MONEY (Pink Floyd)

Newsletter V ol.16 No.4 March 2003 http://www.ccbd.net MONEY (Pink Floyd) Brenda Scheuermann, Chair Advocacy and Governmental Relations Committee 512-245-2267 Brenda@ccbd.net With the drums of war pounding ever more loudly in the background, it is easy to miss other important activities on the domestic front. Despite the all-encompassing emphasis on developing events in Appropriate the Middle East and other areas of the world, life here goes on. While there has and Inappropriate been little public activity on reauthorization, there has been work on appropriaUps and tions, the Secretary of Education has Downs of released IDEA Reauthorization AppropriaPrinciples, the Children’s Behavioral tions Alliance has been active in promoting its legislative agenda, and legislation has been introduced in the areas of mental health parity, paperwork reduction for special education, and discipline. cretionary education funding increased by $3.18 billion, or 6.4%, over FY02, bringing total FY 03 discretionary funding to $53.1 billion. This is a $2.8 billion, or 5.5%, increase over President Bush’s FY 03 request, and makes the President’s FY 04 request an increase of only $26.4 million or 0.05% over FY 03. Under the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, most programs were cut by .065%. Given this, the Office of Special Education Programs has released the following figures for FY ‘03 funding of IDEA, compared to FY ‘02 funding: Part B—$8,874,398,000 (FY02 $7,528,533,000) 619—$387,465,000 (FY02 $390,000,000) Part C—$434,159,000 (FY02 $417,000,000) Subtotal for state grants: $9,696,022,000 (FY02 $8,335,533,000) Part D Total: $337,895,000 (FY02 $337,271,000) State Improvement Grants— $51,364,000 (FY02 - $51,700,000) Research and Innovation—$77,210,000 (FY02 - $78,380,000) Technical Assistance & Dissemination— $53,133,000 (FY02 - $53,481,000) Personnel Preparation—$91,899,000 (FY02 - $90 million) Parent Information Centers— $26,328,000 (FY02 - $26 million) Technology & Media—$37,961,000 (FY02- $37,710,000) Total for all parts of IDEA: $10,033,917. In addition to that, Studies and Evaluations received $16,000,000, according to OSEP. These figures can be found at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget0 3/03app.pdf Other Appropriations: Mental Illness Research and Services It is also important to note that these totals do NOT include the .65% acrossthe-board reduction that congressional leaders and the White House agreed to in final negotiations. This .65% reduction is applied at the agency level. In enacting this small across-the-board cut as part of this massive spending bill, Congress has left agency directors significant discretion (and encouragement) to first look toward administrative costs and overhead before seeking reductions in direct services or grant payments to states and localities. • Mental Illness Research at NIMH$1,349.8 million (8.4% increase over FY02, yet well below the 12% to 13% increases in FY1999 through FY02. The lower increase is due to disproportionately large increases for bio-terrorism research at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, and reallocation of funds from NIH to the Centers for Disease Control) • Mental Illness Services: ✦ Mental Health Block Grant ($440 million) ($7million increase over FY02) ✦ Children’s Mental Health ($98.7 million) ($2.2 million increase over FY02) ✦ Protection and Advocacy ($34 million) ($1.5 million increase over FY02) ✦ Programs of Regional and National Significance ($246 million) ($226 (Continued on page 3) Appropriations: FY ‘03 The FY 03 Omnibus Appropriations Bill was signed into law by President Bush on February 20th, the last day of the last Continuing Budget Resolution. Total dis- In this issue … Money (Pink Floyd) 1 President’s Message 2 Multicultural Concerns 10 In the Best Interests of All 13 CCBD Foundation News 15 2 President’s Message Paul Zionts pzionts@kent.edu As reported in previous newsletters, CCBD has been working with the ILIAD partnership in order to help implement IDEA ’97 in local and state education agencies. CCBD has one of the strongest training cadres in the partnership and has been the most active in service delivery. The group has been together for close to 4 years and has presented together and with Preparing for members of other professional organizations. some new Current cadre members include: Robin CCBD activi- Brewer, Laura Frey, Lynn Gentry, Eleanor ties at the Guetzloe, Sherie Huber, Bev Johns, Howard Seattle ICEC Muscott, Vicki Seger, Suzanne Shellady, Alan Siegel, Barb Smarek, and Linda Westphal. Conference In January, the cadre attended the partnership’s annual winter institute (see picture!). The institute provided exceptional training on current special issues as well as “The Pathway Guide,” an incredible resource for all who work in schools. Special training for Pathway Guide use will be at this year’s CEC International Conference in Seattle and at the CCBD International Conference in St. Louis next October. Another valuable aspect of the conference was the networking that occurred with members from over 30 national professional organizations. It is clear that events such as these allow us to communicate on levels that were simply previously unavailable. The impact is not subtle. Just recently, I read an article that quoted the NEA representative saying that it is imperative for students with EBD to continue to receive service regardless of their behavior (my paraphrasing). I believe that these relationships have also taught us the challenges that these organizations have in responding to their members’ needs. The ILIAD federal grant is in its fifth and final year. Much talk has focused on the sustainability of the good work and relationships that have been established. It is clear that the impending reauthorization of IDEA will affect the ILIAD partnership model. I believe that it has affected our organization on many levels: We have educated others about the particular needs of students who have EBD, other important organizations are aware of CCBD and we have learned much from the professional organizations. I urge you to visit the partnership Web site that is located at http://www.ideapractices.org where you will find an incredible wealth of materials (most of which are free!) constitution of our profession and our organization. We need to decide how to best serve our membership and, ultimately, students with EBD. We are going to attempt to make our business meetings more interesting and efficient! Most of the business reports will be on the CCBD Web site by the end of the month. You will be notified by e-mail when they are uploaded. This will allow more time during our meetings that can be devoted to serious discussion. This year, we would like to honor those CCBD leaders who are retiring from the profession at the CCBD President’s Reception on Thursday, April 7. Among those who will be invited to attend are James Kauffman, Lew Polsgrove, Mike Nelson, Hill Walker, Steve Forness, and Richard Shores. Please try to attend and bid farewell to our colleagues. And, finally. I write this column today in a world that is filled with uncertainty. Decisions will be made within days that will seriously affect us all in significant ways. In many ways, the events will impact each other as well. It seems that every state is in the throw of a budget crisis that will result in “less for all students.” The reauthorization of IDEA is back on the table and one can only guess how these budget crises will influence the quality and quantity of services that will be mandated by the law. And, finally, the impending war on Iraq will, if it happens, pervade every aspect of how we do business. The potential social, emotional, economic, and political outcomes can only be imagined. We all are attempting to compartmentalize our priorities with little attention on how they interact. The challenge for all of us is immense and is one that will require us to be as diligent as ever in pursuing our goals. Seattle Activities During our business meeting in April we plan to meet with members to discuss the “future” of CCBD. This is a continuation of the conversation that we have been having since