Committee on Special Programs  1/28/08
 
APPROVED STATE OF HAWAII BOARD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Special Education; Special Services; Hawaiian Language Immersion; 
Early Childhood Education; Adult Education; Student Discipline; Student Activities) Monday, January 28, 2008 Minutes Attendance Board of Education Denise Matsumoto, Interim Chairperson Dr. Lei Ahu Isa Jonathan Allen (Excused) Dr. Eileen Clarke (Excused) Mary Cochran, Esq. Margaret Cox (Excused) Breene Harimoto Cec Heftel (Excused) Donna Ikeda Kim Coco Iwamoto, Esq. Karen Knudsen (Excused) John Penebacker Garrett Toguchi Herbert Watanabe Camille Masutomi, Curriculum Specialist Mary Anne Sevilleja, Clerk Stenographer Department of Education Patricia Hamamoto, Superintendent of Education Clayton Fujie, Deputy Superintendent of Education Fay Ikei, Acting Assistant Superintendent, Office of Human Resources Paul Ban, Director, Student Support Services Branch Sandy Nakoa, Resource Teacher, Special Education Section Ron Okamura, Complex Area Superintendent, Hana/Lahaina/Lanai/Molokai Karen Sato, Educational Specialist II, Special Education Section Linda Unten, Educational Administrative Services Director, Administrative Services Others Susan Rocco, Special Education Advisory Council Ivalee Sinclair, Special Education Advisory Council I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Committee on Special Programs (Committee) was called to order by Interim Chairperson Denise Matsumoto at 3:01 p.m. in the Board Room, Queen Liliuokalani Building. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Watanabe moved, and Ms. Ikeda seconded, that the Committee approve the minutes of the Committee held on December 10, 2007. The motion passed unanimously with Ms. Cochran, Mr. Harimoto, Ms. Ikeda, Ms. Iwamoto, Ms. Matsumoto, Mr. Penebacker, and Mr. Watanabe voting aye. There were no nays and no abstentions. III. DISCUSSION/UPDATE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S EVALUATION OF THE DRUG SNIFFING DOG PILOT PROGRAM Deputy Superintendent Clayton Fujie and Mr. Ron Okamura, Complex Area Superintendent, Hana/Lahaina/Lanai/Molokai gave a verbal evaluation of the Drug Sniffing Dog Pilot Program on Maui. Mr. Fujie stated that four schools were interested in the Drug Sniffing Dog Pilot Program. He also stated that three schools qualified and one did not qualify because the criteria to have the program required reasonable suspicion. Mr. Fujie stated that at the time the pilot program began, Lanai High & Elementary school lacked the documentation to participate. He also stated that the following schools participated in the pilot program: Lahainaluna High, Lahaina Intermediate, and Samuel Enoka Kalama Intermediate schools. Mr. Okamura explained that the pilot program was used as a deterrent rather than an intervention program or a punishment. He stated that he participated in two campus inspections with Interquest Detection Canines of Hawaii and was impressed with the protocols used. Mr. Okamura explained that each school had between four and seven sniffs between February and May 2007. He stated that the Department was limited to the areas that could be searched. Mr. Okamura stated he participated in two school presentations, and the parents and students were supportive of the pilot program. He also stated that students reported that they felt safer at school. He explained that students felt that the Department was taking action to make schools safe from drugs. Mr. Okamura stated that questions raised were about the procedures on parent notification. Mr. Okamura stated that Henry Perrine Baldwin High, King Kekaulike High, Lanai High & Elementary, and Moloka’i High schools are interested in the program. He also stated that the pilot schools want to continue the programs at their schools. Mr. Fujie explained that companies interested in providing the Drug Sniffing Dog Program need to go through the procurement process. He stated that three companies are interested in providing services. Mr. Fujie explained that the funds for this program were not included in the Governor’s budget. He stated that Interquest Detection Canines of Hawaii received donations from the community to fund the pilot program. Ms. Ikeda asked if the schools need to use school monies to fund this program. Mr. Fujie stated that schools will need to use their funds to procure services off a state approved vendor list. In response to Ms. Iwamoto’s question regarding reasonable suspicion, Mr. Fujie stated that the school needed to provide documentation that there were Chapter 19, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Relating