3 - alspdg.org · Web viewThis grant pairs language arts and social science pre-service teachers and veteran teachers. MSS is a major focus of the grant, with expectations of the

Year 1 – Annual Performance ReportState Improvement Grant (SIG)

Alabama State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)

1. Introduction

Evaluation of the Alabama State Department of Education (SDE) first two State Improvement Grants (SIGs)/State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) (1998-2006) found that where evidenced-based interventions were implemented, reading, writing, social studies, and vocabulary scores could be elevated; and dropouts, office discipline referrals, and removals could be reduced. These findings continue to be relevant because, statewide, the achievement gap between students with and without disabilities remains in reading and math. Activities carried out within the first two Alabama SIGs were so successful that the Beginning Reading Model (BRM) supported by the first Alabama SPDG was incorporated into the Alabama Reading Initiative, including Reading First, and an integral priority throughout the SDE.

Because the SIG/SPDG reading initiative became ‘institutionalized’ by the SDE, the reading focus of the new Alabama SPDG shifted to early literacy for young children and secondary students where large impact can be made and the aforementioned programs have not been implemented. The Makes Sense Strategies (MSS) program, developed and implemented during the previous Alabama SIGs, is being continued and paired with the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) to enhance access to content areas by secondary students with disabilities.

The SPDG is also addressing the reduction of the achievement gap between students with and without disabilities in the critical area of math by using scientifically based research (SBR). This need is based on data showing that special education students and, in particular, secondary students are having a very difficult time passing the exit examination.

Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) has a national research base for reducing discipline referrals, reducing the numbers of students in special education, and improving student achievement. PBS efforts implemented during the previous Alabama SIGs are also being continued during the new SPDG.

There is a high attrition of special education teachers about 55 percent remaining after three years and only 50 percent of first-time special education teachers remaining after three years. Because of attrition and a beginning trend of using more under-certified special education teachers, the SPDG workscope is continuing to implement expanded and increased efforts to train, recruit, and retain fully qualified and certified special education teachers throughout the state.

Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 1Alabama State Personnel Development Grant April 25, 2008

The major SPDG outcomes listed below will be the target of four proposed SIG goals for the new five-year SPDG period (2007-2012):

Evidence of success will be shown by improved early literacy and elementary math scores. (GOAL 1)

Secondary students will improve skills for accessing content areas at the secondary level and pass the literacy and mathematics subtests of the exit examination. (GOAL 2)

Special education students will demonstrate improved behavior enabling them to increase attendance, reduce office referrals, decrease suspensions/expulsions, and lower dropout rates. (GOAL 3)

Special education services will be delivered by trained and qualified special education teachers, working collaboratively with general education teachers who remain teaching in special education beyond three years. (GOAL 4)

Evaluation activities have been built into each phase of the SPDG using a quantitative process and outcomes conceptual model, combined with qualitative information. Process evaluation strategies are tracking the implementation of activities to meet the four SPDG goals, objectives, and activities. Outcome evaluation strategies ultimately are aimed at measuring the student and system impact of the SPDG. The Alabama SPDG was designed to bring about changes at all levels of the educational system over time—at the state, regional, and local levels.

This Year 1 Performance Report is organized around planned activities and accomplishments. The accomplishments for each goal, objective, and activity are summarized as well as progress toward overall goal outcomes.

2. Status of Goals, Objectives, and Activities

GOAL 1: Through the implementation of SBR instructional strategies within the framework, there will be a 20 percent reduction in the achievement gap between students with and without disabilities in the area of math and age-appropriate progress in pre-literacy/reading and math.

Objective 1.1: Approximately two elementary and middle schools from a pool of schools with the largest achievement gaps between students with and without disabilities will be selected annually to implement SBR math instructional programs with sustained fidelity.

Planned Activities

1.1.1 (Quarter 1, Year 1) – In collaboration with the Alabama Mathematics, Science,

Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 2Alabama SPDGApril 25, 2008

and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) and the Special Education Institute, International Center for Leadership in Education, math intervention programs will be identified that meet the established SBR criteria from which implementation sites can choose to implement.

1.1.2 (Years 1-5) – Three regional workshops will be provided annually by SPDG staff and publishing company consultants for teachers and administrators in the participating schools to disseminate awareness information about SBR math intervention programs that meet the established criteria set by the math steering committee. These workshops will assist participating schools in the selection of SBR math intervention program for implementation during Years 2-5.

1.1.3 (Years 1-5) – In collaboration with the SDE, experts in specific SBR math intervention programs will provide at least three days of regional training annually during the summer for special and general education teachers within the five schools, selected annually. Training will center on the SBR math intervention programs selected by each school, and will also include procedures for using fidelity data to improve the quality of implementation.

1.1.4 (Years 1-5) – SBR math intervention experts and SPDG staff will also provide training and on-site assistance, walk-thrus, mentoring, and technical assistance for special and general education teachers within the participating schools at least monthly during the school’s first year of implementation and at least quarterly during subsequent years. Fidelity of implementation will also be observed and gathered at least once per quarter.

1.1.5 (Years 1-5) – The participating schools will utilize progress monitoring within the chosen SBR math intervention, in conjunction with state required evaluations and accountability instruments for the purpose of making student data-based decisions regarding the level and intensity of SBR instruction to be implemented.

Year 1 Accomplishments as of April 1, 2008

Voyager Math (Vmath) meets these SBR criteria and has been implemented by 11 local school systems during Year 1. Vmath is designed to complement all major math programs by providing an additional 30-40 minutes of daily, targeted concept, skill, and problem-solving development. The teach level of Vmath contains ten individual modules covering the basic strands of elementary and middle school mathematics. The contents of these modules are aligned with grade-level expectations for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Content Standards. Vmath has been designed using widely accepted principles of effective intervention instruction for struggling students. The direct, systematic instruction in Vmath uses a direction instruction model that provides carefully sequenced, specific, and detailed dialogues for each lesson (i.e., explicit, highly structured lesson delivery). The Vmath program recommends the implementation of the following five keys to successful implementation to maximize instructional value.


1. Amount of Instruction – 5 days a week, 30-45 minutes a day (one lesson daily)2. Use of Assessment – Benchmarking three times a year and progress monitoring of

Intensive students weekly and Strategic students monthly.3. Quality of Instruction – Three hours of initial training; coach reviews instruction;

complete self-analysis; and regular use of Three Read process.4. Differentiation – Use of assessment to differentiate instruction for low and medium

performing students (groupings of 4-6).5. Classroom Management – Small group areas identified, strong model for

transitioning, and having all students on task.

With SPDG support, the Vmath representatives and SDE staff have provided four professional development/coaching days for 12 participating school systems (total of 32 schools and 144 teachers) during Year 1.