last year. There are many intriguing thoughts that may have significant implications on what CCBD will “look like” in 5 to 10 years. We want to meet with college and university students, teachers, faculty and administrators on Wednesday of conference week to receive the input. If you are interested in helping the executive committee on this activity and you will be in Seattle on Wednesday, please e-mail me as soon as possible. If you cannot attend, please feel free to contact me with your thoughts on this matter. As I have mentioned in previous newsletters, I think that we need to participate in serious planning as social and political forces have changed the nature and ILIAD Partners 3 AGR (Continued from page 1) million for FY02; Congress rejected the $7.5 million reduction proposed by the Administration). Specific PRNS allocations include: * $95 million for school violence prevention, * $30 million for children exposed to violence and terrorism experiencing PTSD, * $5 million for the ongoing CMHS jail diversion program, * $3 million for the CMHS suicide prevention center, * $5 million for the 2nd year of a new outreach and treatment program for older Americans diagnosed with mental illness, * $1 million for new community action grants (CMHS grants to local mental health authorities and other non-profits for a range of activities including replication of evidence-based practices, cooccurring disorders and criminal justice), and * $2 million to renew existing CMHS consumer technical assistance centers, with a requirement for the agency fund 5 such centers in FY 2003. Congress also has directed CMHS to fund $8.9 million for 29 separate “earmarks” (i.e., specific projects in specific states and communities requested by members of Congress on behalf of their constituents. Among these projects are: • $400,000 for a early intervention program for children with mental illness in East Providence, RI, • $400,000 for Ventura County, CA for criminal offenders with mental illness, • $300,000 for implementation of Texas Medication Algorithm in Tarrant County, TX. Finally, this omnibus spending bill includes an additional $3 million for FY 2003 for the Mental Health Courts program at the U.S. Department of Justice. These new funds are on top of a $5 million allocation for FY 2002 for which the Justice Department will soon announce funding awards. 2004 fiscal year, which will begin on October 1, 2003, and end on September 30, 2004. Perhaps most significantly, the President’s request eliminates over 40 programs in the U.S. Department of Education, including the Javits Gifted and Talented Act. The President has been trying to eliminate gifted education as a federally-funded program since he took office. He believes that gifted education should be covered by state and local funds, along with federal block grant money. Following is the President’s funding requests for IDEA programs for FY ‘04: Part B: 9.5 billion Preschool: 390 million (no increase) Infants and Toddlers: 447 million Part D (‘04 request total: $324.6 million) State Improvement Grants: 44.0 million (10 million less than FY ‘03 request) Research and Innovation: 78.4 million (no increase) Technical Assistance and Dissemination: 53.5 million (no increase) Personnel Preparation: 90 million (no increase) Parent Training and Information: 26 million (no increase) Technology and Media Services: 32.7 million (no increase from FY ‘03 request) The assumptions behind the President’s ‘04 budget proposals for IDEA to provide $9.5 billion under Part B for FY ‘04: FY 2002 Average per pupil expenditure (APPE) = $7248 Federal IDEA share per child = $1159 Fed share of APPE = 16.0% FY 2003—Bush budget APPE = $7402 Federal share per child = $1294 Fed share of APPE = 17.5% FY 2004—Bush budget APPE = $7552 Federal share per child = $1426 Fed share of APPE = 18.9% If you would like to learn more about the President’s FY 04 education funding proposal for special education and what it would mean for your state, click on: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budge t04/04StateTables/index.html From there, click on “State Tables by Programs” in either PDF or Excel format, and then scroll down the list of education programs and click on “special education grants to states” to see how much additional funding your state would receive under the President’s proposal. You can also research other education programs within the list. Learn more about the President’s FY ‘04 funding proposal for special Department of Education’s education Principles for Reauthorization and its impact on On February 25th U.S. Secretary of your state Education Rod Paige announced the principles which will guide the Department of Education during reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The principles seek to align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by working toward stronger accountability for results, simplifying paperwork for states and communities and increase flexibility for all, doing what works, and increasing choices and meaningful involvement for parents. The following information about the four principles is from the Secretary’s remarks: For more information about the President’s budget request for education programs, go to the Education Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budge t04/index.html 1. STRONGER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS Children with disabilities must be considered as general education students first. Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), states are responsible for implementing a single accountability system for all students based on strong academic standards for what every child should know and learn, including children with disabilities. IDEA must incorporate the NCLB principles of assessment for children receiving special education and align with NCLB accordingly to enhance state efforts to improve student achievement. Consistent with those principles, IDEA should ensure that students with disabilities have access to and make progress in the general curriculum, and are appropriately included in state accountability systems. IDEA must (Continued on page 4) Appropriations: FY ‘04 On Monday, February 3rd, President Bush released his budget request for the 4 AGR (Continued from page 3) move from a culture of compliance with process to a culture of accountability for results. Consequently, IDEA eligibility and compliance paperwork requirements at the federal level must be streamlined and focused on improving results for students with disabilities. In return for that rigorous accountability, states and localities will receive significant annual increases in IDEA funding. This funding would be on a discretionary basis. to be requested at any time during the dispute resolution process; and permitting the use of voluntary binding arbitration for both parents and districts. The law should also simplify the complexities of IDEA’s discipline requirements. Changes would improve school safety while preserving protections for students with disabilities. See the CCBD Web site for a copy of the entire CBA position paper “In the Best Interests of All” (and see p. 13 of this newsletter for a more extensive summary.) 