In CASE
Volume 51 , Number 3 • November–December 2009
INSIDE
In CASE
Policy Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
THIS EDITION OF THE CASE NEWSLETTER WAS SENT TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON
FILE WITH CEC EARLIER IN DECEMBER. IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE ELECTRONIC
VERSION, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CASE OFFICE ASAP [[email protected]] . BEGINNING
IN 2010, THE IN CASE NEWSLETTER WILL BE SENT IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT UNLESS
YOU REQUEST A PRINT VERSION (SEE FORM ON PAGE 15). THE EMAIL USED WILL BE
THE EMAIL ON FILE WITH CEC HEADQUARTERS.
Legal Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Global Perspective . . . . . . . . . 4
Web Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Idea in Leadership. . . . . . . . . . 8
Oh Canada! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Winter Scholarship
Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Winter Institute 2010
Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . 19
♦
THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE
Council of Administrators of
Special Education
A DIVISION OF THE
The CASE Newsletter is published
bimonthly by the Council of
Administrators of Special Education
and Editor Luann L. Purcell,
Executive Director, 101 Katelyn
Circle Suite E, Warner Robins, GA
31088. Subscription rate is free to
members of CASE. Postmaster:
Send address changes to The
Council for Exceptional Children,
Suite 300, 1110 North Glebe Rd.,
Arlington, VA 22201-5704.
President’s Pen
President’s Message
Thoughts on Leadership
Supporting Others; Taking Care of Ourselves
DR. EMILY COLLINS, CASE PRESIDENT
Feeling too tired to be inspired, much less
inspiring? Too discouraged to feel encouraged,
much less encouraging? Too stressed to be
impressed, much less impressive?
We are undeniably living in difficult times.
I’m hearing more and more educational leaders
discussing how stressful this year has been for
them. They speak of how they feel stretched in
so many different directions trying to do all that
must be done and how tired they are. In these very
difficult economic times we are often trying to do
more with less. We face more responsibilities and
more demands, often caused by personnel cuts or
cutbacks in contracts. The stress is compounded
because we are faced with doing more with lessless time, fewer personnel, and less resources in
many areas. Severe state and provincial budget
cuts due to declining revenues have created the
current critical situation. While ARRA stimulus
funds in the U.S. have alleviated some of the
financial pressure there, we know this is only
temporary and fear what will happen in a couple
of years. There is little doubt as to why so many
educational leaders are feeling so stressed.
Stress takes a heavy toll on us and on our ability
to be effective and efficient in our professional
roles. Therefore it is absolutely necessary we learn
ways to manage and hopefully overcome our stress
and increase our ability to be encouraging and
inspiring to those we lead. We must remember our
professional team members are also often tired,
discouraged, and stressed. We need them. They
need our encouragement and support. When we
provide this we earn their commitment, loyalty,
and dedication to the job to be done. Supporting
and encouraging our professional teams will
make our own jobs easier, more enjoyable, and
rewarding.
We can do this. We can put some controls on
our stress, be more supporting and encouraging to
those with whom we work, and therefore be more
efficient and effective in our professional roles.
The first thing we must control is our beliefs. We
must believe we can do this because our beliefs
determine what we are able to accomplish. Our
beliefs can limit us or take us to new levels. We
must recognize the strength within ourselves, and
that every difficult task we complete strengthens
us. Our strength is our greatest encourager so
let’s not procrastinate and do undertake our most
difficult tasks first because completion of our
most difficult tasks strengthens us and empowers
us in all the other things we must do. The more
empowered we can make ourselves, the more we
can empower others.
It is also helpful to remember why we went
into the field of special education, why we have
remained in this field, and what we want to
accomplish for students with disabilities. Never
forget this higher purpose. It is what we are all
about. We should refuse to let anything interfere
with what we are all about. Realize this is not
something we can do alone. We need the others
on our professional teams, and they need our help,
encouragement, and support. Experience teaches
us we are encouraged and lift up ourselves when
we reach out to encourage and support others.
When we are discouraged and still seek to give
others what they need, our own discouragement
frequently diminishes. When we keep our focus
on what we can give to others rather than what we
receive the benefits are magnified for all. In the
words of Robert Louis Stevenson “Do not judge
each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seed
you plant.”
Dr. Collins is Pupil Services Director at
Chattahoochee-Flint
Regional
Educational
Services Agency in southwest Georgia and the
current President of CASE..
In CASE
2
POLICY UPDATE
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS TO CASE
Noise on ESEA Intensifies
MYRNA MANDLAWITZ
Although it seems the only conversation in Washington is on
health care reform, education remains another major focus of the
Administration. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, joined by
the assistant secretaries and other key staff, seems to be everywhere
speaking about the Administration’s vision for the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA,
currently known as No Child Left Behind).
emphasis on federal incentives for improvement, noting current law
includes many consequences for failure but few rewards for success.
He also focuses on adding growth models to ensure schools get credit
for individual student progress. Use of data to inform and improve
instruction and student outcomes is another recurring theme.
Common Core Standards
Another conversation has been taking place
outside the federal government. The National
Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) are leading the
effort to develop Common Core Standards that States
could voluntarily adopt. While the Department of
Education has not officially endorsed this effort,
development of common standards is among the final
priorities under the Race to the Top grant application.
Confidential Draft Leaked
This past week a Department of Education
“confidential draft” document was leaked that
outlines a framework for ESEA. The education
community has expected the Department would
issue a statement, most likely in January 2010,
laying out the major themes and ideas for the
upcoming reauthorization.
Much of what is in the draft has already been
discussed in a series of stakeholder meetings
hosted by the Department over the last several
months. CASE has been represented at each of
these meetings.
The draft states the following overarching themes for ESEA
reauthorization:
•
Raise the bar for all students. Close the gap.
•
Tight on goals. Loose on means.
•
Foster equity, opportunity, and reform.
•
Develop a culture of innovation and excellence.
•
Recognize, reward, and bring success to scale.
In addition, the draft carries forward the four principles delineated
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
•
Rigorous standards and meaningful assessments.
•
Great teachers and leaders.
•
Transformation of persistently low-performing schools.
•
Effective use of data.
One area more clearly stated in the document is “successful, safe
and healthy kids.” The document includes under this heading “shared
responsibility for student success,” “safe schools and positive school
climates,” and “comprehensive student supports and improving
students’ health and well-being.” School climate has gained much
more prominence in the current administration under the leadership
of Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and DrugFree Schools Kevin Jennings. It is likely that ESEA will include
requirements for measuring school climate, just as there are required
measures of academic success.
Duncan’s Vision
The Secretary has been interviewed extensively about what can
be expected in the next iteration of the ESEA. He anticipates a strong
Two sets of standards are under development
– College and Career Readiness Standards
and K-12 Standards. NGA and CCSSO have
collected comments on the draft College and
Career Readiness Standards and will be requesting comments on the
draft K-12 standards in early January. Once both sets of standards are