Appendix A provides a sample Class Observation/Teacher Reflection Tool used during the on-site professional development/coaching. This tool served as a fidelity tool to determine the implementation of nine-step components of an Effective Instructional Program that undergirds the Vmath program.

A summary of these four professional development/coaching days provided during Year 1 of the SPDG is provided within Table l.

Table 1. Year 1 Vmath Professional Development Days.

DescriptionFirst Visit Meeting with principal and district contact to provide support through use of Principal

Handbook for providing tools for planning, monitoring, and supporting implementation. Benchmark 1 data analysis with district contact, teachers, and principal. Progress monitoring data analysis with principal and teachers. Trouble-shoot any data issues (assessments given, data entry, and grouping). Assessment training to ensure accurate and timely data. Trouble shoot technology issues with VPORT and VMathLive. Classroom observations utilizing Classroom Observation/Teacher Reflection Tool. Facilitated articulation sessions with principal, and/or principal designee, and teachers to

discuss challenges/solutions; scheduling, grouping, organization, pacing, classroom management, creating action plans for improved lesson delivery, and celebrating success.

Implementation Support Document highlighting summary of visit and recommendations for next visit.

Second Visit Meeting with district contact, principal, and/or principal designee.


Progress monitoring data analysis with principal, coaches, and teachers. On-site visits with coach and principal to trouble shoot, data entry, student selection,

scheduling. Classroom observations utilizing Implementation Observation Tools. Facilitated articulation sessions with principal, and/or principal designee, and teachers to

discuss challenges/solutions, scheduling, grouping, organization, pacing, classroom management, creating action plans for improved lesson delivery, and celebrating success.

Ongoing professional development. Specific recommendations and focus for next visit. Implementation of support document highlighting summary of visit and

recommendations for next visit.Third Visit Met with district contact, principal, and/or principal designee. Benchmark 2 and/or progress monitoring data analysis with school-based leadership to

inform instruction, set goals, and revise support plans. On-site visits with coach and principal to trouble-shoot, data entry, student selection,

and scheduling. Classroom observations utilizing Implementation Observation Tools. Articulation sessions with principal, and/or principal designee, and teachers to discuss

challenges/solutions, scheduling, grouping, organization, pacing, classroom management, creating action plans for improved lesson delivery, and celebrating success.

Ongoing professional development. Specific recommendations and focus for next visit. Implementation of support document highlighting summary of visit and

recommendations for next visit.Fourth Visit B3 Data analysis with district and school-based leadership to examine results, celebrate

successes. Action plan for next year. B3 Data Analysis with Alabama SDE, Department of Special Services leadership to

report results, celebrate successes, set goals, and revise support plans.

Two additional initial trainings on Vmath will be provided for the 12 participating school systems and 32 schools during the annual MEGA conference sponsored by SDE during July 2008. Also, during the annual MEGA conference, training will be provided by an expert math consultant on direct instruction in math.Table 2 provides a review of some of the professional development evaluation results obtained from three workshops completed this year.

Table 2. A summary of evaluation ratings for Vmath Workshops during Year 1 on Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 5Alabama SPDGApril 25, 2008

a five-point scale with five being the highest rating. (28 Participants)

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me

professionallyBehavioral

ChangeMotivational

ChangeVmath Launch Training 01-Aug-07 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.4

Vmath Launch Training 02-Aug-07 5.0 5.0 3.7 3.3

Vmath Launch Training 30-Oct-07 3.8 4.9 1.8 2.0

Table 3 provides an overview of the SDE Vmath Initiative being supported by the SPDG and other state and local resources. Table 2 also provides a listing of participating school systems, the number of schools within these systems participating in the Initiative, the number of participating teachers by grade level, the percent of teachers attending training, the group size of students being served within Vmath, minutes per day of intervention, extent of progress monitoring, and the type of delivery model being implemented. Table 2 shows that 735 students with disabilities were participating in the Vmath Initiative during 2006-2007 (Year 1 of the SPDG).


Table 3. ALSDE Vmath Initiative Implementation.

# OF TEACHERS FOR EACH GRADE

District Number

of Schools

Grd3

Grd4

Grd5

Grd6

Grd7

Grd8

Grd9

# of Students

with Disabilities

Attended Training Start Date Minutes

per Day Group Size Progress Monitoring

Delivery Model

Athens City 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 151 100%= Yes 100%=8/27/07

29%=3029%=45

29%=>4514%=37.5

29%=814%=414%=614%=914%=10

14%=>10

86%=Bi Monthly

14%=Monthly

71%=Pull Out

29%=In Class

Butler County 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 100%= Yes 100%=Sept 100%=30

67%=633%=3

100%=Bi Monthly

100%=In Class

Clay County 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 100%= Yes N/A 100%=3050%=8

50%=N/A100%= Monthly

100%=Pull Out

Hartselle City 1 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 15

91%=Yes9%=No 100%=9/7/07 100%=30

18%=59%=6

73%=N/A82%=Monthly

18%=N/A100%=In

Class

Homewood City 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 30 100%= Yes 100%=10/1/07

33%=3033%=45

33%=>4567%=533%=7

100%= Combo

100%=Pull Out

Macon County 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 100%= Yes 100%=2/1/08 100%=30 100%=4 100%=None

100%=Pull Out

Marshall County 8 2 1 5 3 3 6 0 243

95%=Yes5%=N/A

65%=9/24/0725%=8/27/075%=9/3/07

5%=N/A

55%=4520%=30

20%=37.55%=>45

45%=>1015%=615%=410%=85%=55%=3

40%=Monthly20%=N/A

15%=Combo15%=Bi Monthly

10%=None

40%=Pull Out

35%=In Class

20%=Other

5%=Push In


# OF TEACHERS FOR EACH GRADE

District Number

of Schools

Grd3

Grd4

Grd5

Grd6

Grd7

Grd8

Grd9

# of Students

with Disabilities

Attended Training Start Date Minutes

per Day Group Size Progress Monitoring

Delivery Model

Mobile County 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 35 100%= Yes

50%=12/3/0725%=Sept

25%=1/28/0875%=4525%=30

25%=N/A25%=625%=7

25%=>10

50%=Monthly50%=Bi Monthly

75%=In Class

25%=Pull Out

Oxford City 6 21 16 2 1 1 3 0 151

94%=Yes4%=No1%=N/A

54%=Aug24%=9/24/0721%=9/17/07

1%=N/A

54%=3022%=>4521%=453%=N/A

46%=622%=514%=48%=N/A6%=103%=71%=2

100%=Combo

75%=In Class

25%=Pull Out

Russellville City 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 34 100%= Yes

60%=8/20/0720%=9/10/07

20%=N/A60%=>4540%=37.5

60%=>1040%=7

80%= Monthly

20%=N/A

80%=In Class

20%=Pull Out

Tallassee City 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 61 100%= Yes

80%=Sept20%=Oct 100%=30

33%=620%=513%=413%=87%=37%=7

7%=N/A

80%=N/A20%=Bi Monthly

80%=In Class

20%=Pull Out


Objective 1.2: The pre-literacy training skills of at least 500 EI personnel will be improved.

