Santa Barbara Unified School District
SSEPAC Meeting
January 28, 2015
4:00-6:00pm
Minutes
Meeting called to order to SSEPAC Co-Chair Melissa Fitch. Introductions of all
attendees completed. John Schettler, Director of Special Education will co-facilitate
tonight’s meeting.
Agenda Item 1: Co-Chair called for a vote regarding recording the SSEPAC meetings
for the purpose of providing the note-taker with an opportunity to go back and
review the recording if there was a question on what was said at the meeting.
Approved by TB, seconded by HA. Motion Passed.
This month’s meeting will be recorded based upon passage of this motion.
Review of last month’s minutes.


Section 1: Correction to lettering vs. bullet point referred to Draft Special Ed
Strategic Plan
Item F: 3rd grade says sharing, should say “Dyslexia”. 4th grade needs to be
filled in.
Motion to approve minutes with the two corrections as noted. Approved by MP,
seconded by MK. Motion passed at 4:13pm.
Agenda Item 2 – Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Presentation and
Feedback
Mike Stieren and John Schettler provided an overview of the LCAP feedback survey
and reviewed the LCAP Powerpoint Presentation.
Question from parent, “Are Students with Disabilities (SWD) one of the LCAP
subgroups?” They are not a subgroup as outlined by the state Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF), however, they are a subgroup, which Santa Barbara Unified School
District (SBUSD) includes in the strategic plan and takes data.
Strategic plan, and 4 AIM’s reviewed. Refer to the Powerpoint presentation for
detailed information.
Review of the 13/14 LCAP Process provided (is also outlined in the powerpoint
presentation).
1
District Plan for Year 2 includes consultation and review of achievement data with
stakeholder groups, present plan for review and comment to variety of stakeholder
groups, opportunity for public input and then adoption of the plan. Individual
school sites will hold meetings to provide opportunity for input and feedback
related to the LCAP. There will also be public hearings, or time dedicated at SBUSD
Board Meetings, to review this information.
Principal noted that the input from parents, students and other stakeholders is an
essential part of the process. Board member shared that from this group,
information specific to the intersection between LCAP and SWD’s will be valuable.
Note: Data provided with achievement scores is outdated (from 12-13 school year)
due to the fact that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
assessment administered during the 13-14 school year was a “trial run” and no
scores were reported.
Clarification: There is a district LCAP plan, and then each individual site has their
own LCAP plan which is a site specific plan to meet the district’s LCAP goal. The
special education department has a strategic plan.
Parent noted that because multiple plans and documents share similar titles (e.g.
district LCAP, school site LCAP, strategic plans) that it would be helpful to have
different and more clear titles in order to refer to the separate documents with more
ease and less confusion.
Parent question, “Should a group of special education parents provide a larger voice
at a board meeting in order to get needs of the group heard?” Parent noted that it
appeared that based upon last year’s board meetings, the special interest groups
that had a larger presence had LCAP items that matched up with their interests.
John Schettler noted that tonight’s meeting is a forum to obtain input from the
special education parent group.
Clarification about LCAP funding: LCAP did not provide “more money” it changed
the way in which districts can spend the money and the process by which
stakeholders are involved in those decisions.
Data from 13/14 reviewed.
Parent question, “Can students fall in more than one subgroup in the data?” Answer
is yes, they can. If a student falls into more than one subgroup their data will be
used in each subgroup.
Parent question, “Are there really no SWD that completed A-G requirements?”
Answer, data shows that the area of difficulty for most students is the Math
requirement. District requirement for a diploma is to pass Algebra 1. The A-G
requirement is for a student to pass Algebra 2 and Geometry.
2
Parent question, “Does SWD include students on 504 plans?” Answer is no, it is
students with active IEP’s (at the time of data collection) only.
Review of Previously Established LCAP goals. The 8 priorities are established by the
state. The sub-bullets are established by the district.