3. DOING WHAT WORKS IDEA should target federal education dollars to implement research-based practices that have been proven to help students with disabilities learn. Half of the more than 6 million children currently served under IDEA have learning disabilities and about 90 percent of them exhibit reading difficulties as their primary demonstration of their specific learning disability. IDEA should ensure the revision of outdated regulations that result in the misidentification of students as having disabilities because they did not receive appropriate instruction (in areas such as reading) in their early years. This will help schools focus on identification practices that promote earlier intervention, dramatically reducing the misidentification of students with learning disabilities. More broadly, IDEA should ensure that schools, local education agencies, state education agencies, and the Federal Department of Education quickly adopt research and evidence-based practices. OSERS research and training activities should be aligned with the work of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences. Additionally, information should be provided to families and teachers on effective programs based on rigorous research, including requiring the federally funded parent training centers to educate parents about effective research that improves results for students with disabilities. IDEA should also reflect the research principles outlined by the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education while adhering to the standards for high quality research established by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. attend—traditional public, public cha ter, private, and parochial. IDEA cu rently empowers parents of children wit disabilities to participate in the selectio of schools and services for their childre and where those services will be provid ed. For instance, IDEA permits paren to move their child out of a special edu cation program to the private program o their choice if an IEP team agrees th child would be more appropriatel served in such a program. 2. SIMPLIFY PAPERWORK FOR STATES AND COMMUNITIES AND INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR ALL IDEA guarantees the availability of a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Yet the law itself often hampers effective education by requiring vast amounts of paperwork and substantial procedural requirements for teachers and administrators. IDEA should be simplified and unnecessary paperwork eliminated by focusing on results. This will increase the time spent by teachers on teaching and minimize time currently spent on procedural and non-instructional tasks while still preserving the fundamental rights of students with disabilities. States should be allowed to submit plans to the Department to streamline and simplify paperwork while demonstrating compliance. States and localities should have more flexibility to use federal special education money to provide direct services for students with disabilities. This will permit states, for example, to create intrastate risk pools for the highest cost children with disabilities, or to increase professional development opportunities for teachers, paraeducators, other service personnel and administrators. In addition, the current process for states to demonstrate their eligibility to receive IDEA funds must be streamlined and simplified. Meaningful involvement for parents of students with disabilities should also include earlier and easier access to alternative dispute resolution. IDEA should expand and improve upon existing dispute resolution processes through a variety of strategies including improved mediation practices; allowing mediation Yet too often these choices for studen with disabilities are limited by arbitrar decisions. IDEA should expand opportu nities to help parents, schools, and teach ers choose appropriate services and pro grams for children with disabilitie including the charter and private schoo of their choice. States should then mea ure and report academic achievemen results for all students benefiting from IDEA funds, regardless of what schoo they choose You may access the full text of th Secretary’s remarks at: http://www.ed gov/PressReleases/02-2003 02252003.html Children’s Behavioral Alliance Activities The Children’s Behavioral Allianc released their position paper, “In the Be Interests of All” during a Capitol Hi briefing on January 29, 2003. CCBD was well represented by Sandy Keenan Eleanor Guetzloe, and Bev John Overall, 16 CBA member organization were represented. The House Educatio & Workforce Committee staff perso responsible for IDEA for Chairma Boehner (R-OH) came and stayed fo the whole presentation. In addition, th senior Legislative Assistant for Rep. Pet Stark (D-CA) was present for the presen tation. Stephen Spector of CHADD ha since talked with this LA, who may b willing to include some of the ideas from our CBA paper in legislation. 4. INCREASE CHOICES AND MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT FOR PARENTS A core principle of IDEA is identifying and serving all children with disabilities regardless of the type of school they Following the briefing a group of a CB members met with the Legislativ Counsel for Senator Sessions, wh requested two of the referenced item from the paper. We see this as a good sig in that it suggests interest in the fac supporting our position paper. (Continued on page 5) 5 AGR (Continued from page 4) In addition, three members of CBA (Nuala Moore of AACAP, Laurel Stine of the Bazelon Center and Stephen Spector of CHADD) presented the paper, “In the Best Interests of All,” to the Mental Health Commission. According to Steve, they were well received, and Commissioner Robert Pasternack asked that they schedule a meeting at the Department of Education to discuss the report and its recommendations. He also asked for several additional copies for selected staff members. The Commission members were especially interested in the CBA discussion of linkages between various service providers. CBA comments to the Mental Health Commission have been posted in the CCBD Web site (LINK). There you will also find the original position paper, and the CHADD press release to announce the release of “In the Best Interests of All.” As we have said before, CCBD is pleased to be a part of this group, which we think has the potential to effect legislation. We applaud the efforts of Carl Smith, Steve Spector, Dr. Peter Jensen of Columbia University, and Matthew “Matt” Cohen of Monahan & Cohen, Attorneys at Law in Chicago, for their efforts to get our work noticed! nondisabled students in the same circumstances. • The district has the option to continue providing services; however, services does not necessarily equal FAPE or any particular level of service, and the location of provision of services is left to the district’s discretion. 2. H.R. 464, IDEA Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003 (Keller, RFL): a. Secretary of Education must • submit a report to Congress detailing proposals to reduce paperwork burdens and non-instructional time spent on paperwork. • identify, develop and disseminate simplified model forms for IEPs, procedural safeguard notices, and prior written notice reporting requirements. b. District may offer parents the option of a comprehensive 3-year IEP, which includes a statement of • measurable goals “coinciding with natural transition points” for the child • annual goals for measuring progress toward measurable goals. • A review of the 3-year IEP would occur at natural transition points. • In other years, the team will provide an annual streamlined review to determine current levels of progress and whether goals are being met; and will revise the IEP, as needed. • If determination is made that the child is not making sufficient progress, a review must be held within 30 days. c. Secretary may grant waivers of paperwork requirements for not more than 4 years to 10 states based on State proposals addressing reduction of paperwork and non-instructional time spent on administrative requirements. d. Other changes: • regular education not required to attend IEP meeting if discussion is not relevant to child’s participation in regular education; • parents and district may agree to “excuse” any IEP team member from attending a meeting if attendance is not necessary; • parents and district may agree to waive reconvening team and instead develop a written document to amend or modify the IEP; • consolidation of meetings is encouraged; Proposed new legisla• alternative means of meeting partion would ticipation may be used; impact on • procedural safeguards notice will IDEA be provided at the time services are initiated, if a complaint is filed, or if the parent requests. Advocacy in Action Finally, I’d like to share a letter written by Mike Waford, AGR Committee member. The purpose of Mike’s letter was to rebut an article by Fredreka Schouten which appeared in the Nashville Tenessean: “Some pushing for more power to punish kids with disabilities” (Gannett News Service, Nashville Tenneesean Sunday March 2, 2003). First, Mike’s summary of the article and his immediate reaction to it: I spent