Planned Activities

1.2.1 (Years 1-5) – Regional professional development will be provided by the SPDG SDE and the Alabama Early Invention System (AEIS) staff on a regional basis for at least 100 Early Invention (EI) personnel selected annually (500 total), who work with birth to three-year-old children with disabilities. Training will center on seven scientifically based (Division of Early Childhood Recommended Practices and National Association of the Education of Young Children Developmentally Appropriate Practices) clusters. This specialized instruction provides infants/toddlers with pre-literacy skills needed for preschool entry. Cluster training will be provided via onsite coaching, and internet-based resources (i.e., network discussion forum, interactive web-CT PD activities and modules).


During Year 1 of the SPDG, 168 individuals received specialized instruction on the seven scientifically based clusters. The Clusters are as follows: Cluster 1 – Child Development and Learning; Cluster 2 – Evaluation and Assessment; Cluster 3 – Foundations of Early Intervention; Cluster 4 – Families, Cultures, and Communities; Cluster 5 - Curriculum and Intervention; Cluster 6 – Professional Roles, Responsibilities and Development; and Cluster 7 – Medical, Environmental, and Behavioral Considerations.

The training participants were representative of providers across the state who deliver one of the 16 early intervention services. These individuals utilized their knowledge while working with infant and toddlers in addressing pre-literacy skills needed for preschool. Training participants included 156 females and 1 male (11 did not report gender). Following is a breakdown of training participant roles:

Table 4. Role of participants attending cluster training during Year 1.

Participant Role# of

ParticipantsSpecial education teachers 3General education teachers 7Early intervention providers 128Early preschool providers 9Administrators 14Parents 3Para Educators 0University Faculty 0Not Reported 4

Total 168


The cluster trainings took place on the following dates: 10/11/06; 12/20-21/06; 1/07/07; 1/08/07; 1/11/07; 1/22/07; 1/30/07; 2/21/07; 3/12/07; 3/15/07; 3/23/07; 3/30/07; 4/18/07; 4/20/07; 4/23/07; 5/9/07; 6/6/07; 6/11/07 (2 clusters were presented); 6/13/07; 6/25/07; 7/12/07; 7/16/07; 7/24/07; 8/2/07; 8/13/07; 8/15/07; 8/22/07. Cluster training times ranged from half day to five-day sessions.

Table 5 provides an evaluation across cluster trainings. A scan of these participant evaluations shows strong support for the training received [ratings of 4.00 or greater on a five-point rating scale (Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, No Opinion, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree]. Eighty-eight percent indicated that the workshop components were useful and all (100 percent) indicated that there were general education benefits from the cluster trainings.

Table 5. Participant evaluations across Year 1 cluster trainings.

Expectations met

Information important to know

Addressed school need

Implementation benefit

professionally

Content appropriate

for timeN Valid 166 164 159 164 166

Missing 2 4 9 4 3Mean 4.58 4.56 4.19 4.54 4.37Standard Deviation .847 .888 1.028 .916 1,103Range 4 4 4 4 4

Knowledgeable Presenter

Presenter easy to

understand

Presenter was

engaging

Workshop components

useful (2-point scale)

General education benefits

from workshop (2-point scale)

N Valid 168 168 168 168 124Missing 0 0 0 0 44

Mean 4.79 4.74 4.64 .88 1.00Standard Deviation .783 .813 .850 .332 .000Range 4 4 4 1 0

The Evaluation/Assessment Cluster 2 included further professional development, technical assistance, and coaching of appropriate evaluation techniques to assure quality determination of a child’s functioning ability. These trainings took place on the following dates: 11/10/06; 2/26/07; 2/27/07; 3/14/07; 3/16/07; 3/28/07; 4/4/07; 4/23/07; 5/3/07; 5/11/07; 5/17/07; 5/18/07 for a total of 168 individuals.

Table 6 provides a summary of participant evaluation ratings for other preschool professional development provided during Year 1 of the SPDG.


Table 6. Participant evaluation ratings for Year 1 preschool professional development on a five-point scale with five the highest rating. (310 Participants).

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me


ChangeMotivational

ChangeSession 203- Research-Based Reading Strategies and Intervention 10-Jul-07 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.9Session 248 Research Based Reading Strategies, Intervention PM Session 10-Jul-07 4.5 4.5 2.3 2.5Session 335-Inclusive practices for Language and Literacy Development in the Preschool Population 11-Jul-07 4.7 4.7 2.4 2.7

Session 301- I've DIBEL'S, Now What? 11-Jul-07 4.8 4.8 2.4 2.6Session 402- Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and Comprehensive Reading Assessment 12-Jul-07 4.5 4.5 3.6 3.7

Become a Reading Advocate for Your Child 14-Jul-07 4.9 0.0 3.0 3.1Become a Reading Advocate for Your Child 19-Jul-07 4.9 4.8 3.2 3.3Become a Reading Advocate for Your Child 26-Jul-07 5.0 5.0 2.8 2.8Journey Through Early Intervention Level I 12-Sep-07 3.6 4.3 3.0 3.4Alabama Early Intervention Conference Language Rich Preschool Environments 15-Nov-07 4.8 0.0 1.5 1.5Journey Through Early Intervention in Alabama Level I 23-Jan-08 4.8 4.9 3.0 3.0

Objective 1.3: Approximately 1,000 parents and service providers will increase their knowledge, skills, and use of evidenced-based practices in pre-literacy, language, numeracy, and advocacy skills.

Planned Activities

1.3.1 (Years 1-5) – In collaboration with the Alabama Parents as Partners in Education, Parent Training Institute (PTI), SPDG staff will provide training once a year for approximately six PTI parent trainers in order to increase their skills in the area of early literacy and numeracy.


1.3.2 (Years 1-5) – The trained PTI parent trainers will provide regional trainings held monthly for parents of young children who are high risk or who have disabilities (1,500 total over the five years). Parents will be given “Literacy and Numeracy Skills Boxes” during the training for use with their child in the home.

1.3.3 (Years 1-5) - In collaboration with Reach Out and Read (ROR) Alabama, SPDG will increase Alabama sites from 25 to 50 in rural areas without access to public libraries in an effort to provide information for parents in pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills.

1.3.4 (Years 1-5) – In collaboration with the PTI and ROR, SPDG staff will partner with physicians and nurses so that age-appropriate books and training can be provided for parents and children during well-baby check-ups. In addition, attending nurses will provide training for parents on early literacy and numeracy developmental skills.