completed, they will be reviewed by a Validation Committee.
Although States will not be required to adopt these standards, 48
States are participating in this effort. Therefore, it is highly likely that the
standards or a comparable set of standards will be used across the country,
and possibly with the encouragement of the U.S. Department of Education.
Timing
There is still no official time table for the ESEA reauthorization process.
Much still depends on the continued health care debate, especially in the
Senate where the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions (HELP) deals with both health and education issues. It will be
up to Committee Chairman Senator Harkin to determine what bills come
forward next, although education staff members have been working for
some time on what the ESEA bill will look like. The House staff is also
engaged in discussions on ESEA.
CASE will keep you informed as the process unfolds.
Myrna Mandlawitz, president of MRM Associates, LLC, a legislative
consulting firm in Washington, DC, represents a number of national
associations as a consultant and lobbyist on a broad range of general
and special education issues. She has written extensively and presented
across the country on special education law and policy, previously served
as the Director of Government Relations for the National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, and is the CASE Legislative
Consultant.
November–December 2009
3
JULIE J. WEATHERLY
This is the fourth article in a series setting forth “essential
points” to remember regarding the discipline of students with
disabilities. The first essential point here will round out the issue
of what removals from school constitute a “change of placement”
for purposes of triggering mandatory procedural steps under the
IDEA. The additional two essential points will begin to address
the requirement for making manifestation determinations.
ESSENTIAL POINT #10: Removal of a
student for head lice does not trigger
the disciplinary “change of placement”
provisions under the IDEA.
It is important to remember that there are reasons that students
may be removed from school other than for disciplinary reasons.
One of those reasons could include the fact that the student has
head lice or some other health or medical condition which could be
of significant concern to others. In Souderton Area Sch. Dist. v.
Elizabeth S., 38 IDELR 244, 820 A.2d 863 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2003),
the district would not allow a student with head lice to attend
school for nineteen days under the state’s Department of Health
regulation requiring that a child with head lice be excluded from
settings with other children. When the parents challenged the
removal as an inappropriate change of placement in violation of
the IDEA’s discipline provisions, the court ruled that the IDEA’s
protections did not apply to an exclusion for head lice and that the
student was neither suspended nor expelled. Instead, the district
kept her in school as much as legally possible and the school nurse
aggressively treated her head lice in an effort to improve her
condition, but it was not resolved. Because the removal was not for
disciplinary purposes, the court ruled that the IDEA’s discipline
“change of placement” provisions did not apply.
ESSENTIAL POINT #11: Understanding
the purpose of making the “manifestation
determination” is key to compliance with
the IDEA.
The “manifestation determination” (MD) is perhaps the key
procedural hurdle to ensuring appropriate discipline of a student
with a disability. The manifestation determination requirement,
however, did not first appear in the IDEA until the enactment
of the 1997 IDEA Amendments. Instead, the “manifestation
determination” has been a long-standing concept that arises
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that is designed to
ensure that students with disabilities are not removed from their
educational placements on the basis of disability. In other words,
to apply traditional disciplinary consequences to a student with
a disability may be discriminatory if the conduct for which the
student is disciplined was caused by, or a manifestation of, the
H
H
HH H
(fourth in a series of articles regarding Discipline of Students with Disabilities)
UP D
L
A
AT E H
DISCIPLINE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES:
ESSENTIAL POINTS TO REMEMBER
L EG
LEGAL UPDATE
student’s disability. Thus, the purpose of making the MD is to
ensure that disability discrimination does not occur in the process
of disciplining a student with a disability.
ESSENTIAL POINT #12: It is important
to ensure that the MD is made using the
appropriate legal standard.
Many mistakes occur in the process of making manifestation
determinations, which may be based upon the fact that some teams
do not use the proper standard for making the MD. Under the 2004
IDEA, the questions to consider changed significantly and require
the following to occur:
Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement
of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student
conduct, the local educational agency, the parent and relevant
members of the IEP Team (as determined by the parent and local
educational agency) shall review all relevant information in the
student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations,
and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine:
(i)
If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability; or
(ii) if the conduct in question was the direct result of the
local educational agency’s failure to implement the IEP.
If the local educational agency, the parent, and relevant
members of the IEP Team determine that either (i) or (ii) above
is applicable for the child, the conduct shall be determined to be
a manifestation of the child’s disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)
(E). In addition, the IDEA regulations provide that, if the LEA,
the parent, and members of the child’s IEP Team determine that
the child’s behavior was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to
implement the child’s IEP, the LEA must take immediate steps to
remedy those deficiencies. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(3).
It is important that MD teams adhere to the correct standard
in order to ensure that defensible determinations are made.
Importantly, school personnel must ensure that all relevant
information about the student is considered and documented to
provide justification for the ultimate determination made.
Julie Weatherly is the owner of Resolutions in Special Education,
Inc. in Mobile, AL, which is a consulting business designed to assist
educational agencies in the avoidance of special education legal disputes.
In addition, she is a founder of and attorney with The Weatherly Law
Firm, LLP based in Atlanta, Georgia and is a member of the State Bars
in Georgia and Alabama.
In CASE
4
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Embracing Inclusive Approaches for Children and
Youth with Special Educational Needs: A 2010
International Special Education Forum in Riga, Latvia
Carmen J. Iannaccone, Executive Director, DISES
Division of International Special Education and Services
Have you been deep in thought about possibilities for a unique and
provocative professional endeavor during the summer of 2010? Well,
ponder no further. The Division of International Special Education
and Services (DISES) has been engaged in planning a conference to
be held during July, 11-14, 2010 in the Eastern European country of
Latvia.
DISES is working in a four-way partnership with the International
Step-by-Step Association (ISSA), the Center for Educational Initiative
(CEI) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) to offer a wide
ranging special education conference in Riga, Latvia.
The Riga forum will be DISES’ third international special
education conference. Others have included the very well received
and attended Special Education World Congress: 2000 convened in
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and the International Special
Education Forum: 2007 held in Lima, Peru. It was at the conference
in Lima, Peru that discussions began with Deborah Ziegler, CEC
Associate Executive Director of Policy and Advocacy Services and
member of Board of Directors of the International Step-by-Step
Association (ISSA) to propose forming a collaborative conference
planning group with ISSA. ISSA, whose administrative offices are
located in Budapest, Hungary, is a membership organization that
“unites individuals and independent early childhood organizations
into a powerful network to promote democratic principles and equal
opportunities for all children” (www.issa.nl). ISSA, as well, develops
and distributes educational resources, implements high quality
child-centered educational programs, encourages active parent and