a Saturday evening cruising honkey tonks in Nashville and woke up the next morning to an article in the local newspaper that that made me feel worse than my experience the night before. Here is a review of what prompted me to take the second Pepcid AC. This article began with comments from a middle school teacher in Birmingham, Responding AL, who was being hit by a child with to the chalAutism while she was trying to telephone lenge his mother. Because his behavior was determined to be a manifestation of his disability he was not expelled nor seriously disciplined. The teacher was quoted, “He’s allowed to beat me as long as it’s a part of his disability—that’s what I’ve been told.” “He’s a danger to other kids and to teachers. Where do our rights fit into this?” The article continues with the statement that members of Congress are asking the same questions. It seems to me that question gets asked a great deal. What is a credible answer for colleagues like the teacher from Alabama? The article continues with comments from the Honorable Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions, who was quoted, “I think they should be suspended like any other child.” (Continued on page 12) IDEA-Related Legislation Introduced Although there has been no action thus far on the IDEA reauthorization, several freestanding bills of interest have been introduced. As of yet, no action has been taken on these bills. 1. H.R. 863, Classroom Safety Act of 2003 (Vitter, R-LA): This bill amends the IDEA discipline provisions in the following ways: • Allows school personnel to discipline a student with a disability for weapons and drug violations in the same manner as a nondisabled child. • Students expelled for weapons or drug violations would not be entitled to educational services if the State does not require services to Call for Presentation Proposals CCBD International Conference, October, 2003 Deadline Extended to: April 1, 2003 Meeting the Diverse Needs of Children/Youth with Learning and Behavioral Problems: Strategies, Supports, and Services That Work Airport Marriott Hotel, St. Louis, MO - October 2 - 4, 2003 The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders is issuing a Call for Papers to be presented at its International Conference to be held at the Airport Marriott Hotel, St. Louis, MO. Conference activities begin at 12:00 noon on Thursday, October 2, with preconference workshops. The opening general session will be at 6:00 p.m. followed by a reception. The conference will focus on a variety of critical issues related to providing quality services to children and youth with learning and behavioral problems. Priority will be given to proposals that focus on innovative and best practices designed to ensure quality services to children/youth with learning and behavioral problems. Special consideration will be given to proposals that demonstrate effective strategies designed to meet the needs of diverse populations.This will include: data-based instructional decision-making, outcomes of educational reforms, differentiating curriculum/instruction within general education settings, effective classroom management and instruction, development and utilization of homeschool-community partnerships, implementation of systems of care, demonstration of collaborative systems, and implementation of effective services for youth in juvenile correction settings. Teachers, administrators, researchers, teacher trainers, staff developers, counselors, psychologists, social workers, community agency personnel, personnel who work in alternative settings (e.g., juvenile justice, residential treatment, alternative schools for disruptive students), and others who provide direct or indirect services to children/youth are encouraged to respond to the Call for Papers. Instructions for Submitting Proposals # Please type/print all information on the proposal form. # Please sign the Statement of Understanding on the proposal form (Proposal will not be accepted without signature). # Proposals must be received NOT LATER THAN MARCH 1, 2003 - Extended to March 15 # Proposal Requirements. Send the following: -Original and one copy of the completed proposal form. -Two copies of a 200-300 word abstract detailing the proposed presentation. (Be specific enough for the reviewer to be able to grasp the nature of the presentation and its scope.). -One 50 word description that may be used for the program, if proposal is accepted. -One 3 x 5 card for each presenter. Each card should list one presenter’s name (last name first, affiliation, address, home and business phone numbers, fax number, summer address-if different, and e-mail address. # Send proposal and other materials via the mail; please do not fax. # Retain one copy of the proposal for your records. Materials cannot be returned. # Send completed proposal information to: CCBD Conference c/o Dr. Lyndal M. Bullock University of North Texas; P. O. Box 310860 Announcing . . . Meeting the Diverse Needs of Children and Youth with Learning and Behavioral Problems: Strategies, Supports, and Services that Work! International Conference on Children and Youth with Behavioral Disorders October 2 - 4, 2003 St. Louis, MO Save Time and Money - Register by September 12, 2003 For additional information contact: Dr. Lyndal M. Bullock University of North Texas P. O. Box 310860 Denton, TX 76203-0860 (0) 940-565-3583 Fax: 940-565-4055 e-mail: bullock@tac.coe.unt.edu Training Strands best for the student, strategies forfacilitating the inclusion process (e.g., student readiness, student supports, social/instructional environment adjustments), classroom and school-based supports, and evaluation strategies to help ensure positive outcomes. Beverley H. Johns, Learning and Behavioral Consultant, Jacksonville, IL Eleanor Guetzloe, Professor Emerita, University of South Florida, Tampa Friday - Saturday, October 3-4, 2003 Training Strand I Effective Classroom Management and Instruction of Middle and Secondary SchoolAged Youth. (3 Sessions). Focus will be on establishing a multi-tiered approach to the integration of academic and non-academic instruction at the middle/secondary level. This three tiered approach would include whole-class, subgroup, and pupil-specific strategies which are research-based, including precorrective and reactive procedures, which have been proven effective in addressing learning and behavioral problems. Bill Evans, University of West Florida, Pensacola Training Strand A Educating Juveniles in Correctional Settings. (6 Sessions). Emphasis will be the current and emerging educational services for juveniles with disabilities in correctional settings, including an examination of ongoing research and demonstration projects. Discussion will also focus on the characteristics and needs of this population, along with legislative and judicial mandates, and their potential impact on correctional education. Peter Leone, University of Maryland, College Park Training Strand D Differentiating Curriculum/ Instruction on Behalf of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders Within General Education Settings. (6 Sessions). Given that learning and behavioral problems go hand-in-hand, quality programming hinges on making appropriate decisions regarding placement, curriculum, and instruction. Emphasis will be on making curricular accommodations and instructional modifications, as well as directly teaching students ways to respond successfully to the general education curriculum. Discussion will also include the importance of establishing collaborative relationships with general education colleagues, school-based support personnel, and home/family members. Philip L. Gunter, Valdosta State University, GA Training Strand G Establishing Exemplary Personnel Preparation Programs Through Public School and University Partnerships. (3 Sessions). This strand will explore current and emerging standards for teacher preparation (e.g., CEC/NCATE, INTAS), along with issues that relate to training, recruitment, and retention of school personnel. In light of growing shortages, discussion will highlight the increasing challenges to ensuring high quality personnel preparation. Emphasis will be on positive strategies to reconcile