Group broke up into elementary and secondary subgroups to have discussion about
the feedback survey. District facilitator called group back together for whole group
input/share out. Other opportunities for parent input will be many (e.g. site
meetings, board meetings, other stakeholder groups) and parents are encouraged to
attend.
LCAP Feedback Survey, group input
1. Based upon the data, what adjustments and/or additions to the 13/14 goals would
you recommend for English Learner (EL) Students?
 Extended learning time (outside of regular school day) maintaining and/or
increasing that time
2. Based on the data, what adjustments and/or additions to the 13/14 goals would
you recommend for students with disabilities?
 Extended learning opportunities with paraeducator support for access to
enrichment activities
 Alignment of curriculum for special education classes with common core
 More intervention
 Having students be transition ready, more inclusive language (not just
“college and career readiness”)
 Does the LCAP pertain to our special education students aged 18-22?
 More diverse data within the subgroup of SWD’s (e.g. differentiation of 504
vs. IEP, students who require alternative assessments)
 Guaranteed curriculum with equal access for SWD’s
 Access to assistive technology
 Pathways to college, ensuring that all staff and parents understand the range
of transition options/services/etc.
 Co-Teaching and Inclusion
 School counselor education, special education staff education related to A-G
requirements
 4 year plan vs. 6 year plan for transition planning (e.g. starting in 6th grade)
3. Based on the data, what adjustments and/or additions to the 13/14 goals would
you recommend for economically disadvantaged students?
 Increased access to technology or programs/interventions that sites offer
 Course access, related to A-G requirements
3
4. Based on the data, what adjustments and/or additions to the 13/14 goals would
you recommend for Hispanic/Latino students?
 Language access for families, language and interfaces be in the family’s
language of dominance
5. Based on the data, what adjustments and/or additions to the 13/14 goals would
you recommend for all students in the district?
 See 1-4 above
6. [Secondary Response Only] Based on the data, what adjustments and/or
additions to the 13/14 goals would you recommend for increasing/improving the
numbers/percentage of all students enrolled and successful in Honors/AP/IB
courses?
 Move to 6 year plan for transition planning (start in 6th grade)
 Co-teaching in Honors/AP/IB courses
7. [Secondary Response Only] Based on the data, what adjustments and/or
additions to the 13/14 goals would you recommend for increasing/improving the
numbers/percentage of each subgroup (EL, SWD, SED, Hispanic/Latino) students
enrolled and successful in Honors/AP/IB courses?
 None
8. What data do you think is missing? What other information would be helpful in
answering the questions above?
 Separate data on college readiness within SWD’s (separate students with
504’s or learning disabilities from students in moderate/severe programs)
 Make new priorities for special education students, they have some of the
lowest numbers in terms of access yet aren’t targeted in the plan
 Transition and secondary planning to start sooner to ensure access for SWD’s
 Linkage with feeder elementary school districts regarding identification of
special education students
 How many of our SWD’s are also English Learner (EL) students?
 What is our range of programs to meet the needs of SWD’s?
Agenda Item 3 – Reports
GVJHS Principal: Variety of special education programs on campus including a
severely handicapped program and the regional CTE programs. Have seen a
pattern of “over identified” kids coming from feeder districts, in particular of EL
students. Have worked collaboratively with feeder districts and their changing
administration to remedy this and have seen progress. Have 148 EL students
currently. Have fewer Individualized Instruction classes than previous years, more
direct instruction and 9 new co-teaching classes that started this year. This has
been positive and also a challenge.
4
Alternative HS Principal: Alta Vista is a single school that is an umbrella for 3
programs. First program is Quetzal. This is a “reset program” for students coming
out of incarceration, severely truant or were expelled. SWD’s are served by an
itinerant special education teacher who supports each of these programs. Alta vista
independent study is the 2nd program. They also serve students with 504’s and
IEP’s. They have a niche with students who suffer from anxiety and depression and
have a hard time coping with the milieu of a comprehensive high school site. Middle
College is the 3rd program. La Cuesta HS has 23 students with IEP’s and 140 total
students. This is a complete inclusion program with co-teaching.