community involvement, and supports ongoing research throughout
numerous Eastern European and Central Asian nations.
Over the course of numerous discussions including a January, 2009
meeting in Riga, Latvia, DISES President Tom Gumpel and Vice
President Alice Farling met with ISSA’s Executive Director, Liana
Ghent, Executive Director of the Latvian Center for Educational
Initiatives, Zenija Berzina, and Deborah Ziegler of CEC proposed
the formation of a conference planning partnership. Proposals and a
Memorandum of Agreement were approved by the respective Boards
of Directors and planning was underway. Save the date posters were
distributed earlier in 2009 (www.cec.sped.org ) and the Call for Papers
was distributed. More recently, the deadline for submitting program
proposals was extended to January 31, 2010 (See Call For Papers on
page 5).
The underlying expectations for the conference in Riga remain
very much in keeping with those of our previous conferences and
DISES mission and goals. That is, by bringing special education
professionals and service providers together from throughout the
world we hope to facilitate information, knowledge and idea sharing
related to challenging issues and problems that continue to confront
the formulation and implementation of special education policy
and factors that are central to innovative program development. In
order to assure maximum opportunity for deliberative discourse
and interaction among forum participants, the conference program
and activities will be organized accordingly. In this regard, we are
firmly committed to achieving outcomes that will lead to lasting
collaborative networks of practitioners, higher educators, researchers,
community organizations, parents and individuals with disabilities.
The Riga conference will be a unique and exciting venture as
simultaneous translations will be provided in the languages of
Russian and English for all keynote addresses and program sessions.
Further, this conference will encourage an open and ranging discourse
between Eastern European and Central Asian I.S.S.A. early childhood
specialists and special educators representing the Latvian Center
for Educational Initiatives, DISES, and the Council for Exceptional
Children. This arguably offers an unprecedented opportunity for
CASE members to share and exchange their extensive inclusive
educational approaches knowledge and experiential bases within the
context of this international general and special education conference.
In conclusion, please visit the CEC Website for forthcoming
registration information, as well as pre and post conference tour
opportunities to St. Petersburg, Russia; Helsinki, Finland; Stockholm,
Sweden and other sites in the Baltic region. Most importantly, come
and meet your global special education colleagues, and be encouraged
to take a role in the program by sharing your unique knowledge and
experience as special education leaders and innovators.
We feel certain that your participation in this unique and
unprecedented special education and early childhood conference in
culturally rich and beautiful Riga, Latvia will ensure memorable
and far reaching returns for both general and special education and
services well into the future.
See you in Riga!
Does CEC and CASE Have YOUR
Correct EMAIL ADDRESS?
8
CASE will be moving to an electronic newsletter
in the coming months so it is critical that CEC
have a current, working email address on file
for you. Please take a moment to update your
contact information at CEC by either going on line
at www.cec.sped.org or contacting Membership
Services at 888/232-7733 (toll free) or
e-mail [email protected]
November–December 2009
5
Registration is ON LINE AT WWW.CASECEC.ORG
A NEW IDEA in Partnership!
January 27-29, 2010
Sheraton Sand Key Clearwater Beach, FL
Scholarships available to CROSS STAKEHOLDER TEAMS!
See Registration form and Scholarship form—Questions?
Email [email protected] OR call 478-333-6892
HOTEL RATES END DECEMBER 23rd!
In CASE
6
CASE MONTHLY WEB RESEARCH QUESTION RESULTS
What is “co-leadership” when administering programs for special education?
DR. PAMELA HUDSON BAKER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
AND DR. MICHEL MILLER, DREXEL UNIVERSITY
What is “co-leadership” when administering programs for special
education?
Addressing the needs of an increasingly diverse student body has become
a daunting task for today’s educators. Teachers and administrators alike are
expected to meet the needs of all learners . . . those with any combination of
emotional, behavioral, physical, sensory, learning, or cognitive differences.
Just as the field of education has moved toward models of co-teaching
to better serve learners with disabilities, consideration of a model for coleading is needed to meet the ever-changing demands of schools governed
by the high standards of both No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).
Co-leading can be conceptualized as the practice of a building administrator
leading a school in collaboration with administrators having expertise in
other disciplines, such as special education, with the purpose of efficiently
and effectively supporting all staff and all learners (Miller, 2009).
Since an approach for such joint service delivery is naturally based
upon the premise of collaboration, recognition of the key elements of this
interaction style is essential. According to Friend and Cook (2007), several
characteristics exist that define collaboration: (a) voluntary involvement,
(b) parity among participants, (c) mutual goals, (d) shared decision making,
(e) shared resources, and (f) shared accountability. In education settings, coteaching is defined as two or more teachers in the same classroom delivering
substantive instruction to a diverse group of students (Friend & Cook).
Therefore, one might view co-leading as two or more interdisciplinary
administrators delivering substantive support systems to a diverse group of
stakeholders in the same school setting. Successful collaboration requires
work; therefore, co-leading, like co-teaching, is expected to take a great
deal of preparation. By nature, teachers are often territorial because of
subject-specific environments, and are often accustomed to teaching in
isolation (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Administrators can also be territorial
because of high accountability environments, and are often accustomed to
leading alone. Any collaborative leadership relationship can be doomed if
one partner dominates, or leads in a direction that the other is not expecting.
Co-leading partnerships among administrators representing differing skill
sets would need to be balanced if political positioning is to be minimized
by reducing the opportunity for one leader to exert power over the other
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
While research on co-leading in education-based settings is lacking,
co-leadership has been discussed and researched in the fields of health
care, business, and counseling. Research by Wilhelmson (2005) in
the field of business investigated leadership pairs, co-leaders, who had
successful long-term (five years or longer) experience working together.
Connections to Friend and Cook’s (2007) work on collaboration are clear
in Wilhelmson’s findings regarding successful co-leading partners: (a)
share common core values, (b) work towards common goals, (c) develop a
supportive relationship with joint responsibility and authority, (d) develop a
common work process and planning system, (e) discuss problems between
themselves until agreeing on strategic plans to the solve the problems, (f)
share mutual respect, and (g) engage in critical reflection and personal
development. Educators can also learn from the medical arena. Ponte
(2004) found that by using nurse-physician co-leaders at all levels of the
organization it has strengthened decision-making practices around shared
areas of accountability and establishes mechanisms that clinicians can use
to promote quality care.
Gaining Perspective from the Field
Given the lack of information about co-leading in education, gaining
perspective from the field seemed critical to understanding if shared
leadership is present in education and if it has potential for working to the
benefit of learners with exceptional needs. Three questions emerged:
1.
What might co-leading mean? How would you define this
term?
2.
What should co-leading among special education and general
education leaders look like in schools, in school districts?
3.
Have you seen any examples of co-leading in your school or
district? If so, please share what you observed.
CASE members who provided their e-mail address received an email
requesting their participation in the monthly research question; in addition,