1.3.5 (Years 1-5) – SPDG staff will provide stipends to families involved in AEIS to attend the Annual Early Intervention (EI) and Preschool Conference where they will participate in the family forum. The Family Forum will provide parents with an opportunity to learn best practices in the areas of pre-literacy, language, numeracy, and advocacy skills.

1.3.6 (Years 1-5) – SPDG, AEIS, and the PTI will provide workshops on pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills at local, regional, and state conferences held annually.


During Year 1, information was obtained by the SPDG staff from the Alabama Medicaid agency regarding the number, locations, and caseloads of clinics and practices providing pediatric primary care. This information was helpful for partnering with physicians and nurses so that age-appropriate books and training could be provided by attending nurses for parents and children during well-baby checkups as well as training for parents on early literacy and numeracy developmental skills. On-site visits to recruit sites for this purpose were made to Decatur City, Anniston City, Calhoun County, Mobile County, and Baldwin County.

Four additional Reach Out and Read (ROR) Alabama sites were approved during July-December, 2007. Books (34,500) were selected and purchased for distribution to existing and new ROR sites in Alabama selected during Year 1. The ROR Web site was streamlined by ROR national for training documentation of medical providers and attending nurses.

The state Early Intervention and Preschool Conference was held on November 14-16, 2007, with the following theme: From the Playground: Thinking Outside the Sandbox. There were of total of 725 attendees at this Conference. Of the attendees, there were 87


family members. There were 49 families in the Family Forum who received stipends to support their participation. The Family Forum was used as a means of obtaining issues and concerns from families and as an opportunity to teach advocacy techniques and/or strategies for improving effective collaboration with providers, LEA personnel, and within their communities. There were numerous opportunities for networking at the Family Forum between parents and professionals. Families had an opportunity to attend a variety of sessions led by national speakers as well as state experts. These sessions focused on best practices in pre-literacy, language, numeracy, and advocacy skills. The following is a sample of some of the sessions offered along with the overall participant ratings:

Table 7. Participant evaluation feedback preschool session at the EI and Preschool Conference in November 2007.

Session TitleVery Good Good Adequate Poor

Delivering High Quality Pre-Kindergarten Services in Alabama 18 27 15 3What Parents Need to Know About Transition 13 6 1There’s More to Life than a Sandbox/Advocacy 13 13Children Who Are Medically Complex 51 25 5 1Service Coordination Across All Playgrounds 12 7Sharing Toys: Preschool Inclusion 28 31 5 4Curious Denise’s Not So Easy Guide to Resources 20 19 1A Father’s Perspective 13 2Advancements in Technology for Children with Hearing Impairments 13 7Emerging Language in Early Literacy Issues 31 39 11 1No Time to Lose: Early Literacy 5 3Say What? Preschool Communication Issues 12 28 10Language Rich Preschool Environments 30 9 1Let’s Meet at the Sandbox and Play Together (AVT) 25 16 4Lessons on Joining the Circle (Advocacy) 23 1Your Child’s Brain: Food For Thought 48 1 1It’s Not Just about Pencil and Paper 38 13Under the Shady Tree: Come Read with Me 33 2The Parent’s Perspective 144 14Play with a Purpose: Developing Fine Motor, Gross Motor and Language Skills 48 26 3 1Misbehavior or Missed Communication 110 14The Heart-Mind Connection 140 14When Children Have Autism 61 14 1First Signs: Improving Development Screening Practices 31 18 3Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 13Alabama SPDGApril 25, 2008

Session TitleVery Good Good Adequate Poor

Teachable Moments: Parents Educating Friends, Family, and the Community 8 5Assistive Technology 30 2

998 107 62 11Grand Total – 1,178

GOAL 2: Through implementation of SBR instructional strategies delivered by trained personnel within participating schools, there will be a 20 percent reduction in the gap between students with and without disabilities who pass the exit examination and graduate with a regular diploma.

Objective 2.1: Two secondary schools per year will be trained by SPDG staff and professional development (PD) partners. PD partners will utilize and support implementation of SBR Instructional Enhancements (consisting of Makes Sense Strategies (MSS), Content Enhancement Routines, and the use of collaborative teaching techniques); Intensive Interventions will consist of Xtreme Reading, the Learning Strategies Curriculum, and other SBR instructional strategies.

Goal 2 activities in the new five-year SPDG build on the successful implementation of MSS in the previous two SIGs. Since its inception, MSS has continuously evolved and is currently in its eighth version. The evolution of MSS has been informed by a series of scientific research validation studies and extensive observations and feedback from practicing teachers (inservice) and teacher-candidates (pre-service) representing K-12 general and special education teachers, as well as pre-service teacher education faculty. Appendix B provides a summary of the evolution of the MSS software. Currently, the entire MSS software is being redesigned to streamline the navigation system and update all of the graphic organizer and Smart-sheet resources and teacher samples.

A companion Web site is under construction that will feature a MSS User-Forum allowing teachers and teacher-candidates throughout the world to communicate ideas about how they use MSS, share examples, and pose questions.

A Spanish language version of MSS is also currently under development to support English-language Learning.

During the new SPDG grant period (2007-2112), the SPDG-supported professional development uses MSS along with the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM). The SIM is an umbrella term that embraces a model of teacher-focused (Content Enhancement) and student-focused interventions (Learning Strategies), and other support pieces. The SIM is intended to offer students a key to unlock text and nurture understanding. Among the essential components of the SIM is a set of routines called the teacher-focused interventions, or Content Enhancement Routines. Content Enhancement Routines contain visual and graphic organizers and other methods to help students extract Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 14Alabama SPDGApril 25, 2008

important information that they need to learn from their content-area texts (Schumaker, et al., 2002). Research, conducted by the Kansas University Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL), has shown positive effects of the use of several SIM strategies. The MSS and SIM is being implemented within annual cohorts of two secondary middle and high schools.

Planned Activities

2.1.1 (Years 1-5) – Initially, three PD partners will be recruited, trained, and supported by SPDG. Annually, two additional PD partners will be recruited and trained. These PD partners will then provide ongoing coaching for participating secondary schools. Five-day training will be given at regional workshops and/or conferences and include training on coaching and mentoring skills, SBR content knowledge using Instructional Enhancements and Intensive Interventions. Training will also include procedures for using fidelity data to improve the quality of interventions.

2.1.2 (Years 1-5) – Annually, a new cohort of two secondary schools (Grades 8-12) at risk for becoming “School Improvement” classified will be recruited and provided a minimum of four days of training. Each cohort school will create and maintain a Leadership team, and will include on the team a designated Content Leader (CL) Coordinator and Strategy Leader (SL) Coordinator. The Leadership Team will meet and review progress, fidelity, and application level of the Instructional Enhancements and Intensive Interventions.