the significant gap between the needs of students with E/BD and the level of teacher preparation and support. Alec Peck, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA Training Strand B Transition Programming for Students with Learning and Behavioral Problems. (6 Sessions). Emphasis will be on current and emerging best practices in the ongoing transition programming of students with learning and behavioral problems (i.e. within school transitions, across service transitions, school to community-based settings, school to work). In addition, an examination will be made of critical programming-related elements (e.g., assessment, ITP development and decision-making, and progress evaluation and modifications. Mary E. Morningstar, University of Kansas, Lawrence Training Strand J Interagency Collaboration: Developing Systems of Care on Behalf of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders and Their Families. (3 Sessions). Given the complex and multifaceted nature of emotional/behavioral problems, focus will be on establishing and maintaining exemplary service delivery options that are responsive to the diverse needs of students with E/BD and their families. Models and best practices that exemplify high quality inter- and intra-agency collaboration will be examined. Michael Epstein, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Training Strand E Serving Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. (6 Sessions). Significant demographic changes are occurring in schools; accordingly, diversity is an issue not only in regard to over-representation and underrepresentation, but also the delivery of highquality instruction. This strand will focus on the significance of background and experience in influencing learner characteristics, assessment and curriculum instruction. The importance of and strategies for promoting positive homeschool relationships will be highlighted. Festus Obiakor, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Training Strand C Prevention and Early Intervention for Young Children At-Risk for Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. (6 Sessions). Strategies that focus on prevention and early intervention for young children at-risk for emotional/behavioral disorders will be the focus of this strand. The importance, implications, and need to align prevention/intervention efforts with recent school reform initiatives and legislative actions will be highlighted. Training Strand H Effective Classroom Management and Instruction of Elementary School-Aged Children. (3 Sessions). Focus will be on establishing a multi-tiered approach to the integration of academic and non-academic instruction at the elementary level. This threetiered approach would include whole-class, subgroup, and pupil-specific strategies which are research-based, including precorrective and reactive procedures, which have been proven effective in addressing learning and behavioral problems. Paul Zionts, Kent State University, OH Maureen Conroy, University of Florida, Gainesville Training Strand F Inclusive Education for Children and Youth with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging Practices. (6 Sessions). An historical to a contemporary perspective on inclusive practices for children and youth with challenging behaviors will be the focus of the strand. Consideration will be given to issues such as placement and program decision-making–what is 9 CCBD.net for the Past 3 Years Claudia Rinaldi CCBD Webmaster I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members for their support during the development of our Web site over these past 3 years. Since my term began in July 2000 we have moved from a static site to a site that allows us to maintain up-to-date information. My mission for the Web site was to create a place where members can have access to the information from our organization, to inform nonmembers of the benefits we could offer, and to partner with other agencies that help professionals who teach children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Since CCBD.net got its new look 3 years ago, we have added many features. The features include the uploading of Beyond Behavior (1990-present), Behavioral Disorders (2001-present), the CCBD Newsletter, a message board, a calendar of events, subdivision information, conference information, advocacy information, position papers, white papers and much more. We also developed a free resource for PDA users through Mazingo. These features update your PDA on the advocacy information posted on the Web site so please feel free to register. We have also provided printable versions of every web page for easy record keeping. In addition, we also added a quick link to the CEC Legislative action center so that our members can easily contact their representatives during this time of great change for students with disabilities. Our first online newsletter was a success with 3,077 downloads after our mass email announcement. Our statistics since March 2001 show that the hits to our homepage have gone from 45,685 to and average of 398,000 per month in the last 6 moths. Our page views have gone from 8,547 to an average of 46,000 per month in the last 6 months. Unique visitors to the Web site have gone from 2,612 in March 2001 to 9,103 in Feb 2003. Downloaded pages in March 2001 (newsletter only available) went from 34 downloads to having over 2,000 downloads from our Beyond Behavior 2001 issue on Service Learning, and over 1,900 downloads of our Beyond Behavior 2000 issue on Best Practices and a grand total of over 14,000 overall downloads of documents in the month of Feb 2003. As far as the members know if you are happy with the Web site. CCBD Web site readership rockets! message board, it has clearly become a place for interaction between members and nonmembers providing a service to our community and a dissemination tool as well. Overall for the last few months we have averaged 390,000 hits per month with 46,000 page views a month. Most people stay on our site for an average of 14 minutes. The top most popular pages of the Web site have stayed the same: Beyond Behavior, message board, CCBD Newsletter, Behavioral Disorders, advocacy and calendar. With this information I am pleased to say that my goals as webmaster have been met. It has been a very exciting time and I look forward to the future growth of the Web site. Please remember you can add you own calendar events to our calendar once you are logged on so I encourage everyone to share your local, state, national, and international conference information. It was a pleasure to serve all of you, and please let your executive committee 10 Ethnic and Multicultural Concerns Member-at-Large Promoting Multicultural Education By Beth Day-Hairston Recently during my Introduction to Exceptional Children course, a lateral entry special education teacher wanted to know if he would be fired for applying Banks’ (1997) approach to multicultural reform in the classroom. While the historical orientation towards multicultural education would engender certain consequences for teachers, I was surprised that someone would still think there would be consequences in this millennium for teaching from a multicultural perspective. In fact, Banks introduced this model in an effort to promote culturally responsive teachers. Although many teachers continue to think that multicultural education is expressly emphasizing the contributions of people of color, it was important that I convey to my students that multicultural education is for all students. However, people neglect to recognize that multicultural education has to do not only with pedagogy but also with the adoption of this philosophy as a way of life. In other words, there should be consistency between the practices we advocate and our conduct. This includes our attitudes about multicultural education, our knowledge of the specific and unique concerns of people with disabilities, and our pedagogical style. The remainder will outline Banks (1995) model of multicultural education. lar cultural groups has merit, this does not constitute a superior criteria for the effective delivery of multicultural education. The additive approach allows a