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.
1
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
2
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
3
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 21 st 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.
4
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 7501,000 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.
5
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.
Other
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.
SEC
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
6
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.
7