2.1.3 Years 1-5) – SPDG staff and PD partners will provide on-going coaching and mentoring including one-on-one assistance, walk-thrus, internet-video conferencing, and internet-forum networking. At least eight hours of technical assistance per month will be provided for each participating school during their first two semesters of implementation and eight hours per quarter subsequently.

2.1.4 (Year 1-5) – Content Experts will maintain internet technology-based resources to provide teachers and leaders access to PD modules and a network forum to support ongoing problem solving, idea-sharing, and implementation.


Goal 2 involves implementing MSS and SIM Instructional Enhancements and Intensive Interventions within annual cohorts of two middle schools with their feeder high school within two school districts. During Year 1, the following schools were selected for participation: Oxford City School System and Brewton City School System.

Following is a listing of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 schools:


Cohort l Schools

Oxford Middle School Oxford High School

Cohort 2 Schools

Brewton Middle School T.R. Miller High School

Activity 2.1.1 calls for three PD partners to provide ongoing coaching for the participating secondary schools. Three PD partners from IHEs have been selected: Dr. Edwin Ellis, University of Alabama (UA); Dr. Monica Dillihunt, University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH); and Dr. Marian Parker, Troy University (TU). Dr. Ellis and Dr. Ann Hoffman, consultant from the KU-CRL, will provide training on the SIM Model, while all three PD partners and Ms. Theresa Farmer, SDE SPDG Goal 2 Coordinator, will provide training in MSS for the participating Cohort schools. Five days of SIM and MSS training will be provided for the above Cohort schools during summer 2008.

Beginning in fall 2008, the above four Cohort schools will implement MSS and SIM Instructional Enhancements and Intensive Interventions. On-going coaching and mentoring (i.e., approximately eight hours of technical assistance a month) will be provided to the participating schools during fall and the next school year (Year 2 of the SPDG). This assistance will include one-on-one assistances, walk-thrus, Internet video-conferencing, and internet-forum networking (Activity 2.1.3).

Teachers and administrators within the Cohort schools will have access to technology-based resources (Activity 2.1.4). These resources include three co-teaching DVDs (at the elementary, middle school, and high school level) that have been developed during Year 1 of the SPDG. The DVDs include collaboration/co-teaching teams working within Alabama elementary, middle, and high schools. The following co-teaching models are included on the DVDs: Supportive and station teaching, dual supportive teaching, alternative teaching, and parallel teaching. In addition to filming of the implementation of these models, the DVDs include conversations with collaborative teachers and interviews with administrators. A plan is being developed for the dissemination of these co-teaching DVDs. During March, the ALSDE staff is being briefed/trained on the co-teaching DVDs. Ms. Theresa Farmer also presented the co-teaching DVDs at the Alabama Education Association Conference held on March 17, 2008. A database will be maintained as the dissemination plan rolls out during fall-summer 2008 to provide systematic access to the co-teaching DVDs for special and general education teachers within the Goal 2 Cohort schools, as well as other schools within the state.

The following Table 8 provides a summary of training on co-teaching and collaboration during Year 1 by Ms. Farmer, Goal 2 Coordinator, and Ms. Janice Hawkins, Goal 4 Coordinator.


Table 8. Participant evaluation ratings for Year 1 Collaboration/Co-Teaching Workshops on a five-point scale with five the highest rating. (287 Participants)

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me


ChangeMotivational

ChangeSession 221 Crossing the Great Divide Middle School Collaboration 10-Jul-07 4.8 4.9 2.5 2.7

Session 222 Elementary Models of Collaboration 10-Jul-07 4.7 4.8 3.0 3.2Session 243 Crossing The Great Divide Middle School Collaboration 10-Jul-07 4.8 4.8 2.9 3.0

Session 245 Elementary Models of Collaboration 10-Jul-07 4.8 4.8 2.7 3.1Session 306- How To Prepare For and Enhance Effective Secondary /Collaborative Programs 11-Jul-07 3.9 3.9 2.2 2.5

SDE Collaborative Partners 13-Dec-07 4.3 4.4 2.4 2.8Session 122 The Seamless Instructional Support Model Tier I Strategy 09-Jul-07 4.5 4.5 2.8 3.1Session 220 The Seamless Instructional Model Tier II Strategy Lab 10-Jul-07 4.7 4.8 2.7 3.3 Session 244 The Seamless Instructional Support Model Tier I PM Session 10-Jul-07 4.7 4.5 2.6 2.6

SDE Collaborative Partners 11-Jan-08 4.3 0.0 3.0 3.4





The implementation of Goal 2 activities is being coordinated with the Alabama Reading Initiative-Program Adolescent Literacy (ARI-PAL). The ARI-PAL program has been supporting 14 middle schools with seven ARI-PAL coaches (two schools per coach). Coaches have been providing on-site and on-lien support. Two of the Cohort SPDG schools are ARI-PAL schools and have received reading/literacy training and coaching.


Another area of MSS/SIM collaboration during Year 1 of the SPDG has been with the Alabama Mathematics, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI). During March 2008, Ms. Farmer provided MSS training for the AMSTI specialists, who provide technical assistance to AMSTI schools throughout the state.

Ms. Farmer has also collaborated with the Mobile County School System in “unpacking” state standards in science and social studies using MSS. She provided training for the Mobile County staff so that this unpacking can be done with MSS. Science and social studies lead teachers were paid to strategically organize each state standard on a Key Unit Planner and to unpack each standard on an Essential Understanding tool (all from MSS).

Collaboration has also occurred with the Alabama American Village history site. Ms. Farmer has conducted five professional development trainings for 4t-12 Grade school teachers related to state standards that address American history/American Revolution and the Constitution (i.e., The American Village). An additional training module has been developed for these trainings.

Attendance for the various Goal 2 workshops is presented below in Figures l, 2, and 3. The Figures provide attendance for Models of Collaboration, MSS, and Seamless Collaboration trainings.

Figure 1. Attendance of 2007-2008 Models of Collaboration/Co-Teaching Training by Job Position or Membership.

Figure 2. Attendance of 2007-2008 MSS trainings by job position or membership.


Figure 3. Attendance of 2007-2008 Seamless Collaboration Continuum training by job position or membership.

Workshop evaluations provided feedback for the MSS. Table 9 summarizes participant feedback from professional development trainings in collaboration that have been provided during Year 1 (2007-2008).