visitors to the CASE website could access the survey through a link under
the “News” menu. The researchers used Survey Monkey, an online survey
tool, to collect the responses. One hundred twenty-six useable responses
have been included in the analysis (n = 126); five responses were not
included due to exact duplication of another entry or no comments
provided for any of the three items. The researchers reviewed the collection
of responses for each question to develop a list of emergent themes for
further analysis. A third party reviewer offered additional insights to help
offset any bias the researchers may have brought to the analysis. A detailed
analysis of these qualitative responses yielded the following observations.
What is co-leadership?
The participants’ responses centered on what co-leaders should be
doing together, what co-leading is not, and what conditions could make
co-leading a reality. The participants felt that co-leaders should be doing
activities together related to working with teachers and staff, management
of the school units, and supporting all students. They felt that co-leaders
should share the responsibility for observing, evaluating, scheduling,
supporting, and hiring teachers and staff. Additionally, they relayed that
they should collaborate on the development and delivery of professional
development as well as the creation of professional learning communities.
In the management of the school units, participants felt it was important
for co-leaders to develop a shared vision. They also felt co-leaders
should participate in shared decision making after coming to a shared
understanding of issues. Many of the respondents thought there should
be shared accountability and responsibility between the co-leaders. In
addition, they thought co-leaders should create and implement school
policy, curriculum, and budgets together as well as cooperatively and
proactively plan initiatives.
Primarily, participants emphasized the importance of considering all
students when leading. They felt co-leaders should implement best practices,
deliver services, and share resources for all students. In addition, that wanted
co-leaders to share ownership, advocacy for, and programming for all students.
Continued on page 7
November–December 2009
7
WEB RESEARCH Continued from page 6
An important theme around using data was seen in the responses. The
participants felt it was critical for co-leaders to look at student data and
consider the achievement of all students.
The participants strongly stated what they thought co-leadership was
not. They felt neither co-leader should be considered as a type of assistant
only called upon when needed. They wanted to remove the separation,
inequality, and hierarchy between the disciplines in leadership. Finally,
the participants did not want any leaders to be left out of the discussion
of issues; they wanted each perspective to be represented in meaningful
dialogue regarding programs for exceptional learners.
The overwhelming perception of what co-leadership should look like
is that of a seamless integration of education leaders with complementary
skills in which mutual respect and shared goals make it impossible to
distinguish who represents general education and who represents special
education. Respondents suggested that an interdependent collaboration is
needed along with a commitment to a common purpose among all parties
if co-leading is to be successful on a consistent basis. They suggested
that co-leaders need to work side-by-side on a regular basis to address the
learning needs of all students. There should be no more “us” versus “them”
mentality where there are “your kids” and “my kids.” They also noted the
need for equal responsibility for joint planning and decision-making using
shared data sources. Respondents offered specific notations regarding the
influence of Response to Intervention (RtI) as a vehicle for encouraging
co-leadership. They also noted the value of using Professional Learning
Communities as a model for shared, collaborative, or distributed leadership
initiatives.
What experiences with co-leadership were reported?
When asked to share professional experiences regarding co-leadership,
58% of respondents stated they had observed situations reflective of the
expectations noted previously. Many offered encouraging comments
of principals who welcomed input, shared professional development
opportunities, and participated fully on instructional planning teams. These
respondents wrote of being fully included in meetings with the opportunity to
make meaningful contributions in the decision-making process. Some even
noted opportunities for shared evaluation of staff and shared presentations
at conferences regarding their collaborative approaches to supporting all
learners. And yet, just over six percent of respondents felt they had seen an
inconsistent presence of co-leadership in their settings. These respondents
spoke of being invited to meetings or having collaborative practices (e.g.,
co-teaching) approved for use only in certain schools, depending upon
the personality of the building administrator. From this group came the
observation that consistency comes from the top down with evaluative
criteria linked to the expectation of co-leadership behaviors.
While the 64% of participants noted above reported at least some
experience with co-leadership, the remaining 36% did not report such
experiences. In fact, a couple of interesting parallels with special education
as a whole emerged in the responses. For instance, some respondents felt
that the separate systems of general education and special education are
definitely not equal; and some referenced cases of equal access to meetings
without an equal opportunity for influence. Of the 30% of respondents who
did not view themselves as having experienced co-leading situations, many
referred to the separation that still exists between special education and
general education. Some even spoke of feeling excluded or abandoned; of
being the “stepchild” of the system who was brought in for troubleshooting
as an afterthought. Some wrote of being at cross-purposes with general
educators and facing frequent resistance. In addition to those who showed
frustration with their lack of co-leadership opportunities were those who
felt that co-leading took excessive time for minimal gain. Another six
percent offered unclear responses or felt the question did not apply to them.
Is co-leadership viable for the future?
One respondent wrote “I am really pleased CASE is looking at this coleadership function for it is a crucial component of our system’s ability to
move from “parallel play” into a unified system of services for all students.”
The responses to these exploratory survey items reinforced the need for an
awareness of the collaboration characteristics noted by Friend and Cook
(2007) and Wilhelmson (2005) indicating that parity and mutual respect
are particularly critical if a co-leading arrangement is to be a success.
While clearly there is an ongoing need for more research in the area of coleadership, consideration of the practical side of this opportunity is relevant
in the meantime. Special education leaders could identify a principal with
whom they have established a sense of trust to approach for co-leadership.
Once the principal demonstrates interest, the two leaders can involve other
administrative leaders, or even the superintendent, in an effort to extend the
opportunity to other schools.
Given the comments shared by the respondents as well as what is known
about collaborative partnerships, co-leading is likely to involve phases when
moving toward an effective interdisciplinary co-leadership relationship.
The first phase is likely to be the planning stage where a shared vision for
all administrators, teachers, staff, and students in the targeted setting (e.g.,
district, building) can be created. It is also in this phase where co-leaders
assess the current organizational structure and culture as they target areas
in need of joint leadership skills. In phase two, implementation, it is time
to begin co-leadership of the school entity. In this phase, co-leaders must
develop a clear, consensus-oriented approach to solving problems that arise
(Ponte, 2004). Finally, there is phase three, maintenance, during which coleaders engage in reflection to create mechanisms for prioritizing ongoing
and emergent tasks. Table 1 includes areas to consider when planning for
all three phases of co-leadership.
Table 1: Considerations for Co-Leading
Phases
Areas to Consider or Questions to Ask
Planning Phase
■ Supervision of special education and general
education teachers serving in inclusive classrooms
■ Budget for programs and classrooms
■ Student data collection and use
■ Professional development
■ Staff meetings
■ Schedule development
■ Teacher room assignments
