| Mary Mack: My name is
Mary Mack and I am with the National Transition Alliance
at the University of Minnesota. We are really happy to
have you join us in this conference call presentation and
discussion. This presentation will focus on how New York
State is sustaining school-to-work through large-scale
assessment and a standards-based education system. One
of the presenters for today's call is Jean Stevens, the
Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Workforce
Preparation and Continuing Education for the New York
State Education Department. Jean, if you want to
introduce yourself and the other presenters, that would
be wonderful.
Jean Stevens: Thank you very much, Mary. We are
really pleased to be part of this conference call and to
share some of the things that are going on in New York.
With me is Sara Knower from our Office of Workforce
Preparation and Continuing Education, a strong advocate
for school-to-work who has worked tirelessly. In
addition, Nancy Lauria from the Office of Vocational and
Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities is
with us today. She is also a tireless advocate for
school-to-work.
I would also like to add that I've been with the
Department fourteen years, and during that time we have
had a wonderful relationship with Nancy Lauria,
supporting the need of students with disabilities in all
the work that we have done over the years. I think we are
building on a history that “all” means all. I
feel very fortunate to be able to work with such
wonderful and skilled people.
My first task is to set a bit of the context. As we
planned for this call, we hoped to keep our comments
fairly focused and tight with enough detail to stimulate
conversation because we continue to try to discover the
answers and know that some of the best things that we do
come from conversations and learning from one another.
So, let me just start with some context.
One of the other roles that I fulfill related to
school-to-work is that of State Director for
School-to-Work, but I also serve as cochair for our State
School-to-Work Advisory Council. I cochair that council
with Margarita Mayo from The Business Council of NYS,
Inc. She is the governor's appointee. It has been a
marvelous group. We are finishing our fifth year and feel
very fortunate that we do have some transition funding.
In terms of school-to-work, albeit the federal funding is
really on the downside for us, the interest in
school-to-work and what that means for youth and adults
in New York really has a great chance of tremendous
sustainability and growth. I think that is much to the
credit of many of our partners.
In New York State, like many states across the
country, we have been embarking on a very challenging
journey to raise the learning standards for all learners.
I would say that is the case for youth and adults, but
focusing clearly on youth.
We have twenty-eight learning standards and they cross
a number of frameworks: English/Language Arts, of course;
math, science and technology; the social sciences; the
arts; languages other than English; the physical
education, health, and family consumer science framework;
and finally, but I think also very importantly, is the
career development and occupational study standards,
which I think are, in a sense, like the bindings in a
book. They are very, very powerful in terms of our work
in school-to-work.
What has happened as we have identified standards is
we have identified graduation requirements and course
requirements like many other states. Along with that,
some very high stakes assessments have started and are
going to roll out over the next several years. The
English/Language Arts assessment is now required. The
math requirement is next and then there will be an
assessment in Science. There will be a choice for
students; they can either take a physical or biological
science Regents examination. Then also there will be two
assessments in the social sciences: one U.S. History and
Government and one Global Studies. Again, these are all
at the Regents level. We have moved away from when we had
three: a local diploma, a Regents diploma, and then the
IEP. We now have an IEP diploma and a Regents diploma.
It's a very profound change.
Along with that is the responsibility of ensuring that
all the students have the opportunity to really achieve
academically. As they move out of the secondary
environment into their futures, they are doing so with a
great deal of information. Part of our challenge, as in
other states, is where does career and technical as the
broad umbrella in school-to-work fit into that? We have
convened a national panel that met in November and will
be meeting again in about a month to look at how to
ensure that all students have opportunities in
rigorous academics but also have opportunities to link
their learning to the world of work through some career
and technical opportunities and internships, many of the
things that we see emphasized so strongly in our
school-to-work effort.
So, we think that we have a context. We have many
partners coming to the table to try to help us build on
some successes, but also know that we are continuing to
discover. I'd like to turn it over to Sara to speak a bit
on our capacity and staff development efforts. Sara?
Sara Knower: Okay. Hi, everybody. Jean spoke
about the Career Development and Occupational Studies
(CDOS) standards, and they really form the foundation for
school-to-work in New York State. These standards were
conceived not to be given in a course, such as a math
sequence, but were intended to be integrated throughout
the curriculum, across all the other standards. It's a
very important concept in New York, very basic to
school-to-work and to understanding these standards. To
build capacity under school-to-work, major staff
development was done with the CDOS standards and linking
them throughout the curriculum. In fact, we like to think
that we actually introduced these standards to the rest
of the state, that we were the Broadway show that really
kicked them off.