Table 9. Participant evaluation ratings for Year 1 MSS Workshops on a five-point scale with five the highest rating. (473 Participants)

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me


ChangeMotivational

ChangeSession 223 Makes Sense of History of American Village with Makes Sense Strategies 10-Jul-07 4.3 4.6 2.4 2.5Session 320 Makes Sense Strategies for Mathematics 11-Jul-07 4.7 4.9 3.2 3.5Makes Sense Strategies Training 03-Aug-07 4.3 4.3 3.1 3.4Makes Sense Strategies Training PM Session 07-Aug-07 4.8 5.0 2.6 2.6Makes Sense Strategies Training AM Session 07-Aug-07 3.9 4.6 2.9 3.0Makes Sense Strategies Teaching with Makes Sense Strategies 21-Sep-07 4.8 4.9 3.0 3.1Makes Sense of Strategies Teaching with Makes Sense Strategies 28-Sep-07 4.5 4.4 2.6 2.7Makes Sense Strategies Training 16-Oct-07 3.9 4.2 2.3 2.3Makes Sense Strategies Training 17-Oct-07 4.5 4.0 2.3 2.4Makes Sense of History using Makes Sense Strategies 01-Nov-07 4.9 4.8 3.3 3.5Makes Sense of Strategic Teaching, Planning using Makes Sense Strategies 16-Nov-07 4.5 4.7 2.9 3.0Makes Sense of Strategic Teaching, Planning with Makes Sense Strategies 29-Nov-07 4.2 4.7 2.8 2.9Makes Sense Strategies Training 04-Jan-08 4.1 4.3 2.5 2.6Makes Sense Strategies Training for Middle School Science 31-Jan-08 4.4 4.5 2.7 3.0Using Makes Sense Strategies for Science 22-Feb-08 4.4 4.6 2.4 2.6Session 246 American Village A Revolutionary Way To Teach 10-Jul-07 4.6 4.5 2.8 3.5

Ms. Farmer has also provided follow-up assistance and professional development with school systems around the state that have implemented MSS for more than three years. During the next year of the SPDG, she will implement a similar model as ARI in training of approximately 15-20 teachers in MSS that can provide technical assistance and


mentoring to other school systems. A database will be maintained so that interested school systems can access a MSS trainer.

Collaboration also occurred during Year 1 with Dr. Marian Parker, Troy University, who is managing a COMP II grant. This grant pairs language arts and social science pre-service teachers and veteran teachers. MSS is a major focus of the grant, with expectations of the pairs for designing units/lessons incorporating MSS, to design PowerPoint presentations, excel, word documents, and SmartBoard activities.

During Year 1, a doctoral dissertation was completed by an Alabama graduate student entitled, “The Effects of Embedding Graphic Organizers with Three Types of Semantic Prompts on Students’ Relationship Understanding of History.” The three graphic organizers included Information Structure Frames, Essential Understanding/Information Processing Smart-sheets, and Generative-ideas Smart-sheets. This study compared the effectiveness of MSS graphic organizers with three categories of semantic prompts compared to traditional text-based instructional tools. Findings indicated significant differences in favor of the four different instructional techniques to impact depth and breadth of relationship understanding. These tools provide immediate benefit to students of all ability levels in secondary classrooms with little classroom time devoted to explicitly teaching the structure and use of the visual devices. These tools were significantly superior to the traditional text-based instructional techniques used by history teachers. In addition, qualitative data gathered also reinforced the quantitative findings and provide social validity of the quantitative data for use of the tools among both teachers and students.

GOAL 3: Through implementation of scientifically based PBS by trained administrators, teachers, and other school personnel within participating schools, the number of students with disabilities who are suspended or expelled for greater than ten days will decrease by 80 percent and office discipline referrals will be reduced by 50 percent.

Objective 3.1: Building on the success and experience of PBS during the past two SIG/SPDG grant periods and in an effort to replicate to scale the implementation of PBS, approximately 50 percent of the LEAs in Alabama will implement PBS with an 80 percent fidelity rating on the Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) within two years.

Planned Activities

3.1.1 (Years 1-5) – SPDG staff, PBS coaches and trainers and other PBS leaders will train, support, and offer technical assistance for 15 school systems implementing PBS per year, scaling up to approximately 50 percent of the Alabama school systems.


3.1.2 (Years 1-5) – An online Web-based data collection system that aligns with the state required reporting system will be used to gather, measure, and report discipline referrals and other needed data for Goal 3 and the State Performance Plan.

3.1.3 (Years 1-5) – Approximately 40 regional PBS coaches and lead contacts will be trained to use the SET and the Schoolwide Survey that was developed and utilized by the National PBIS Center for the purpose of evaluating fidelity of PBS implementation within districts. Fidelity of implementation will be determined by administering a pre-SET baseline before implementation and a post-SET annually in the spring of each year.

3.1.4 (Years 1-5) – Through partnership with the Southeastern Regional Resource Center (SERRC), annual PBS meetings that include stakeholders from the SERRC 11 states/ territories and national experts will be held in conjunction with the International PBS Conference. Annually, this meeting will include strategic planning, best practice methods, PBS impact data, team planning, and training from national experts in order to build continuity within the entire SERRC region.

3.1.5 (Years 1-5) – SPDG staff and partners, including the PTI, will provide annual workshops at local, regional, and state conferences across the state to increase knowledge of PBS concepts for at least 500 educators, administrators, and parents.


Due to budget reductions below that were anticipated at the time of the development of the new SPDG application as well as pending SPDG budget cuts for Year 2 (2008-2009), only six (rather than the expected ten) school systems will be trained to implement PBS. This training is being planned and will be delivered in June 2008.

Using a train-the-trainer model, two persons will receive PBS training, who, in turn, will train three school systems each in regionally appropriate areas throughout Alabama. By August 2008, the six new school systems will be trained and ready for PBS implementation on the first day of the following 2008-09 school year.

The SDE collaborative PBS planning committee made the decision to train PBS coaches to use the Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) to assess implementation fidelity within the schools they support. This SET training, scheduled for June 2008, will include two days of coach training with the remaining two days focused on training geared to support students in Tier 3 of PBS support. It is expected that there will be approximately 40-60 participant lead contacts and coaches attending this June training.

During Year 1 of the new SPDG, an on-line Web-based data collection system was completed to track suspensions and expulsions of all students, including those with disabilities. This system has graphing capabilities to allow schools to use the system to


demonstrate behavioral data for staff. This will be helpful for local planning/monitoring practices. Year 1 of the SPDG is the first year for entering baseline data. Next year (Year 2 of the SPDG), data comparisons for demonstrating reductions of suspensions and expulsions will be available using this on-line data system. The Web site for this system is located at www.pbsdata.net.

In collaboration with the SERRC, a meeting is scheduled in conjunction with the International PBIS Conference to be held in Chicago in late spring. This meeting will focus on collaborative long-term data collection and dealing with the challenges of and solutions to attrition of teacher/administrators.

Objective 3.2 Approximately 1,500 parents and service providers will increase their knowledge, skills, and use of evidence-based practices in behavior management using PBS with special emphasis on proactive positive communication to ensure a smooth transition from Part C to Part B.

