Meeting of the Board of Regents | February 2009
REGENTS VESID COMMITTEE
The Board of Regents
February 9, 2009
Your VESID Committee held its scheduled meeting on February 9, 2009. All members were present. Chancellor Bennett, Vice-Chancellor Tisch, Regents Bottar, Phillips, Tallon and Young also attended.
MATTERS NOT REQUIRING BOARD ACTION
Deputy Commissioner Cort discussed with the Committee five specific State law/regulation requirements in special education that may result in administrative relief and/or cost savings to school districts, but that would not significantly impact the quality of special education supports and services available to students with disabilities. These recommendations were the result of discussions held with the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel (CAP) for Special Education Services as well as stakeholders representing the Education Finance Advisory Committee, parents of students with disabilities, professional disability organizations, teachers unions, school superintendents, rural schools, school business officials, special education administrators, schools boards and others as well as written comments received. The Committee agreed that the Department could move forward with respect to proposal #3 – Special Education Space Planning Requirements and proposal #4 – Parental Consent for July/August Services. They asked that staff bring back additional information for further discussion/consideration with regard to proposal # 1 – Minimum Level of Service Requirement for Speech and Language Related Services and proposal #5 – Due Process Statute of Limitations. The Committee did not support proposal #2 – Membership of the CSE and CPSE. (VESID (D) 4)
In response to the recommendation of the VESID Committee, the Department developed and distributed a Request for Letters of Interest for potential qualified operators for the New York State School for the Blind (NYSSB). Deputy Commissioner Cort reported on the responses that were received from eligible respondents. The Committee agreed that the Department should pursue further discussions with the Perkins School for the Blind, one of the respondents who a review team determined to be the most qualified potential provider, to explore in more detail the feasibility of Perkins operating NYSSB. (VESID (D) 3)
The Committee was provided an overview of the history and roles of the Independent Living Center (ILC) network, including the independent living philosophy, the primary services provided by staff at ILC’s and how New York State ILC’s have helped shape policy on national, state and local levels. (VESID (D) 2)
Time did not permit discussion of the item “Designing our Future – New Vocational Rehabilitation Initiatives.” It will be brought back for discussion at a future Regents meeting. (VESID (D) 1)
That concludes our report.