The three standards are:
- 1) career development;
- 2) integrated learning: school-based and
work-based learning are done together; and
- 3) universal foundation skill, or SCANS skills.
New York State also developed or adapted six career
majors.
Now, the most recent effort in terms of capacity
building has been the development of core curriculum
guides. One has been developed in career development; one
has been developed for the foundation skills; and guides
have been developed in four career majors. They are
almost ready to go to press.
To conduct staff development around the CDOS standards
and to support special education integration, the state
hosts regional meetings. They have been very successful
this year and are attended by all categories of
educators. We have elementary, middle school, high
school, vocational, and special education teachers, as
well as administrators.
I think that what we want to convey here is that we
have this merging going on. Instead of just talking to a
single audience as we might have done in the past,
because of CDOS, and the fact that it's linking across
the curriculum and the standards are for all students,
our audience is getting larger and larger. High standards
for all kids means every teacher is involved.
I probably will come back to this, but I want to speak
a little bit about the career plan. Career development is
CDOS standard number one. New York State developed a
career plan pilot. This pilot integrated the two other
CDOS standards so there would be a comprehensive CDOS
approach to career planning that would start at the
elementary grade level and continue through high school
into our large adult education program. The pilot has
been ongoing for three years. We did an evaluation of it
and it is interesting; I'll just give you two highlights
from it.
One of the things that we sometimes hear is that there
is just not enough time to do career planning because
there is so much pressure on kids now to pass the five
high stake exams. However, in our evaluation, we learned
from teachers, students, and parents that career planning
was very important and there was enough time to do it.
This is a critical finding for us. Because the pilot was
so successful, we are going to have a chance to roll it
out to the seven hundred school districts in New York
State. We don't know how long it will take us to reach
all of them, but there is a great deal of interest around
the career plan. It is one of the areas that we are
focusing on for our year six school-to-work transition
grant.
With that, I am now going to turn it over to Nancy.
Nancy Lauria: Thank you, Sara. I am going to
talk about some supports that we have in place to help
students achieve the standards, both general and special
education. We have what we call academic intervention
services (AIS) that will be offered to all students who
may be at risk of not being able to reach the standards,
either through health problems, home problems, or things
that are happening in school. There will be a two-pronged
approach for those students identified in both general
and special education. There will be instruction provided
in addition to the subject area class in which they are
having problems. That may be provided during school in a
free period, before or after school, or in a summer
school program. This will be an enrichment program. It's
not just the traditional remedial instruction that we
have had in the past, but additional enrichment
activities will be offered to help students understand
how to apply this learning and better acquire the skills.
In addition, there will be support services provided
to those students in case they need some guidance or
counseling or some social work services related to the
family in helping them to help the students achieve.
Parents will be notified about these services and
programs and asked to participate and be more actively
involved in what the students are doing. This will be
provided K-12 for all students.
In addition, we have alternate performance indicators
for those students with severe disabilities in our state.
All students learn the same twenty-eight learning
standards, but these indicators cover prerequisite skills
that students need to learn before they can learn the
twenty-eight learning standards. There will be an
alternate performance assessment as of July to measure
how they are doing in these twenty-eight areas. One
option we are looking at is possibly having a portfolio
approach to assessment. We have a state advisory group
working on it.
In addition, for those students who may have
difficulty taking the Regents examinations that Jean was
talking about, we have a safety net. They can take the
Regents Competency Tests (RCT) in addition to the Regents
exams. So, if they cannot pass the Regents exams, the
class from 1996 to 2000, as this is phased in, can also
apply for a local diploma if they take the RCT's and pass
those instead of the Regents exams. Also, the score on
the Regents exams is set at a lower level during this
phase-in period to give students a better chance to
succeed. Appropriate accommodations in testing are also
provided. Each year, this will be reexamined to determine
whether to extend the safety net. The types of
accommodations that will be provided will be determined
at a later time.
For staff development and capacity building in our
comprehensive system of personnel development for special
education, we are developing needs assessments in various
areas of special education for school districts to
determine their staff development needs. This will help
to raise the standards and include students with
disabilities in that area. That is being linked with
school district education development plans for all areas
including general and special education.