La Colina JHS: Have a system based on oneness, working on building trust,
communication, accountability and desired results. Include solid professional
learning communities (PLCs) and special education teachers participate with
content area groups. Look closely at participation rates to ensure that SWD’s are
represented in all school and after school programs and classes. Have seen
increased participation in school site SSEPAC.
SBCA Principal: Small school of choice with 300 students, about 10% special
education. Working towards a co-teaching model with teacher training. Resource
Specialist Program (RSP) teacher collaborates closely with general education
teacher and paraeducator provides support in many class settings.
McKinley Principal: Full inclusion program and host for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Program (DHOH) serving students TK through 6th grade. Lower grade
students are in a more self-contained setting to learn sign language, and upper
grade students are fully included. Implementing a co-teaching model currently, but
also looking forward to strengthening this model with upcoming trainings.
Monroe Principal: Shared an overview of information about Monroe last month. As
an update, they are piloting a new program for the 2 SH classes with support of
Special Olympics and Adapted Physical Education (APE) Teacher, called Young
Athletes Program (YAP). The YAP program will provide increased inclusive
opportunities in physical education. Last month students attended an event at the
Cate school. All general education teachers on site volunteered to participate in this
program at Monroe. All of the equipment was provided by the Special Olympics.
This program is aligned with visions for inclusiveness for all students.
Agenda Item 4 – Communication
Marge Perko has been working on ideas for how to increase parent attendance,
participation and communication. Marge provided a packet of materials for
attendees to review.
Marge shared information about her background in broadcast journalism and
marketing. Recommended reading for parents: Purple Cow. Excerpt from book,
“Not Enough P’s” shared with group.
5
In order to more effectively communicate, there is a need to be “remarkable” (from
Purple Cow book) and a need to ask, “why not?” and take risks.
Guiding questions that have been used in order to help increase access have
included:
 Who is our audience? (ask questions, look at data)
 What are their needs?
 How should we communicate? What forms of communication are
relevant for your site/age level?
 What communication channels are most effective for different
demographic groups? How can we tailor our communication to the
group needs?
New! Social media channels  Most popular has been the SBUSD Parent Resource
Center (PRC) for Facebook. Instagram has secondary popularity. Twitter has not
yet been as successful, but a new idea is to do a “Live Q&A” on Twitter for set time
frames with experts. Also have set up SBUSD Parent Resource accounts on Sound
Cloud (for podcasts), Pinterest and YouTube were also created.
Next steps: Work on website design; include more items of parent interest (e.g.
videos, links, etc). Continue to expand use of the social media channels noted above.
Input from parents has been received and is appreciated! Parents, please continue
to contact Marge with ideas, suggestions, etc. The PRC is a “center of ideas” where
everyone is welcome!
Flyer handout contains information about upcoming events and trainings.
District meeting facilitator noted that Communication will be a standing agenda
item. Due to time constraints, it is recommended that this item be moved to the first
item on the agenda for next month to have more time to address questions and
concerns of the group.
Parent shared that at the HS level, email seems to be the best channel of
communication but that due to privacy issues, it is hard to get wider-spread contact
information (outside of a child’s immediate class).
There is not a single list-serv or email list for all parents of SWD’s. One idea is to
incorporate this into an enrollment packet at the beginning of the year, and/or set
up an “opt in” program at the beginning of a school year.
6
Parent question, “How does the transition process work for special education
students from elementary moving to junior high school? Who is involved and how
are electives decided?” Monroe principal shared that the transition process has
already begun for 6th graders. It is a collaborative process where both parents and
students come together in an IEP meeting to discuss individual students and their
needs for Junior High.
Meeting adjourned.
Next Meeting: February 25, 2015 at La Cumbre Junior High School, Auditorium
7