teacher to take an already existing curriculum and add content, concepts, themes and perspectives without changing the curriculum. For example, while studying the economic boom of the southern plantation economy in a U.S. History course, a teacher might add a unit that explores the slave trade and its role in stimulating this economy and how the economic boom was based on exploitation and one of this nations most severe instances of cruelty. In the transformation approach, the curriculum is changed to have multiple perspectives based on diversity. For instance, teachers would have a multicultural perspective that permeates a course. Banks (1997) contends that: When studying U.S. history, language, music, arts, science, and mathematics, the emphasis should not be on the ways that various ethnic and cultural groups have contributed to mainstream U.S. society and culture. The emphasis rather, should be on how the common U.S. culture and society emerged from a complex synthesis and interaction of the diverse cultural elements that originated within the various cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious groups that make up the U.S. society (page 204). Finally, in the social action approach teachers should use a problem-solving approach whereby students take actions related to an issue or problem being studied. A teacher could follow the four step process below and: 1. Select a problem at the school. Identify a problem or issue at your school. For instance, students identified as BED are not included in extracurricular programs at your school and when they attend interest meetings are encouraged not to return. (e.g. discrimination) 2. Collect data related to the problem or question. Collect information about your problem. Using the example above, query school administrators about the history of students with disabilities extracurricular involvement. Find examples that are evident in the school. 3. Conduct a value inquiry and needs analysis. Determine how you can help benefit a cause. Include student reflection. 4. Develop a plan of social action based on a synthesis of the knowledge obtained in step 2 and the findings identified in step 3. Teachers would develop a strategy for including students and discuss the mandate outlined in IDEA 1997 and petition the school to include students with disabilities in extracurricular activities. “… People neglect to recognize that multicultural education has to do not only with pedagogy but also with the adoption of this philosophy as a way of life.” Multicultural Curricula Banks identifies four major approaches to understanding how diversity plays a role in the curriculum: contributions, additive, transformation, and social action approaches. The contributions approach includes teachers inserting into the curriculum the discussion of ethnic heroes, culturally diverse inventors and their inventions into thematic units on inventions. Unfortunately, this approach introduces heroes in isolation and fails to address such issues as oppression and discrimination. It is not rare to see teachers celebrate diversity through eating foods of various cultural groups. Although exposure to cuisine and artifacts of particu- Teaching Implications The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) developed a Common Core of Knowledge and Skills Essential for All Beginning Special Education Teachers that requires a vigilant effort to address diversity. Our professional organization requires that statements are inclusive and diversity is infused throughout the model. In the scenario above, what the lateral entry teacher failed to realize is that our professional organization is advocating for us to become Social activists, the highest level of Banks (1995) model. As educators we need to imbue these notions because if we are still thinking at just the contributions level, we are delivering services that are miseducative. As teachers we have an ethical obligation to teach students in ways that are pedagogically sound and culturally responsive. Banks (1995) contends that multicultural school experiences should include content, examples, and realistic images of diverse racial and ethnic groups. In addition cooperative learning groups should have diverse students who work together toward a common goal. It is interesting to note that Banks does not suggest that we wait until high school to begin this process. Instead educators should begin introducing a multicultural curriculum as early as kindergarten. As teachers realize and implement Banks model his highest level (social action) seems to be the most vast and adequate model. Once teachers adopt this model imagine what classrooms would look like. Developing culturally (Continued on page 11) 11 Multicultural (Continued from page 10) relevant curriculum will allow children to analyze and critique the social structures of inequality that are embedded in our curriculum while concurrently increasing students’ levels of motivation and commitment to education. References Banks, J.A. (1995). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice. In J.A. Banks and C.A.M. Banks (Eds.). Handbook of research on multicultural education. New York: Macmillan. Banks, J.A. (1997). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Vaughn, S. Bos, C. & Schumm, J. (2003). Teaching Exceptional, Diverse, and At-Risk Students in the General Education Classroom (3rd. ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Foundation (Continued from page 15) An Early Evening of Music, Food, and Fun at Hoyt’s Pub Just in case baseball isn’t your thing, your CCBD Foundation is sponsoring School of Education, 210 Speight Building, Greenville, NC 27858. To Our Generous Sponsors, THANKS! The CCBD Foundation would like to thank the following individuals and organizations who have made donations since our last Newsletter. We appreciate your support. Contributor CCBDF Program Start Your Saturday Night in Seattle with Us our second annual night on the town in Seattle as part of the ICEC Convention. You may have missed the great evening that CCBDers and friends of the Foundation had when we attended Blue Man Group last April in NYC. In case Kentucky CCBD Victor Zionts In Loving Memory Circle Marcia Piercy Eleanor Guetzloe Scholarship Fund Sharon Maroney Unrestricted Shawn Robinson Scholarships Katherine Audi Unrestricted CCBD Foundation Board to Meet in Seattle The Board of Trustees will hold its annual meeting in Seattle to discuss Foundation activities. During the meetings, the Board will address our practitioner, professional development, and scholarship programs as well as marketing and fundraising. Plans for our promotional and fundraising activities at the International CCBD conference in St. Louis next October 2003 will also be discussed as well as whether or not we should have a call for nominations for regional scholarship programs slated to begin in 2010. If you have an item for our agenda that you believe we should consider, please contact me at the address above. Please Note: The Annual Reports from each member of your CCBD Executive Committee will be available on the Web site prior to the Seattle meetings. you don’t remember, see the photo below! Whether you were there or not or whether you were there and forgot — don’t miss this year’s event as the University of Washington College of Education cosponsors a night of Music, Food, and Fun on Saturday April 12th 2003 from 5 to 9 PM at Hoyt’s Pub in Seattle. A $10 cover for light appetizers and the band and a minimum $25 donation to the Foundation gets you into this special tickets only event. Hoyt’s Pub also serves dinner and will be closed to the general public for our private use until 9 PM. So come join us for food and music before heading out for a Seattle evening or stay past 9 PM when the pub opens to the public. In either case, you’ll be investing in our commitment to provide resources for students with EBD and their families while having fun at the same time. To reserve your seats, contact Kathi Wilhite at wilhitek@mail.ecu.edu or, if you must, call her at (252) 328-2590. Checks for a minimum of $35 (you can donate as much as you like!) can be sent to Kathi Wilhite, CCBDF Director of Development, East Carolina University, Call for Nominations for Member of the Foundation Board of Trustees The Foundation Board is seeking a trustee to fill a position on the Board when a current member’s term of office expires. Individuals interested in submitting an application should send their vitae and a letter indicating their interest and qualifications to me at the address listed above by the end of April. The Board will review applications and a nomination will be forwarded to the voting members of the Foundation for approval. 