Planned Activities

3.2.1 (Years 1-5) – A minimum of two staff per district will receive annual training to learn strategies to provide regional technical assistance for implementing PBS with early intervention programs and families.

3.2.2 (Years 1-5) – SPDG staff and experts will provide PBS workshops at local, regional, and state Early Intervention/Preschool conference that will annually include approximately 300 parents from both Part C and Part B as participants.

3.2.3 (Years 1-5) – SPDG staff will provide PD annually for at least 6 PTI parent trainers in order to increase their skills in the area of behavior management (Activity 1.3.1).

3.2.4 (Years 1-5) – The trained PTI parent trainers will provide regional trainings held monthly for approximately 300 parents annually and service providers of young children who are high risk or who have disabilities (1,500 total over the 5-year grant period). Parents will be taught specific behavior management strategies for use at home and to assist with transition from home to school (see Activity 1.3.2).


Training in PBS has been ongoing during Year 1 of the SPDG. Alabama institutions of higher education (IHEs) have also been invited to PBS trainings as well as trainings within other SPDG goals. Table 10 provides a summary of participant evaluations for trainings provided during 2007-2008.


http://www.pbsdata.net/

Table 10. Participant evaluation ratings for Year 1 PBS professional development on a five-point scale with five the highest rating. (830 Participants)

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me


ChangeMotivational

ChangeSession 301- Behavior Management for the Oppositional Student 11-Jul-07 4.2 4.2 2.0 2.1Session 302 Behavior Management for The Oppositional Student 11-Jul-07 4.5 4.6 2.1 2.3

Positive Behavior Supports 24-Jul-07 4.7 4.8 3.2 3.4

Positive Behavior Supports 27-Jul-07 4.4 4.5 2.9 3.1Positive Behavior Supports Follow Up PM 07-Jan-08 4.5 0.0 3.0 3.1Positive Behavior Supports Follow Up AM 07-Jan-08 4.6 0.0 2.8 2.9AL PBS FBA, Behavioral Intervention Plans Workshop 24-Jan-08 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.1AL PBS FBA/Behavior Intervention Plans Workshop 05-Mar-08 4.6 4.8 2.7 2.7AL PBS FBA/Behavior Intervention Plans Workshop 06-Mar-08 4.6 4.7 2.9 2.8Session 105 Teaching Students with Disabilities To Manage Their Own Behavior 09-Jul-07 4.0 4.1 2.5 2.5Session 103 I Believe/You Will Too 09-Jul-07 4.5 4.7 2.6 2.8Looking For A Magi Wand For Behavior Management 10-Jul-07 4.6 4.6 1.8 1.8

Beginning May 2008, six PTI parent trainers will offer regional trainings for approximately 300 parents. Parents will be taught specific behavior management strategies for their use in the home to assist with transition from home to school.

During Year 1, presentations were developed to be presented at the state Early Intervention Conference to be held in November 2008 (Year 2 of the SPDG). These workshop presentations will focus on behavior management techniques for parents, child care providers, and early intervention service providers.


GOAL 4: At least 98 percent of the special education teacher positions in Alabama will be filled with fully certified teachers, and 70 percent of first-time special education teachers will remain teaching in special education after three years.

Objective 4.1: New and enhanced recruitment efforts will be successful in obtaining sufficient numbers of fully-certified, ethnically diverse special education teachers reversing the trend (by Year 2) of using more under-certified special education teachers and attaining a 98 percent utilization of fully certified teachers in five years.

Planned Activities

4.1.1 (Years 1-5) – With SPDG support, stipends of $4,000 will be provided for 80 prospective special education teachers who are not fully certified ($320,000 total), with priority for teachers from school districts with the highest numbers of less than fully certified special education teachers. Teachers receiving training stipends will agree to teach in special education within Alabama in high-need areas for the same number of years that they received stipends. Priority will be given to teachers with a disability.

4.1.2 (Years 1-5) – In collaboration with the Federal Programs and Certification Units,

SES will annually review the equity plans required by Title II to spot inequities regarding the percentage of less than fully certified special education teachers being employed in school systems compared to the numbers of economically disadvantaged and minority students. Implementation of these equity plans will also be reviewed.


The Alabama Legislature appropriated $2,750,000 in the FY 08 budget for a Teacher Recruitment Incentive Program. This appropriation provides the following:

Freshman scholarships (100 @ $20,000; $5,000 x 4 years) Alternative Class A scholarships (68 @ $6,000; $2,000 x 3 years) Future Teachers of Alabama initiatives For publicizing and processing

The critical needs area for the Tier l scholarship priority is:

Mathematics Special Education General Science English Language Arts


Tier 2 includes:

Social Science Languages Other than English Music Family & Consumer Sciences Visual Arts

It is too early in the year to determine how many of these scholarships will be awarded to persons pursuing a special education certificate. This will be reported on in the Year 2 SPDG Annual Performance Report.

Because of the pending budget cuts for Year 2 of the Alabama SPDG (2008-2009) and because of the state support for the new teacher scholarship program, it was decided that awarding 80 stipends for special education teachers not fully certified will be reduced to 40. The awarding of these 40 stipends will be delayed until an actual level of Year 2 (2008-2009) SPDG funding level is known.

In spring 2008, the SDE Special Education Services will review the school system equity plans of local school systems to determine what actions have been taken during 2007-2008 school year to minimize inequities in the percentage of less than fully certified special education teachers being employed in school systems compared to the numbers of economically disadvantaged and minority students (Activity 4.1.2).

The state of Alabama has implemented an on-line teacher application system in an effort to more aggressively recruit teachers as well as streamline the process for recruiting fully certified teachers, including special education teachers.

At least three Goal 4 professional development sessions were provided during 2007-2008 for school systems regarding effective recruitment and retention strategies. Table 11 below provides a summary of participating ratings for these sessions.

Table 11. Participant evaluation ratings for selected recruitment and retention Workshops on a five-point scale with five the highest rating. (17 Participants)

Topic DateMy

expectations

Beneficial to me


ChangeMotivational

ChangeSession 406- Best Recruitment Practices and Strategies 12-Jul-07 5.0 5.0 2.6 2.9Session 318 Making Today's Students Count for Tomorrow's Market Place 13-Jul-07 4.8 4.8 2.0 2.2

IHEs Special Education Advisory Panel Meeting 17-Dec-07 4.8 0.0 1.8 2.4


Objective 4.2: The annual attrition level of special education teachers in high-need areas will decrease to that of general education teachers within their LEAs. By the end of the 5-year SPDG funding, the 3-year statewide attrition rate of first-time special education teachers will decline from 56 percent to 30 percent.