■ Teacher extra duty assignments
■ Leadership in the eligibility and IEP processes
■ Supporting all teachers
■ Hiring practices
■ Firing practices
■ Strategic planning within context (e.g.,
system, school, content area/department, special
education)
■ Set goals
Continued on page 10
In CASE
8
A New IDEA in LEADERSHIP!
Paradigm Shifts--Valuable Insights for Leaders
DENNIS HOOPER, copyright ©
2009, published in the Nov/Dec 2009 issue
of the “In CASE” Newsletter
“Awareness” is extremely important
for leaders. Learning how to intentionally
increase awareness is perhaps one of the
greatest gifts that I provide to my clients.
Expanded awareness helps you realize
your limitations and motivates you to
improve.
Enhancing your awareness
also helps you understand that you have
some natural skills. Knowing how you
accomplish what you do allows you to
contribute to the skills of others, including
future leaders in your organization.
In 1962, Thomas S. Kuhn, a professor at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
published The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, an extensive essay on the
emergence of scientific discoveries.
In his preface, Kuhn introduces the
term paradigm, which he uses throughout
the work. Kuhn explains that a paradigm
is “a universally recognized scientific
achievement that for a time provides model
problems and solutions to a community of
[scientific] practitioners.”
Kuhn says that throughout history
“anomalies, or violations of expectation,”
have intrigued scientists. These are pieces
of information that don’t seem to fit the
accepted theory. These data may be false
readings or unexplained variants from the
norm.
Sometimes, however, these unexpected
pieces of information offer a new insight,
a breakthrough in scientific thought.
This “Aha” experience is what business
leaders and consultants today are calling a
“paradigm shift.”
Some people ridicule the term
“paradigm” as fancy jargon, but the term
describes well how one sees a given
situation, which has tremendous influence
on what one does in response to that
situation.
Synonyms for “paradigm” are many:
perspective, viewpoint, belief, mindset,
outlook,
perception,
understanding,
assumption, mental image, theory, model,
interpretation, frame of reference.
A “paradigm shift” occurs when you
receive a piece of information that causes
you to question the way you’ve understood
the world in the past. There’s usually a
feeling of surprise, accompanied by an
excited “Aha!” or a contemplative “Hmm!”
You wonder, “How could I have lived
for such a long time with such a ‘wrong’
viewpoint?”
You really haven’t had a “wrong”
perspective.
Your outlook has been,
however, incomplete. None of us sees the
world as it really is. We all see the world
through filters such as our experiences, our
habits and tendencies, our motives, and
our preconceived beliefs about what is and
what should be.
Sometimes, the more familiarity we
have with a given topic--like leadership-the more blind we become to insights that
are obvious to others. A paradigm shift
merely expands our awareness of what
exists.
For that reason, I encourage leaders to
welcome paradigm shifts. New insights
give you an expanded appreciation for the
information you’ve already mastered. And
they stimulate you to explore further.
You’ve probably experienced just such
an unexpected awareness yourself. Here
are some examples.
--In the 1500’s, Nicholas Copernicus’
calculations suggested that the earth and
other planets rotated around the sun. The
Catholic church banned his writings as
heresy--for over two hundred years!
--A guy named Saul was headed to
Damascus to arrest Christians when he
received some information that radically
changed his viewpoint and his subsequent
behaviors (see the Bible, Acts 9).
--In his book, The 4-Hour Workweek,
Timothy Ferriss reports that in his first
full-time job out of college, the norm was
to work telephone sales from 9am to 5pm.
He chose to make calls from 8:00-8:30am
and 6:00-6:30pm, avoiding the secretarial
gatekeepers.
This simple adjustment
allowed him to reach more decision
makers, achieving twice the results of the
senior sales executives while working only
1/8 the total time. Apparently, following
what everyone else does isn’t necessarily
the most effective way.
--Near the end of “The Wizard of Oz,”
the good witch Glenda helps Dorothy
return home, saying: “You’ve always
had the power to go back to Kansas.”
The Scarecrow says indignantly: “Then
why didn’t you tell her before?” Glenda
responds: “Because she wouldn’t have
believed me. She had to learn it for herself.”
That’s the essence of a paradigm shift.
No one can force it on--or experience it
for--someone else. We deceive ourselves
into thinking we see the truth, yet none of
us “sees” the world as it truly is. When
we receive that unexpected new piece of
information, we experience “Aha!” We’re
never the same again.
When you consciously choose to
open yourself to the possibilities of
new information, paradigm shifts occur
frequently and easily.
To encourage
openness to new insights, I invite my
clients to share their paradigm shifts with
me. They often do so only reluctantly at
first. As they become accustomed to the
experience, they become increasingly more
excited at the new insights they share.
Paradigm shifts can move you closer
to the truth. They are a blessing if you
welcome and consciously seek them.
When you realize that your perceptions
are limiting you, you can evaluate the
filtering glasses through which your sight
is distorted, and new understanding floods
your awareness. “Aha” moments break
through your past perceptions, and new
options for behavior present themselves
like an unexpected yet very pleasant gift!
****************************************
DENNIS HOOPER helps leaders build
skills and awareness beyond what comes
naturally. Contact Dennis at dhooper2@juno.
com, call 478-988-0237, or find his website:
www.buildingfutureleaders.com.
November–December 2009
9
Oh Canada!
Special Education Teachers: Community of Learners
NANCY BALDREE
Professional learning for teachers has come a long way from the
days of ‘sit and get’ workshops covering topics mandated from ‘on
high’. Learning through collaboration with
colleagues, deepening knowledge and skills
in a focused area, and learning over time
with the ability to apply new learning and
reflect on the experiences are all hallmarks
of meaningful professional learning for
educators.
The Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario (ETFO) project,
Special Education Teachers: Community
of Learners, was able to provide special
education teachers across Ontario with an
exciting professional learning opportunity
based on these principles of effective
professional learning.
ETFO represents 73,000 elementary
teachers, occasional teachers, and education workers employed
in the public elementary schools of the province of Ontario.
Providing high quality professional learning to its members is one
of the cornerstones of this strong union. Funding provided by the
government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Education, allowed
ETFO to offer this unique professional development experience for
special education teachers. The project focused on:
- Working collaboratively with classroom teachers to support students with special needs in their classes;
- Increasing knowledge of coaching skills; and
- Increasing knowledge and understanding about differentiat
ing instruction as a key way to program for students with spe cial needs in the regular class.
During the course of the year-long project, 20 special education
teachers from across the province came together to form a
community of learners. They met as a group three times, for a
total of six days of face-to-face sessions. In addition to these faceto-face sessions, the project also included an online component.
The participants committed to completing a project that involved
working with a partner classroom teacher and sharing a presentation
about their project with the group.
The structure of the project contributed greatly to the success the
participants experienced. The government funding allowed for a
rich, indepth learning opportunity at little cost to the participants.
Learning over time, with the opportunity to apply and reflect on
their new knowledge and insights was a meaningful, job embedded
growth experience that many participants had never experienced
before. Meeting several times over the course of the year allowed
for the application of and reflection on new learning as well as the
opportunity to scaffold their learning. It also provided teachers with
an opportunity to re-energize and refocus on the project over time.
Because there were only 20 teachers in the group, the participants
were able to develop significant relationships providing each other