In addition, we have a lifelong service network, which
consists of all technical assistance training and support
networks in special education that are linked together
with a common mission and goal. This network supports the
CSDP, or our staff development plan. That is being linked
now to what is called the JMT, the Joint Management Team,
which is the general education staff development and
planning team to help raise the standards for all
students. The two are being jointly looked at and
integrated so that there are not two separate silos
anymore, but one integrated approach to help all students
achieve the standards and to provide the kind of staff
development that's needed for teachers to help students
achieve them.
We are rolling the career plan piece that Sarah was
talking about out over the next couple of years to many
more districts. We have integrated it with our transition
components on our individualized education program (IEP)
so that the two are interrelated. One of the things we
are looking at right now is where the crossovers are and
what the possibilities are for having one document for
all students modified slightly for students with
disabilities, so that we are doing one planning and one
written documentation for all students. Sarah is going to
talk a little bit more about the career plan roll-out at
this time.
Sara Knower: Well, I just would like to say
that I think it is important to the development of the
career plan that Nancy worked with a planning group which
met faithfully for about a year and a half so that
special education was always merged with the career plan
development. We are not trying to take two systems that
developed separately and merge them. Instead, the career
plan was developed along with special education. Now we
have an integrated system that serves all
students.
I don't really have too much more to say about the
career plan roll-out. I think it is important that the
pilot included students who were in urban, suburban, and
rural areas. It is also important that it included
special education students, that the evaluation was very
affirmative, and that we are going forward with it.
There is just one more thing in terms of the safety
net for all students that I think is very important. The
state is looking at component retesting which will help a
lot of students who have difficulty in high stake
stressful situations. It's a very complicated process,
but I believe we are going forward with it.
We are also developing an assessment instrument for
the foundation skills or the SCANS skills, that's one of
the CDOS standards. The pilot assessment will be given to
all students, 9-12, sometime this Spring. We are going to
gather an awful lot of information from that pilot
assessment.
Nancy Lauria: We have done some evaluation
around what we have accomplished using the CDOS learning
standards and school-to-work work experience activities
in New York State, for both general and special
education. I'll talk a little bit about some of the
results we had for special education and Sarah or Jean
can talk about the general education piece.
We borrowed from Vermont and modified for New York
State a post-school indicators survey. Our Commissioner
came from Vermont and so he thought it was a good idea
and encouraged us to move forward with it.
We have looked at the results of students with
disabilities and those in general education one year out
of school. What we found is students who had occupational
education programs, work experience programs, and
transition planning and guidance activities were more
likely to have a job or to be in college than those who
did not, whether they were in general or special
education programs. That linked very closely with what we
were finding with some of the school-to-work evaluations.
Sara Knower: Right. We had a mid school-to-work
evaluation. The findings there were somewhat similar to
the post-indicator survey. The major findings are that
students who have school-to-work life experiences do just
as well, if not slightly better, than students who are in
a strictly academic course of study. I think that this is
very important because some people still believe that if
you are doing school-to-work-like activities, then that
is taking something away, that it's not preparing you for
postsecondary education, where a lot of kids — and a
lot of kids' parents — want to go. However, our
findings did not support that. Our findings also said
that kids that were in school-to-work-like experiences
had better attendance and a better career focus so that
when they left school they had confidence and knew what
their next steps were. Of course, that was one of the
major goals under school-to-work: that kids would
graduate with a career plan and with the confidence to
carry it out. We seem to be getting emerging evaluative
data on that particular piece.
We have a second evaluation on school-to-work that is
going on and we think that's going to be very powerful
and very exciting. All of the schools in New York State
are participating in this evaluation, so we are going to
know a lot more information when it is done.
Nancy Lauria: We are also going to be doing a
longitudinal study for the post-school indicator survey
over the next five years. We are doing a random sample
across the state of general and special education in
different schools and we'll be starting with this year's
seniors. A senior survey will be completed this year and
then a post-school indicator survey for the next three or
four years. Our recommendations will be based on those
results. We expect the results to be consistent with what
we have already found.
Jean Stevens: With that, we have probably done
a little bit of information overload. Maybe we should
just open it up to questions or comments or some
discussion.
Sharon Belli (Washington, DC): I have a
question. This is Sharon Belli from the National
School-to-Work office. Sara, you said that the students
who were enrolled in school-to-work did a little bit
better or just as good as those that were not involved in
school-to-work-like activities. Could you say just a
little bit about what they did better in and what exactly
Tom looked at? Do you have that information with you?