to Student Misconduct, Discipline, School Searches and Seizures, Reporting Offenses, Police Interviews and Arrests, and Restitution for Vandalism and Negligence (Chapter 19) cases. Ms. Iwamoto asked about the high number of cases reported. Mr. Okamura stated that the cases reported were blatant, and not to falsely justify the need for the program. Ms. Iwamoto suggested that funds for this program be elicited from the community. In response to Mr. Penebacker’s question regarding the program, Mr. Okamura stated that the Drug Sniffing Dog Program is an additional tool that administrators can use to make schools safe. In response to Mr. Penebacker’s question on student support, Mr. Okamura stated that Drug Treatment Programs are provided to students caught using drugs, as specified in Chapter 19. Mr. Okamura stated the Department also has educational programs as a preventive measure. Mr. Harimoto asked about the cost of the program. Mr. Okamura stated that the cost ranged from $150.00 to $250.00 per visit. Ms. Iwamoto requested the scientifically-based data proving that the Drug Sniffing Dog Program reduces the amount of substance abuse occurring on campus. Ms. Matsumoto also requested non-anecdotal data to share with other schools. Ms. Matsumoto expressed support for data-driven decision-making. Ms. Iwamoto expressed concern that resources will be misspent on a program that is later proven not to produce the results desired. Ms. Cochran expressed concern that program costs will burden the schools. She requested a break down of the federal or state funds to address drug prevention in the schools. In response to Mr. Penebacker’s question regarding the Maui Police Department, Mr. Okamura explained the Department had made agreements with the Maui Police Department. He stated the Department could turn over evidence to the Maui Police Department with no perpetrator to prosecute. He also stated that the Maui Police Department would forward cases to the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney if the amounts of drugs found were considered a felony. IV. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD ACTION ON APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED CHAPTER 60, HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, PROVISION OF A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto and Ms. Ivalee Sinclair, Special Education Advisory Council explained the following documents. • Chapter 60 Highlights of Changes from Chapter 56 (Attachment A) • Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto’s recommendation memo titled, “Discussion/Recommendation for Board Action on Approval for Public Hearings on Proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability dated January 28, 2008, (Attachment B) • Proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability (Chapter 60) Standard format (Attachment C) • Proposed Chapter 60, Ramseyer format (Attachment D) In response to Mr. Penebacker’s question regarding discipline, Chapter 60, and Chapter 19, Ms. Hamamoto and Dr. Paul Ban, Director, Student Support Services Branch stated that Chapter 19 and Chapter 60 are congruent. Ms. Iwamoto asked if Chapter 60 has a punitive component. Dr. Ban stated that Chapter 60 is not a disciplinary procedure. Dr. Ban explained that Chapter 60 addresses infraction of drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injuries. He further explained that administrators may place a special education (SPED) student in an interim alternate setting. Ms. Sinclair explained that SPED students may have extended year services which require the Department to provide services to the students. Ms. Sinclair stated that services will continue for the SPED student in an alternate setting while a determination regarding appropriate placement and services needed is decided. In response to Ms. Iwamoto’s question regarding foster parent support, Ms. Sinclair explained that under the law a foster parent may take the responsibility of advocating for their foster child at the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting. Ms. Sinclair stated a foster parent may request a surrogate parent to assume the responsibilities at an IEP meeting. Ms. Iwamoto suggested that the Department of Education (Department) have safe-guards for foster parents who may not be adept at the IEP meetings. In response to Ms. Iwamoto’s question regarding reimbursement to private schools, Ms. Hamamoto and Ms. Sinclair stated that federal and state funds may be used to reimburse SPED services at a private school. Mr. Penebacker asked if the Community Workgroup (CWG) will be accompanying the Department at public hearings. Ms. Sinclair stated that proposed Chapter 60 has not been shared with CWG. Ms. Sinclair stated that CWG supports Chapter 60 going to public hearings. Ms. Matsumoto requested that the Department and CWG work on any minor changes prior to the Board General Business meeting. Mr. Watanabe moved, and Mr. Penebacker seconded, that the Committee recommend to the full Board approval for public hearings on proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability. The motion passed unanimously with Dr. Ahu Isa, Ms. Cochran, Mr. Harimoto, Ms. Ikeda, Ms. Iwamoto, Ms. Matsumoto, Mr. Penebacker, Mr. Toguchi, and Mr. Watanabe voting aye. There were no nays and no abstentions. V. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD ACTION ON APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED REPEAL OF CHAPTER 56, HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, PROVISION OF A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Ms. Matsumoto explained Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto’s recommendation memo titled, “Discussion/Recommendation for Board Action to Repeal Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 56, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability (Chapter 56) dated January 28, 2008 (Attachment E) and Chapter 56, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability (Attachment F). Ms. Ikeda moved, Mr. Watanabe seconded, that the Committee recommend to the full Board approval for public hearings on proposed repeal of Chapter 56, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability. Mr. Penebacker asked whether the repeal of Chapter 56 is contingent on the approval of Chapter 60. Ms. Matsumoto stated that Chapter 56 and Chapter 60 will go to public hearings at the same time. The motion passed unanimously with Dr. Ahu Isa, Ms. Cochran, Mr. Harimoto, Ms. Ikeda, Ms. Iwamoto, Ms. Matsumoto, Mr. Penebacker, Mr. Toguchi, and Mr. Watanabe voting aye. There were no nays and no abstentions. The meeting was recessed at 4:13 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:15 p.m. Ms. Jeanne Ohta, Drug Policy Forum, submitted written testimony (Attachment G) and A Survey of Substance Abuse Programs in Hawai’i Schools (Attachment H). In response to Ms. Iwamoto’s question, Ms. Ohta explained that schools can be made safer without police tactics. In response to Mr. Harimoto’s question regarding Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), Ms. Ohta explained that when students discover that the police were not truthful, students distrust law enforcement. In response to Mr. Penebacker’s question, Ms. Ohta stated that programs that work should be funded. In response to Ms. Cochran’s question, Ms. Ohta stated the Drug Sniffing Dog Program does not reduce drug usage. Ms. Linda Elento gave verbal testimony on Chapter 13, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Geographical Exceptions. Ms. Matsumoto suggested that Ms. Elento research the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Ms. Elento asked who will assist her regarding her concern filed with the Board Ombudsman. Ms. Matsumoto stated she would refer the matter to Board staff. Ms. Teresa Chao gave verbal testimony on Chapter 60, Chapter 60 public hearings, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. January 28, 2008 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Chapter 60 Highlights of Changes from Chapter 56 Attachment B Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto’s recommendation memo titled, “Discussion/Recommendation for Board Action on Approval for Public Hearings on Proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability dated January 28, 2008 Attachment C Proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability, Standard format Attachment D Proposed Chapter 60, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability, Ramseyer format Attachment E Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto’s recommendation memo titled, “Discussion/Recommendation for Board Action to Repeal Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 56, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability dated January 28, 2008 Attachment F Chapter 56, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with a Disability Attachment G Jeanne Ohta’s written testimony dated January 28, 2008 Attachment H A Survey of Substance Abuse Programs in Hawai’i Schools Minutes 01-28-2008 (ATTACHMENT).pdf 2D00B831-9504-487C-9767-CB756BCF72DF_files/Minutes%2001-28-2008%20%28ATTACHMENT%29.pdfshapeimage_1_link_0
Monday, January 28, 2008