with support and encouragement over the course of the project.
Assigning teachers to a “home team” (five
teams of four teachers each) was also a
successful strategy. Having the teachers
complete a survey prior to meeting for the
first time allowed us to structure carefully
crafted home teams based on participants’
interests, motivation and needs. Having
them introduce themselves to each other
electronically before meeting for the first
time, paved the way for team bonding during
the first face-to-face session. Feedback
indicated the support of their home team
members was critical for the success of the
project and for keeping participants motivated
and accountable.
Each participant worked with a partner classroom teacher to
determine the focus of his/her project. The project topics reflected
the individual needs and readiness level regarding differentiating
instruction and coaching skills for both the classroom teacher and
the special education teacher. Project topics included:
-
Creating class profiles
-
Linking diagnostic assessments and unit planning
-
Improving reading comprehension
-
Improving social skills and behaviour
-
Using flexible groupings
Participants’ feedback (comprised of anecdotal feedback,
pre/post self evaluations, and rating scales) indicated the
project was a great success. Participants felt motivated,
more knowledgeable about differentiating instruction, more
comfortable in working collaboratively with classroom teachers,
and all of them indicated growth on a continuum ranging from
an awareness to mastery level regarding DI and key coaching
concepts.
This project has impacted my work with teachers as they
have a better understanding of classroom profiles and
how assessment can guide their planning, instruction, and
assessments. Students’ level of achievement has increased
from the strategies put in place in this project.
My teaching partner is very enthused about her program and
the use of student profiles to inform her teaching. Students are
more engaged in learning.
This project gave me the confidence to coach other teachers
through the strategies that were given to me.
I am much more confident in working with teachers on
programming in their classes.
Continued on page 10
In CASE
10
WEB RESEARCH Continued from page 7
Implementation
Phase
■ How often should co-leaders meet?
■ How can it be ensured that the schedule is
maintained consistently?
■ How will communication be maintained
between co-leadership meetings?
■ How will both leaders be involved with faculty
meetings and professional development?
References
■ What process will be used to solve problems and
come to consensus?
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership (4rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
■ How can the leadership load be shared?
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school
professionals (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
■ How will resources management be shared?
■ Is the approach good for both leaders?
■ Is the approach good for all professional staff
and all students?
■ How will the co-leadership team be evaluated?
Maintenance
Phase
all levels if a unified system “where every educator takes responsibility for the
education of all children” is to become a reality. Recommendations for future
research would include asking similar questions to administrators from the
general education side of the partnership and creating a quantitative measure
to assess which specific elements of the co-leadership collaboration are most
essential for a successful partnership.
■ Annually priorities should be set for the school
■ Leadership development opportunities
■ Would peer evaluation or coaching be helpful?
■ Assess progress toward goals
Miller, M. (2009). Case monthly web research results: What support
activities provided by building level and district level administrators over
special education programs do special education teachers perceive as
important? In CASE, 51(1), 7 – 11.
Murawski, W., & Dieker, L. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at
the secondary level. Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52 – 58.
Ponte, P. R. (2004). Nurse-physician co-leadership: A model of
interdisciplinary practice governance. JONA, 34(11), 481 – 484.
Wilhelmson, L. (2005). Transformative learning in joint leadership. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 18(7/8), 495 – 507.
■ What reflective practices are in place?
In any collaborative situation, challenges are inevitable. Just as co-teaching
requires careful preparation, so will co-leading. The provision of time to plan,
build trust through implementation, and reflect on progress will be essential.
One respondent wrote that observers of the co-leadership team “should not
be able to identify who is serving in which role” if the partnership is truly
seamless. Another respondent noted that ideally co-leadership partnerships
would be clearly visible at both the central office level and in school offices at
Dr. Baker is an assistant professor of special education at George
Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Previously she was the coordinator of a
regional day treatment center for students with Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders.
Dr. Miller is an assistant professor of special education at Drexel
University in Philadelphia, PA. She is a former Supervisor of Pupil Services
and a past president of PA CASE.
OH CANADA Continued from page 9
I am much more confident in working with teachers on
programming in their classes.
This project reinforced that professional learning is meaningful
and rich when it is voluntary and selected by teachers to meet their
own identified needs. This project underscores and reinforces the
understanding that teachers learn best with and from each other in
job embedded opportunities. Recognizing and supporting the passion and enthusiasm educators have as they strive to do the best for
the students in their care and supporting them as they continue to
refine their teaching craft continues to be a top priority for ETFO.
Nancy Baldree is an executive assistant with the Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario. She is an experienced elementary educator
and educational consultant, working with teachers to enhance their
professional learning in the field of special education.
Are you receiving the weekly CASE CEC Update EMAIL?
If you are not getting this weekly email that
keeps you informed on what’s going on in
SPED, send an email to [email protected]
with WEEKLY EMAIL in the subject line. In
the body of your email include your name, job
title, and address and you will begin to receive
the weekly update each Monday morning!
November–December 2009
11
Better Together - Believe It- Achieve It
The 20th Annual Fall CASE Conference was held on November 4-7, 2009 in San Diego, CA. The conference
participants received the most updated, innovative, research-based, practical information they will be able to use back
at their locals to develop strong, effective programs and services for students with disabilities. Sessions provided
updates on creative uses of ARRA Funds, the IDEA Partnership, using technology to deliver speech services without
driving a mile, maximizing classroom resources using power tools, supporting students with Autism in the general
education setting, leadership initiatives, writing standards-based IEPs, RtI and much more. Each participant received a
travel-drive with all the powerpoints, handouts and resources from each breakout session.
The exhibit hall was active, buzzing with conversation between participants and participants and vendors. The room
was lined with tables with new research-based products that supported the topics from the breakout sessions. The
Vendors donated items that were given away at different times throughout the conference. Participants waited in
anticipation for their ticket to be drawn with many leaving with great new gifts.
After many great sessions, lots of networking with peers and reviewing new products the participants learned how to
work better together, how to believe and how to achieve! They left ready to lead learning!
You won’t want to miss the next Fall CASE Conference so mark your calendars now for October 28-30, 2010. Hope to
see you there!
CASEAd_Sept_Oct_09_FINALv2.pdf
1
9/29/09
7:15 AM
In CASE
12
Winter Institute Scholarship Explanation:
In a commitment to increase the participation by cross stakeholders in the education of students
with disabilities, the IDEA Partnership and the Council of Administrators of Special Education
are offering up to 8 teams full to half scholarships for the registration fees for the 2010 CASE
Winter Institute to be held January 27-29, 2010 at the Sheraton Sand Key, Clearwater Beach,
FL.
The requirements of the teams to qualify for the scholarships are as follows:
1. The Team must have 3-4 members from different organizations in different roles ( i.e.
District level SPED, District level General Ed, Building Principal, Teachers-sped/gen ed,
Parents, Youth as appropriate, Related Service Providers, School Board members, etc)
2. The Team Leader must be someone who has authority and can “influence” others to
participate in both the team and the expected implementation
3. The Team Leader’s supervisor (unless the Team leader is at the highest level—ie District
Superintendent/State School Superintendent) must sign off on the form that he/she will
support the implementation efforts
4. All team members must commit to work with CASE and the IDEA Partnership to plan and
deliver training on at least one of the tools/processes presented at the conference at the
building or district level between February, 2009 and September, 2010 and communicate
the results.
5. Upon implementing the Partnership tool, procedures, etc, the team agrees to cooperate
with the IDEA Partnership evaluator in the communication/evaluation of the results.
6. The Team will make its own arrangements for transportation and hotel lodging
7. If a Team member can not attend, the Team will make all effort to replace that member
with a similar “role” person but at the very least will provide a substitute member to
attend.
In order to provide for a variety of participants, the scholarships will be awarded based on
the depth of the team roles, the commitment, and the location of the Team.
For more information, contact
Joanne Cashman, Director
IDEA Partnership
NASDSE
1800 Diagonal Road
Alexandria, VA 22314
[email protected]
SEND SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION TO:
Mironda Shephard
IDEA PARTNERSHIP
NASDSE
1800 Diagonal Rd.
Suite 320 Alexandria,
VA 22314
[email protected]
FAX: (703) 519-3808
Luann Purcell, Executive Director
Council of Administrators of Special Education
Osigian Office Centre
101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E
Warner Robins, GA 31088
[email protected]
November–December 2009
13
WINTER INSTITUTE 2010 TEAM SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION
TEAM LEADER INFORMATION
Name:
Role/Job Title:
Organization:
Phone:
City:
State:
ZIP Code:
Email Address:
Association Affiliations:
Asso. Affiliations:
Current address:
ADDITIONAL TEAM MEMBERS—SIGNATURE INDICATES TEAM MEMBER HAS READ REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOLARSHIP
Name:
Role/Job Title/Organization
Address/City/State/Zipcode:
Email Address and Signature:
Name:
Role/Job Title/Organization
Address/City/State/Zipcode:
Email Address and Signature:
Name:
Role/Job Title/Organization
Address/City/State/Zipcode:
Email Address and Signature:
Name:
Role/Job Title/Organization
Address/City/State/Zipcode:
Email Address and Signature:
NARRATIVE ON WHY YOU WANT A TEAM SCHOLARSHIP TO THE 2010 WINTER INSTITUTE
SIGNATURES
I have read the scholarship requirements and I understand that as a scholarship recipient, this team is expected to work with CASE and the
IDEA Partnership to plan and deliver training on at least one of the tools/processes presented at the conference at the building or district level
between February, 2009 and September, 2010 and communicate the results.
Signature of the TEAM Leader
Date:
Signature of Supervisor of the TEAM Leader
Date:
Each Team member must complete the WI REGISTRATION FORM and attach to this scholarship form—RETURN Form to
Mironda Shepherd IDEA PARTNERSHIP NASDSE 1800 Diagonal Rd. Suite 320 Alexandria, VA 22314 FAX: (703) 519-3808
Up to 4 TEAM Full Scholarships for Registration & 4 TEAM Half Scholarships for Registration will be awarded by IDEA
Partnership and CASE.
In CASE
14
SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS IN NOVEMBER 2009
Board of Directors’ Meeting
20TH Annual CASE Conference
Special Thanks To Our SPONSORS
20TH Annual CASE Conference
November–December 2009
15
At the July 18, 2009 CASE Executive Committee meeting in
Arlington, VA, the CASE annual budget was considered, discussed,
and passed. There were a few changes related to the IN CASE
Newsletter included in the FY10 budget. Your CASE leadership
looked carefully at how to provide CASE members with maximum
benefit at minimal cost. In an economy where prices are rising,
jobs and salaries diminishing, and everyone is cutting back, it was
decided to maintain the CASE dues at the same level they have been
for 10+ years but to make a substantial savings by going to an electronic Newsletter for those
members who have an email on record with CEC Headquarters. It was also decided to decrease
the frequency from 6 issues to 4 per year. With the weekly email update members can request
([email protected]) and a website that is updated with important information, members
can stay informed in a timely manner without the necessity of the Newsletter. However, the
Newsletter is an important medium for lengthier information than what can be delivered through
weekly emails and it was felt quarterly issues would meet those needs.
If you have an email listed with CEC but still would like the print format mailed to you, you
may OPT OUT of the electronic format by FAXing or mailing the form below to the CASE office.
If CEC does not have your email address, then you will automatically continue to receive the IN
CASE Newsletter by mail.
OPT OUT OF ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF THE IN CASE NEWSLETTER
I would like to request a print copy of the IN CASE NEWSLETTER and I understand it will be
mailed to my address as it is on file with CEC headquarters.
Name_________________________ State/Province__________ CEC Membership # ___________
Print Legibly Full Name (look at your address label for #)
Date: _______________________
Signature _________________________________
Telephone Number _______________________ Email ________________________________
PLEASE FAX OR MAIL THIS FROM TO:
FAX: 478-333-2453
Robin Smith, Adm Asst
CASE
101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E
Warner Robins, GA 31088
In CASE
16
A New IDEA in Partnerships
Do you know what is happening in Clearwater, Florida in January? The 2010 CASE Winter Institute on
January 27-29th at the Sheraton Sand Key. CASE will be collaborating with the IDEA Partnership NASDSE
to provide you with the latest on policy issues including current and future trends. Cross-stakeholder teams
of special education, general education, parents, youth are encouraged to attend to learn how to move to
a transformational team that can make a difference for ALL students. The Institute will open with Nancy
Reder, Associate Director of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education with an update
on what’s happening in Washington. Then teams will have an opportunity to choose between Communities
of Practice on Dispute Resolution (creating agreement instead of resolving disputes) and Communities of Practice on Transition (making smooth
transitions). Teams will have a chance to develop plans for implementing and using the tools learned from the IDEA Partnership back at the local,
building and state level. CASE and the IDEA Partnership are offering 8 full or partial scholarships for teams to attend. For more information go
to http://www.casecec.org/conferences/winterinstitute10.htm. This is an opportunity you don’t want to miss! Hope to see you and your team in
Clearwater, Fla. this January.
SAVE THE DATE
8TH ANNUAL SUSTAINING EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION
LEADERSHIP SEMINAR
A CASE Leadership Seminar
July 18-21, 2010
Hilton Arlington & Towers • 950 North Stafford Street •Arlington, Virginia
What a challenge it is to sustain excellence in a time of insufficient funding, decisions about “stimulus”
dollars, highly qualified staff issues and increased demands. The reauthorizations of NCLB and IDEA 2004 are
heating up and on the RADAR screen of our legislators as are the controversies surrounding Restraint and
Seclusion! What a time to plan to be in Washington THIS July!
The 8th Annual Leadership Seminar will once again provide strategies designed to sustain
excellence. No matter where we are with the reauthorization of NCLB, participants will hear the most up to
date information. The Reauthorization of NCLB will have huge implications in the field of special education.
Participants will learn how to continue in making an impact in the reauthorization process. That impact begins
with making connections with your congressional delegation. Guided practice on maneuvering through the
federal maze will culminate with visits to “The Hill.” Strategies and techniques learned will be valuable back home
to apply at the local and state levels.
Hotel :
Hilton Arlington Towers
Dates:
July 18-21, 2010
Cost:
Member- $350 Non Member- (Special TEAM Rate will be available at Registration Release)
$425



