Sara Knower: No, I don't have it with me. But
as I remember, Tom did quite a bit of research around
those questions. He looked at attendance records; he
looked at school records. He looked at the kinds of
activities that they were actually involved in. That's
why we call them “school-to-work-like”
activities. That's probably the best I can do without
getting my hands on that piece. Sorry, Sharon.
Sharon Belli (Washington, DC): No, it's fine.
Jean Stevens: Hi, Sharon. I think some of the
things that were powerful for us were that, as you looked
at those students, the evaluation told us that, of
students who were taking these school-to-work-like
activities as compared to those that weren't, their grade
point averages were generally higher. Again, their
staying in school was part of it, and we think you start
to draw some correlations.
Again, I don't think we can minimize the feedback
that, as we have done the evaluations, students moving
into a postsecondary experience felt they were in the
right place initially for them. While many students that
do make that transition from secondary into postsecondary
still feel very unsure about what they want to study,
these students felt a high level of confidence that they
really were in the right place to begin their
postsecondary study. We do know, from other research,
that this is often not the case.
Mary Mack: Nancy, might you also have something
to add from the studies that have been done in the area
of transition?
Nancy Lauria: With the PSI study, we found that
students who took an occupational education track, that
is, a sequence with three to five courses in occupational
education or had some kind of work-related experience
— a school work experience program, after school or
weekend or summer work experience, or voluntary or paid
— had a better chance of succeeding one year out of
school. They were better connected with community
activities. They felt better prepared and were more
successful in college. Those that were working had a
higher wage and had more support in the work environment.
Also, they were better connected to adult support systems
like vocational rehabilitation or OMRDD's. So, there were
a lot of positives having had those kinds of experiences.
When asked what kinds of support they thought would
have been helpful in high school, they said they would
have liked more technology-related activities with the
computer, and more of the basic reading, writing and math
skills. So, to me that tied in very nicely with the
academic intervention service piece that we are now going
to be implementing in New York State.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, Transition Research
Institute (TRI)): Nancy, this is Janis Chadsey from the
National Transition Alliance. It's nice to hear your
voice. I just wanted to follow up on the survey. Did you
look at the results in terms of different disability
categories, or were those just all sort of lumped
together?
Nancy Lauria: It was broken out by the 13
disability categories, Jan.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Would you say that
the positive findings went across disability areas?
Nancy Lauria: Yes. Most of the populations that
we surveyed were the high percentage populations that we
have in New York State, which are LD, ED, and mentally
retarded. The results were similar across the board for
all three groups.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Great. Thanks.
Mary Mack: Are there other questions?
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): Yes. This is Jay
Cannon from the Department of Education in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Some of the information that you are
sharing is quite good. I'm not quite sure if Pennsylvania
has all of what you are talking about, but I do know that
school-to-work is very important in Pennsylvania and we
have done a lot with it under the leadership of Mike
Snyder.
Do you have any information regarding the work that
you have done, like research and/or copies of different
research papers that you could send? Is that a
possibility?
Jean Stevens: Sure. We can send you the summary
of the school-to-work research that we talked about. As I
say, we'll have more research coming in this year and
hope to give that wide coverage, too.
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): All right. I
appreciate that.
Nancy Lauria: We also have the latest
post-school indicators report that we have done of our
large five cities and of students in those five cities.
That Regent's report was done this past year and we have
a copy. We can tell you how to access that on our web
page as well.
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): By all indications,
it's working. It's just a matter of showing the validity
in terms of numbers and statistics.
Nancy Lauria: That's why we have implemented
the longitudinal study we are going to be doing over the
next five years.
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): Right. I hate to see
school-to-work go out the window. In terms of the SEED
money, the federal funds are gone. I'm not quite sure if
Pennsylvania is going to pick it up or not, but I wish
they would. It's a good thing and I hate to see a good
thing go.
Nancy Lauria: Another thing we have done in New
York is to link it to our quality assurance process, the
special education monitoring component.
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): Right.
Nancy Lauria: We have tied into our student
surveys when we monitor school districts. There is a
five-question survey about post-school indicator
information that students complete. This is the first
year we have been doing that. We have also developed some
key performance indicators and have started measuring how
students and staff are doing, both in our office and in
the field. We'll have some of that information soon. Our
PD5 forms, which are our special education data
collection, ask a transition question on exiting
students. Districts are asked what they are doing for
transition planning. This can be broken out by district
as well.
Jay Cannon (Pennsylvania): Thank you.
Mary Mack: Other questions?