12 AGR (Continued from page 5) Ms. Schouten mentioned a petition was sent by 700 disability advocates urging members to leave the discipline provisions alone. She also indicated the Honorable Hillary Rodman Clinton was working on a compromise behind the scenes. Why do I not feel assured by that effort? The last time a compromise behind the scenes was done in Kentucky we ended up with new EBD eligibility language that included, “willful, wanton and intentional!” Overall the article presented arguments from both sides. Paul Marchand, a lobbyist for The Arc, stated: “This is not about bad kids who need to be expelled. It’s about coping with kids who have discipline problems because of their disabilities.” There were examples of success stories as well. But there was a great deal of emphasis placed on the organizations that are demanding changes in the law. Mentioned was the coalition of administrators, teachers and school boards who feel there are no serious consequences for bad behavior. The ‘two-tiered system’ argument was used as an example of how students ‘play the game’ to avoid punishment. The school board group is even advocating release of responsibility for educating students who have only been suspended, not even expelled! My hangover from that weekend continues with the belief that those who hold views closer to mine are not as well organized nor are we as publicly articulate in expressing our support for educating all students. If a district refuses to educate a suspended child with disabilities and no one complains, does that count as being left behind? Read your newspapers. Write letters to the editors, Offer to do special columns in rebuttal. Respond to the question from the teacher in Alabama. As long as we sit complacent someone else will do the deed and all we can do is gripe. By then it’s too late, about all you can do is take another antacid! Now, Mike’s letter: For over 25 years I have worked for more programs and services for tough kids. As a member of the Council of Children with Behavior Disorders and in my role as coordinator of a special education cooperative in Kentucky I realize the dilemma schools find themselves in when faced with the aggressive and even dangerous behavior of students with disabilities. I have conducted dozens of workshops and training for educators, both classroom teachers and administrators, on effective strategies for working with these children. Today I read your article, “Some pushing for more power to punish kids with disabilities.” It was well written and I believe accurately presents what information you were given from your sources. My concern there may be so much more you weren’t told. For example, A school may discipline a student with disabilities the same as a nondisabled peer with two exceptions: 1) If the student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) specifically prohibits an action like use of physical punishment or time out. 2) If the response by the school to the behavior would result in the child being removed from school for an extended time, a meeting must be held to determine if the behavior in question was a ‘manifestation’ of the disability. You stated, “Schools should not be required to keep a student who assaults teachers or brings a gun to school.” The current IDEA does not require schools to do so! In the current process of determining what is the best location for services to be provided, schools must determine the ‘least restrictive environment.’ For students whose behavior includes the type mentioned above an IEP team is convened to determine if that behavior warrants a more restrictive placement. That is the team’s responsibility under federal and state regulations. A student remains in a regular school only if the IEP team agrees. The team consists of at least three educators and the parent. Many times I have advised schools the current placement may not be the least restrictive and encouraged them to remove the student to a location that is able to address the needs of the student. Districts are required under federal and state regulaltion to ‘provide a continuum of placement options.’ Therein lies the dilemma, most do not offer such a continuum, especially at the elementary level. The schools I have talked with express frustration when they realize there is something they can do but they have not developed such settings to do so. Part of the problem is lack of adequate funding. I am sure you are aware of the push to fully fund IDEA by 2007. It is because of this failure to fund for 25 years that districts are reluctant to use any more local money for special education programs because they believe they have already done more than Congress and the federal government. Finally, I agree strongly with Marchand of ARC when he stated the 42,000 unqualified teachers of students with disabilities is part of the reason schools do not know what to do with the students or the behavior. In most schools the youngest, least experienced serve the toughest to teach. We do not encourage nor mandate those who have the greatest skills to work with the those with the biggest challenge. In that single situation, we in education fail miserably to teach those who need it the most. I could continue with many other thoughts about your article but it is late. If one looks up discipline in a dictionary there are two words that are used in the definition more than any others; punishment and instruction/teaching. We need to spend more time teaching these children rather than trying to develop different ways to punish them. Oh yes, the definition of punishment means the behavior decreases. If that effect does not occur, it is not punishment! Does Senator Sessions even know what he wants? Thanks for your time. Go to www.ccbd.net for more information. Mike Waford Ms. Schouten responded to Mike. Her response follows: Mr. Waford: Thanks for taking the time to write to me and provide more information about discipline policies under IDEA. I plan on visiting your Web site to learn more about the organization. I touched briefly on the funding issue in a short story designed to accompany the piece on discipline. As you noted, the lack of full funding is the source of great frustration for school districts, particularly for smaller districts that may not have, for instance, an alternative school (Continued on page 13) 13 AGR (Continued from page 12) or another appropriate setting for disabled students who are removed for an extended period. One clarification, the statement about schools not being required to keep students who assault teachers reflects Sen. Sessions’ point of view. Thanks again. Fredreka Schouten Thanks, Mike for taking the time to be an advocate! We appreciate your efforts! and(c) legislation proposed by the Alliance. The proposed legislation cited in the paper is summarized as follows: ✦ Ensure that children with social. emotional, and/or behavioral problems remain covered by existing eligibility categories within IDEA. ✦ Maintain IDEA ’97 requirements that provide children with disabilities who also have social, emotional, and/or behavioral needs with positive behavioral intervention and support, including use of Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Programs. ✦ Amend IDEA to ensure that Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Intervention Plans and School-wide Positive Behavioral Supports are used preventively in response to social, emotional, and/or behavioral problems that have not diminished through the use of standard intervention practices. ✦ Maintain the existing IDEA ’97 requirement for no cessation of services for children with disabilities. ✦ Amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to