  3. Post-secondary follow-up data:
    • 2006-2007 data used to establish baseline. The target goal become 90% of all districts to meet that baseline, then it increases annually by 2%
  4. CASEMIS - new fields:
    • Age appropriate transition assessments
    • Annual IEP goals (transition)
    • Transition services
    • Post-secondary goals are already in
  5. Training and technical assistance from CDE on transition to be targeted to high school/post-secondary school special education case managers
  6. Transition specialist certificate program:
    • Local
    • Through the credentialing program/CTC

Workgroup #7: Compliance Indicators Workgroup

Indicator #16: Complaints


  1. Show data on the number of allegations vs. complaints because there could be multiple allegations under one complaint
  2. Do both Web cast and live presentations that are accessible to a wider audience, especially parents
  3. Provide training that includes private BAR representatives that would allow for a parent/guardian perspective
  4. Provide access to reports, evidence of findings, and reasons for reconsideration

Indicator #17: Due Process


  1. Allow for joint case where there is no overlapping responsibility between Regional Center and OAH.

Indicator #18: Hearing Requests


  1. Provide SELPA with information that would then allow them to provide assistance to the LEAs

Indicator #19: Mediation


In general, the group recommends:

  1. Balanced input from different stakeholders
  2. Transparency in the process, documentation and data
  3. Ongoing training


IDEAS that Work!

Project READ is a California Department of Education, Special Education Division project funded through a federal competitively-awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A120019) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.