Lorraine Hashi (Alaska): This is Lorraine Hashi
calling from Valdez, Alaska, and I'm the School-to-Work
Coordinator. Next week, we will be giving the first
high-stakes exam to our high school seniors and we do
make accommodations for the special education. Because of
your dual system with the Regents exam, how long have you
had that in place and how did you go from the Regents to
coming up with maintaining the high standards, but making
allowances for the special education kids?
Jean Stevens: I believe the Regents
examinations began somewhere in the 1700s in New York
with an eighth grade exam. Up until the new regulations,
there was an opportunity for students to take Regents
examinations and get a Regents diploma and it was
considered at a higher level. There were also local
examinations — a Regents Competency Exam — so
students could obtain a local diploma. We have eliminated
the option for a local diploma.
But as Nancy said — and I'm going to ask her if
she'll speak to accommodations — we have been
pleased with some of the initial results on the
English/Language Arts examination as it relates to
students with disabilities. In fact, we do have a lower
cut point as we are gathering some base line data that is
at a 55% rate. Our examinations are not in the senior
year. They tend to be in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh
and so there is a little wiggle room for students as
opposed to the twelfth grade exit exam. Let me turn it
over to Nancy to speak to accommodations and also the
pass rate for students with disabilities on
English/Language Arts.
Nancy Lauria: What we found is in '97-'98,
74.5% of the students with disabilities who took the
English Regents exam scored 55 or higher and 52% of those
got 75 or higher, which is the cutoff for general
education. What we found in '98-'99 is that 46% of the
students who first entered ninth grade in 1996, which is
when the phase-in started for this new requirement,
achieved a score of 55 or higher on the new English
Regents exam that was just instituted. We feel that if we
continue to provide students at a lower level with more
stringent, more challenging curriculums, that they'll be
better prepared and we can increase that number.
For all classified students, testing accommodations
are provided on any state or local exam that is given and
on any national assessment that is used in New York State
for students. There are a variety of accommodations. New
York Sate has a book on testing accommodations and these
accommodations are currently being examined to determine
what is appropriate with the new exams. It looks like
we'll continue to provide most accommodations on the new
Regents exams.
Lorraine Hashi (Alaska): Thank you.
Mary Mack: The state of Oregon has also done a
lot of work — Pat Almond is the person in the
Department of Education —- in terms of reliability
and accommodations and modifications of their certificate
of initial mastery around academic content areas. States
are really, really working.
Nancy, Sarah, and Jean, could you go a little bit more
into depth about the multiple strategy intervention you
have as a safety net for young people in New York that do
not meet the benchmarks?
Nancy Lauria: Okay. This is Nancy. I'll cover
our safety net for students with disabilities. Students
have to be either identified by the Committee on Special
Education and classified under IDEA in one of the
thirteen areas, or they can be identified by a
multi-disciplinary Section 504 team. Either way, those
students — if testing accommodations is put on their
IEP — can have testing accommodations across the
board. The Committee on Special Education identified
which testing accommodations will be used.
During the phase-in period, students with disabilities
entering ninth grade beginning in September of '96
through September of 2000 must take the Regents exam and
the Regents courses the same as their non-disabled peers.
However, in addition to the Regents exam, if there is any
chance that they might not pass, they can take the
Regents Competency Tests and work towards a local
diploma. We are reviewing different research, including
working with national groups, in trying to decide what
will happen after the initial phase-in period.
There is also the component retesting that Sarah
mentioned before. A student will take a Regents exam and
if they pass two of the three components, they could
retake the third component and have a little more time to
do that and not be under such stress to complete all
three components at once. They will have a chance to pass
the exam in a couple of different ways.
Also, the IEP must now be geared towards the
educational goals set in the learning standards so that
students with disabilities, whether they are in general
or special education instructional programs, must be
working towards the Regents learning standards and have
access to the curriculum the same as their general
education peers.
Jean Stevens: Just in terms of New York State's
assessments, students are assessed in the fourth and
eighth grades to see how well they are meeting these
standards. If students haven't been identified before
fourth grade as having difficulty in ELA or in Math, they
will definitely be identified by that time. They will be
given the interventions and support that they need in
order to do well.
One of the major activities that is going on in the
state now is the alignment of curriculum. We have the
standards, curriculum, and assessments. We want to make
sure that the alignment is there, that the standards are
not isolated, but are actually driving the curriculum to
help students prepare for those assessments.
Mary Mack: Does anyone else have a question?
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): This is Janis again.