        

       
 


   
         



        




      
     
 


          
            


       




















































 


          
        
         

       
      




        
       
        
       































 


 








































 

 





 






 





 



 



 









 





 

 


 









 





 






November–December 2009
19
CASE
Calendar of Events
January 27-29, 2010
CASE Winter Institute, Sheraton Clearwater Beach, FL Contact: Luann Purcell, Executive Director,
478-333-6892, email [email protected] or website: www.casecec.org
April 21-24, 2010
CEC Convention—Plan to come early enough to participate in all the CASE activities at CEC, Nashville, TN —
Annual Member/Board of Director meeting which starts with a sponsored breakfast (Wednesday, April 21) and
CASE NIGHT (Thursday, April 22) --watch for tickets to go on sale February 1, 2010 at www.casecec.org
July 18-21, 2010
8TH Annual CASE Educational Leadership Seminar—, Hilton Arlington Towers, Arlington, VA Contact:
Luann Purcell, Executive Director, 478-333-6892, email [email protected] or website: www.casecec.org
October 27-28, 2010
CASE Board of Directors Fall Meeting, Marriott Mission Valley San Diego, CA Contact: Luann Purcell,
Executive Director, 478-333-6892, email [email protected] or website: www.casecec.org
October 28-30, 2010
21st Annual CASE Fall Conference Westin, Hilton Head Island, SC Contact: Luann Purcell,
Executive Director, 478-333-6892, email [email protected] or website: www.casecec.org
PA I D A D V E RT I S E M E N T
NONPROFIT
US POSTAGE
PAID
MAIL SORT
MACON 31201
Council of Administrators
of Special Education, Inc.
Osigian Office Centre
101 E. Katelyn Circle Suite E
Warner Robins, Georgia 31088-6484
CASE Executive Committee 2009-2010
DR. EMILY COLLINS, GA, President
DR. CHRISTY CHAMBERS, IL, Past President
DR. MARY V. KEALY, VA, President Elect
GERALD J. HIME, CA, Finance Committee Chair
LAURAL JACKSON, AK, Secretary
DR. MARY LYNN BOSCARDIN, MA, Journal Editor
DR. JUDY HACKETT, IL, Policy & Legislation Chair
DR. JUDY MONTGOMERY, CA, Publications & Product Review Chair
LAURIE VANDERPLOEG, MI, Professional Development Chair
TOM ADAMS, IN, Membership Chair
GRETA STANFIELD, KY, Unit Representative
DR. GINA SCALA, PA, Research Liaison
CASE Staff
DR. LUANN PURCELL, Executive Director
ROBIN SMITH, Administrative Assistant
CASE, Osigian Office Centre
101 Katelyn Circle Suite E, Warner Robins, GA 31088
1-478-333-6892
Email: [email protected]
Web Address: www.casecec.org