2011 SIGnetwork Regional Meetings Professional Development: the heart of the matter.

2011 SIGnetwork Regional Meetings

Professional Development: the heart of the matter

SPDG Regional Meeting Introduction

Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D.Office of Special Education ProgramsFebruary 2011

My Presentation

• An overview of this Regional Meeting

• Today’s agenda• Introduction of the first activity

PTIs/CPRCs

• Requirement: SPDGs must contract with either a PTI or a CPRC.– Must choose one– Can choose both– Or more…

PTI’s and CPRC’s cont.

• Best practice– Involve your chosen partner or

partners in the writing of your application

– Ensure expectations are clear on both sides and engage in regular communication

– Make the work meaningful– Evaluate outcomes of the work

First Webinar series

• Evidence-based Professional Development

A big thank you to everyone• For volunteering their time,

efforts, and helping each other• Our planning committee:

– Melanie Lemoine (LA) – Kathy Cox (IL)– Jane Splean (NV)– Marty Smith (MN)– David Merves (NH, MS, VT)– Jeanna Mullins, MSRRC– Jennifer Coffey, OSEP– Audrey Desjarlais, Signetwork

Our Agenda

Reflections on last year’s meeting

• Start of the PLCs• Coaching

– What has changed for your project during the last year as a result of the activities at the regional meeting?

– “Drivers Best Practices – Coaching Focus”

Coaching – what has your SPDG done differently during the last year?

• Discuss with your table or work separately with your SPDG

• 30 minutes• No report out

SPDG Program Information

Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D.

SPDG Program – OSEP Policies

• No-cost extensions• Personnel changes• Continuation Reports

– Final Reports• Carrying out the activities in your

application

The SPDG Program/SIGnetwork: Where we’ve been this year

• OSEP Program Measures (revisions)

• Interest in our results• PTIs/CPRCs• PLCs• Technology focus• First Webinar series

Current and Proposed SPDG measures:

– Measure 1.1 (Current Measure) The percentage of personnel receiving professional development, through the Special Education State Personnel Grants program, on scientific- or evidence-based instructional practices. (Annual)

– Measure 1.1 (Proposed Revision) The percentage of State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) training activities that are judged to be of high quality and aligned with adult learning principles. (Annual)

– Measure 1.2 The percentage of Special Education State Personnel Grants projects that implement personnel development/training activities that are aligned with improvement strategies in their State Performance Plans (SPPs). (Annual)

•  – Measure 1.2 (Proposed Revision) The percentage

of SPDG projects that implement professional development activities that significantly support improvement strategies in their State Performance Plans (SPPs). (Annual)

•  • The panel will look at both the State’s SPP/APR

and the SPDG APR to determine quality and intensity of the alignment.

– Measure 1.3 Percentage of projects whose cost per personnel receiving professional development on scientific- or evidence-based practices is within a specified range. (Annual- efficiency)

•  – Measure 1.3 (Proposed Revision) The percentage of

the SPDG projects’ professional development budget that is used to sustain professional development activities.

•  • Grantee should report cost of activities designed

to sustain learning of scientific or evidence-based instructional practices, divided by the total cost of all professional development activities carried out under the grant award (per year and cumulative).

– Measure 2.1 The percentage of professional development/training activities, provided through the State Personnel Development Grants program related to scientific- or evidence-based instructional/behavioral practices. (Annual)

– Measure 2.2 The percentage of professional development/training activities based on scientific- or evidence-based instructional/behavioral practices provided through the Special Education State Personnel Grants program that are sustained through ongoing and comprehensive practices (e.g., mentoring, coaching, structured guidance, modeling, and continuous inquiry). (Long-term) Not Yet Implemented --no change

– Measure 3.1 In states that have special education teacher retention as a goal of Special Education State Personnel Grants, the statewide percentage of highly qualified special education teachers in state-identified professional disciplines (e.g., teachers of children with emotional disturbance, deafness) who remain teaching after three years of employment. (Annual)

•  – Measure 3.1 (Proposed Revision) In States

that have special education retention as a goal of their State Personnel Development Grant, the percentage of highly qualified special education teachers who remain special education teachers two years after their initial SPDG supported training .

– Measure 4.1 The percentage of Special Education State Personnel Improvement projects that successfully replicate the use of scientific- or evidence-based instructional/behavioral practices in schools.  (Long-Term)

•  – Measure 4.1 (Proposed Revision) The percentage

of schools or districts that are have received professional development from the SPDG project that are implementing this content at the school level with fidelity two years after the initial training. (Long-Term)

• Grantee will submit protocol for assessing evidence of fidelity of implementation of sustainable EBPs in targeted schools. For APR Grantee will survey targeted schools and report the number of schools determined to be implementing Sustainable EBPs over the number of schools targeted.

Interest in our results• The --- SPDG has used its SPD funds to increase the quantity

and improve the quality of professional personnel providing leadership and instruction for the statewide educational program for students with disabilities. One of the strategic goals of the project is to improve the performance of students with disabilities on high stakes assessment and increase access to the general curriculum. The entire faculties of high schools participating in the SPD training have received comprehensive personnel development in providing evidenced-based instructional practices and strategies. The percentage of students with disabilities from participating high schools who passed 11th grade English Standards of Learning Tests increased by 24 percent from 2007 to 2009. Similar results are seen in the feeder middle schools. The majority of the 210 teachers (78 percent) who have been involved with the program for the past 3 years agree that the SPD initiative has led to increased access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities.

PLCs• Adolescent

Literacy• Behavior & School

Climate • Coaching• Collaboration with

IHEs• Family

Engagement• Grant

Management• Implementation

Conversations

• Low Incidence Affinity Group

• RTI & Multi-Tiered models of intervention

• Scaling Up & Comprehensive PD Approaches

• Secondary Transition

Technology focus

• The overarching goals of the SPDG Technology initiative are as follows:– SPDG projects can acquire data more easily so

that they can make scientifically based decisions.

– SPDG projects are able to collaborate more effectively.

– SPDG projects are able to provide professional development in a more efficient and cost-effective way.

– SPDG projects can efficiently support the use of innovations in the LEAs.

– Access can be provided to people in rural areas and those with disabilities.

Where we’re going• More in-depth look at topics that

are meaningful to all SPDGs• Connecting what we learn with

SPDG program measures, PLCs, resources

• Continue to update SIGnetwork technology

• Program measure revision, including methodology

We Continue to Want your Feedback

• [email protected]; 202-245-6673

• [email protected]; 541-346-0373