extend the “no cessation of services” requirements to all students and to require provision of positive behavioral supports to address problem behaviors. ✦ Maintain existing IDEA requirements in relation to manifestation determinations and transfer to interim alternative educational settings. ✦ Maintain the existing IDEA ’97 categories of students who can be placed in Alternative Educational Programs for 45 days. ✦ Fully fund IDEA at the 40% federal level originally promised by Congress. ✦ Maintain non-supplanting provisions to ensure that increased federal funds for special education are used appropriately rather than redirected to general education funding at state and local levels. ✦ Implement procedureas consistent with the 2000 National Council on Disability report, Back to School on Civil Rights, to assure meaningful monitoring and compliance with and enforcement of IDEA. ✦ Require periodic behavioral/mental health screening of all students. ✦ Expand IDEA Part D professional development requirements to ensure that all educational and related services staff receive training in positive behavioral supports, functional behavioral assessments, and behavioral ntervention planning, and to assure availability within all districts of support staff with more intensive training in such strategies. ✦ Amend IDEA to include the “fully qualified teacher” provisions and timeliness of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and apply them to special educators. ✦ Increase funding for integrated services among schools, juvenile courts, “In the Best child welfare, community mental Interests of health providers, primary care providers, public recreation agencies, All” and community-based organizations and tie increases in federal funding to coordinated models of service delivery. ✦ Increase federal funding for research and training of educators, mental health professionals, and parents to improve interagency cooperation and parent involvement. In the Best Interests of All will soon be posted on the CCBD Web site. In the Best Interests of All Eleanor Guetzloe CCBD Representative to CEC Assembly The Children’s Behavioral Alliance (CBA) is a group of 14 organizations (including CCBD) who share mutual concerns regarding the needs of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The CBA met several times and promulgated a position paper, In the Best Interests of All, which was facilitated by the national CHADD organization. The paper was presented for the first time at a briefing held on January 29, 2003, in the Sam Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The briefing included presentations by the three primary authors of the paper: Matthew Cohen, Peter Jensen, and CCBD’s former president Carl Smith, as well as by the president of CHADD, Evelyn Green, a special education teacher who is also the mother of two sons, one of whom has been diagnosed with ADHD, and Karran Royal, mother of two sons, one of whom has ADHD. Eleanor Guetzloe, Bev Johns, and Sandy Keenan attended the briefing to represent CCBD, one of the organizations that co-sponsored and assisted in the funding of the publication. The position paper, which has now been adopted by a total of 20 organizations, focuses on (a) best practices in the field of EBD, (b) current trends in educational and treatment programs, Spring is the BEST time (along with Summer, Fall, and Winter) to donate to the CCBD Foundation!! (See p. 12 for contact info.) 14 MOVED TO A NEW STATE OR PROVINCE?? WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH CCBD???? Debbie Brent Regional Services & Membership Chair Then check in with the following Regional Coordinators to find out who, what, where, and when regarding your new state or providence CCBD subdivision. The Regional Coordinators provide support for the subdivisions and can put you in touch with the right people. Hal Jackson supports these states and can be reached by e-mail: hgjack@u.washington.edu Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming Debra Andrew supports these states and her e-mail is: debja@qwest.net Utah, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Hawaii Sue Kemp is the RC to contact if you live in the following states, and she can be reached at: skemp2@unl.edu Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and North and South Dakota Vicki Woods assists these states and can be reached at: vwoods@mesa.k12.co.us Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana Alan Siegel supports the following states and his e-mail is: ajseigel@kdec .coop.k12.ky.us Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky David St. Jean is the person to contact if you live in the following states, his e-mail is: dstjean@merrinack.k12.nh.us New York and the New England area Cheryl Zaccagnini supports these states and can be reached at: chzacc@ark. ship.edu Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey John Sachs supports the southern region and can be reached at: Jsachs@usamail. usouthal.edu Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Alabama Joyce Mountsteven provides assistance for an area of Canada and can be contacted at: joyce.mountsteven@ tdsb.on.ca Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, New Foundland, and Nova Scotia Christine Boyczuk handles the other region of Canada and can be contacted by mail at 31 Blue Bell Cresent, Moose Jaw SK S6J A1, Canada Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon All of these Regional Coordinators are knowledgeable and willing to help. Please do not hesitate to contact them or myself as Regional Membership Chair, Debbie Brent, E-mail-dbrent@ hotmail.com How to contact your regional CCBD representatives Plan Now to Attend the International CCBD Conference in St. Louis this October. See p. 6-8 for details! 15 CCBD Foundation News Howard S. Muscott, President of the Board of Trustees CCBD Foundation PO Box 1078 Amherst, NH 03031 (603) 897-8563; hmuscott@rivier.edu CCBD Newsletter The CCBD Newsletter presents a variety of viewpoints on sensitive and diverse issues. The views expressed or implied, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official positions of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. The CCBD Newsletter is published 6 times a year by the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201-5704. Members’ dues to CCBD include subscription to the newsletter. Send all news items and inquiries to Dr. Alec Peck, Campion 108, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, (617) 552-3149; FAX: (617) 552-8419, e-mail: peck@bc.edu Change of address should be sent directly to CEC, 1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201-5704. Play Ball! Mariners vs. Rangers CCBD Foundation Brings You Mariners Baseball at ICEC The CCBD Foundation has obtained 40 tickets to attend the opening weekend of baseball in Seattle, Washington during the CEC International Convention. Whether you are a baseball fan, a Mariners fan, or just want to see how Alex Rodriquez responds to being back in Seattle, you won’t want to miss the Mariners take on the Texas Rangers on Friday, April 11th 2003 at 7:05 PM. Unlike last year when hearty CCBDers and others attending the Yankees game sat through cold NYC weather, the SAFECO field has a retractable roof that will keep you comfortable whatever the Seattle weather. Tickets for the game have been specially priced at $10 for the Foundation plus a minimum of a $25.00 donation to the Foundation. With the total price at $35—and $25 of it being tax deductible—the only problem you might have is making sure that you get your tickets before they’re gone. To reserve your seats, contact Kathi Wilhite at wilhitek@mail.ecu.edu or, if you must, call her at (252) 328-2590. Checks for a minimum of $35 (you can donate as much as you like!) can be sent to Kathi Wilhite, CCBDF Director of Development, East Carolina University, School of Education, 210 Speight Building, Greenville, NC 27858 (Continued on page 11) The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders A Division of The Council for Exceptional Children 1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201-5704 PRESORTED FIRST CLASS U.S. POSTAGE PAID HERNDON, VA PERMIT NO. 1575