I have been thinking about your statement about how the
IEPs need to be geared around the learning standards,
which, of course, I understand. But how does that work
with how the IEP is supposed to be very individually
determined? Then, of course, there is the issue of all
students needing to meet the learning standard. Has that
been problematic or has that worked smoothly? I'm
wondering if the two do not necessarily dovetail
together.
Jean Stevens: I'm going to just jump in and
then I'll let Nancy jump in. You're talking about whether
there is any conflict with the IEP being shaped around
the individuals' needs and the standards. When we look at
what's going on in New York State, just to kind of give
you a broader view, we have embraced the standards across
the board. I am also responsible for the high school
equivalency test; the GED. If you have seen all the
literature, you know that the GED examination is going to
be upgraded. Many of our people were very instrumental in
working with ACE on the upgrading. The New York State
standards, as other standards, have been looked at in
that respect, along with the twenty-eight learning
standards.
I'm also responsible for adult education and family
literacy. We have taken everything related to adult
education as well as the family literacy component and
wrapped it around our twenty-eight learning standards. It
can be seen as bending the bar; connecting the system. We
are actually looking at much that we are doing in New
York State systemically. The commissioner is involved
with other state commissioners related to PreK-16 adults.
So, for us, from the very broad context, we see it
sitting very nicely. I'll let Nancy speak to the IEP.
Nancy Lauria: Okay. With the present focus on
the IEP process, we should make sure that students have
access to general education and ensure that special
education is part of a continuum or services.
The present levels of educational performance (PLEP)
where the child's strength and need areas are identified
is based on individual evaluation. The PLEP for students
aged fourteen to twenty-one, for whom transition planning
is done, should be viewed from a vocational perspective.
The SCANS skills or the foundation skills, as we call
them in New York State, should be evaluated to determine
the student's strengths and needs in the present levels
of educational performance that drives the IEP. This
helps set the long-term adult outcome of where the
student wants to live, learn, and work once they exit
school. It also helps determine the annual goals and the
short-term benchmarks, what support services are
provided, what the coordinated set of activities should
be, and what accommodations should be provided.
It is all driven by those present levels of
educational performance. It's kind of a building block
that starts off with the SCANS skills. It helps. We feel
that if a student has those SCANS skills, they can
successfully participate in general education,
employment, and college.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Thanks, Nancy.
Mary Mack: Nancy, how does this fit in with
person-centered planning?
Nancy Lauria: In New York State, we are working
with the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.
There are nine projects across the state that have
person-centered planning. It is an individualized
approach with students who are developmentally disabled.
They are examining the present levels of educational
performance from more of a work experience and life
skills approach for those students since most of the
students will probably achieve an IEP diploma. The
twenty-eight learning standards are examined, especially
the career development and occupational studies
standards.
For students with more severe disabilities who are
developmentally disabled, we are looking at the alternate
performance indicators that are prerequisites to learning
the learning standard and including those in the IEP. One
of the key pieces is tying the family into this planning
process — and across the board — as part of a
consensus-building approach to developing the IEP. It's
really critical with this population.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Are you disseminating
those sorts of prerequisite standards for kids who have
more significant disabilities, Nancy?
Nancy Lauria: They are available. You have to
order them at cost.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Okay.
Nancy Lauria: I can tell you our contact
information. There are a couple of web pages. The State
Education web page is at http://www.nysed.gov. In
addition, we have different web pages for school-to-work
and the learning standards and transition. If you go to
that general web page, there is a table of contents and
you can click on any of the other sections. The
transition web page is under VESID. There is also one for
elementary, middle, and secondary education that has
learning standards and the academic intervention service
and higher standards. There is also a school-to-work web
page and a special education web page.
We have several pages and the different components
that we have been talking about can all be accessed
through www.nysed.gov. If you want to reach us, you can
contact me and then I'll work with Jean and Sarah. My
e-mail address is nlauria@mail.nysed.gov.
Mary Mack: Any interested parties can always
call me at the University of Minnesota. I'll work through
the maze and make sure that you get to the right person.
My number is 612.624.7579.
Janis Chadsey (NTA, TRI): Thanks a lot. That's
very helpful.
Mary Mack: Okay. I want to thank Nancy, Jean,
and Sara very, very much for presenting this afternoon. I
think it has been very informative.
Thank you for joining us.
|
![NTN [logo]](../../images/ntnThL.gif)
![NTA [logo link]](../../images/nta.gif){kind=small}