Planned Activities

4.2.1 (Year 1, Quarters 1-3) – In collaboration with four Alabama IHEs (University of South Alabama, Troy University, The University of Alabama, and Alabama A & M University) and the Governor’s Commission on Teacher Quality, successful mentoring programs existing within Alabama LEAs, as well as scientifically based mentoring programs across the country will be identified. Through PD collaborative efforts with IHEs, statewide mentoring training program will be developed based on the features of successful mentoring programs and on the successes of GEMS.

4.2.2 (Year 1, Quarter 4; Years 2-5) – The SPDG and IHEs will provide regional professional development workshops regarding effective mentoring programs for selected LEAs.

4.2.3 (Years 2-5) – Approximately four IHEs will partner annually with one LEA (16 total LEAs), who have committed to the implementation of a successful mentoring program. Site selection will prioritize LEAs with the highest special education attrition rates. These IHE-LEA partnerships will involve on-site consultation visits, and provide technical assistance to the LEAs. The IHE partners will gather ongoing fidelity data for implementation of local mentoring programs for first-time special education teachers.


In 2007, the Alabama Governor’s Commission on Quality Teaching recommended the immediate implementation of a statewide mentoring program for every new Alabama teacher and recommended that the Alabama Legislature fund such a program. Based on this recommendation, the Legislature appropriated $3,950,000 for a new statewide teacher mentoring/induction program to be implemented within each school system. Local school systems are required to implement either an existing locally development mentoring program or a new mentoring program to support new teachers. Mentors need to be identified prior to the first day of the school year. The legislature provided a $l,000 stipend for each mentor.

Three Alabama IHEs (Troy University, the University of Alabama, and the University of Southern Alabama) have been meeting with Janice Hawkins, Coordinator of Goal 4, during Year 1 to develop a plan for how these universities would partner with LEAs to


provide mentoring of new/novice special education teachers and how this support would link with the new state-funded mentoring program.

It was ultimately decided that because the state legislature has provided support for a statewide mentoring program and it is expected that all school systems will implement mentoring for new/novice teachers, Activity 4.2.3 will re-focus on support of collaborative teaching. Specifically, 20 IHEs will partner annually with one middle school and one high school in one local school system. Site selection will prioritize school systems with the highest need for this collaborative teaching training. These IHE school system partnerships will involve on-site consultation visits, professional development training at and by the IHE, as well as on-site technical assistance to the school system. The IHE partners will gather ongoing fidelity data for implementation of local training programs for general and special education teachers and school administrators. During the remainder of Year 2, planning will occur with the IHEs for the implementation of this revised Activity 4.2.3.

Ms. Hawkins continues to support the efforts of collaborative preservice teaching projects of the IHEs. As reported in previous SIG Annual Reports, ten Alabama IHEs (including two historically black universities) have been participating in a collaborative teaching project.

3. ALABAMA SPDG OUTCOMES

Status of SPDG Outcomes as of April 30, 2008

Evidence of success will be shown by improved early literacy and elementary math scores. (GOAL 1)

Secondary students will improve skills for accessing content areas at the secondary level and pass the literacy and mathematics subtests of the exit examination. (GOAL 2)

Alabama has had several reading initiatives over the last decade. The LANGUAGE! program, the Beginning Reading Model, Reading First, and the Reading Initiative have all worked at enhancing reading. Figure 4 shows trends on the SAT 9 and 10 state reading (total reading) examination for the last five years. It does appear that general education students have increased their reading achievement; however, if there is improvement for the special education students, it is slight at best.


Figure 4. Comparison of third, fifth, and eighth grade general and special education students average NCE reading scores for several years.

Passing the math graduation test is a Alabama state requirement. Consequently, good mathematics achievement is needed by students to graduate with a regular diploma. The math achievement gap between special education and regular education students is large, preventing about 95 percent of special education students from taking and passing the exit examination. Figure 5 below shows that the mathematics gap may have increased over the last several years with little improvement, if any, for special education students, while those in general education have increased their math skills.

As discussed earlier in this Annual Report, 12 school systems have been implementing Vmath, a scientifically based math program. Appendix C provides some charts showing the gains being made by students with and without disabilities participating in this program.

Figure 5. Comparison of average NCE math scores for five years for third, fifth, and eighth grade general and special education students.


Special education students will demonstrate improved behavior enabling them to increase attendance, reduce office referrals, decrease suspensions/expulsions, and lower dropout rates. (GOAL 3)

At PBS sites, the www.pbsdata.net is used by teachers and administrators in local school systems implementing PBS to assist school personnel in examining the frequency, location, time of day, referring staff, and possible motivation for inappropriate behavior and, thus, make better and more effective discipline decisions. The Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODRs) are one measure used to evaluate the success of training strategies at PBS sites. The ODRs were gathered in Years 4 through 7 providing a review of the reduction in referrals due to program implementation. For 32 of the PBS schools, ODRs dropped 55 percent over the three years and long-term suspensions (30 schools) were cut by a little over 40 percent during the three years period.

For comparison, statewide suspension/expulsion data are available over the last several years. They are gathered using the categories of removals (mandatory expulsion) and long-term suspensions (one suspension for more than 10 days). As can be observed in Figure 6, the percent increase has rapidly moved upward for the entire state while PBS site have reduced their rate of discipline referrals and long-term suspensions. An administrative decision at the SDE was made not to contract with previous consultants who were analyzing Alabama SWIS statewide data. Therefore, data is not available for this Annual Report for continuing comparisons of the data contained in Figure 6 beyond the 2006-2007 school year.

Figure 6. The statewide rate of increase in the number disciplinary events by category using school year 2001-2002 as the base year.

Special education services will be delivered by trained and qualified special education teachers, working collaboratively with general education teachers who remain teaching in special education beyond three years. (GOAL 4)Previous Alabama SIGs have addressed recruitment, mentoring, and retention for the last Year 1 Annual Performance Report Page 30Alabama SPDGApril 25, 2008

several years. During this time period, the percentage of teachers not fully certified has dropped and then moved upward as the shortages became more intense. Recent special education teacher data has moved from counting the FTE who are certified to those who are highly qualified due to a change in federal reporting requirements. Figure 7 below shows that in 2006 a little over 12 percent of the special education teachers statewide were not highly qualified. Hopefully, implementation of the new state-funded scholarship program aimed at increasing the numbers of highly qualified teachers will help further reduce the percent of not highly qualified special education teachers.

Figure 7. Percent of qualified and not qualified special education teachers (FTEs for 3-5 years of age and K-12 combined) for 2006.

0.0%10.0%20.0%

30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Not Qualified Qualified

Special Education Teacher Status

Perc

ent

Alabama is able to identify teachers who are first-time special education teachers each year and can determine if they have returned for their fourth year of teaching after completing their third year. Statewide retention of first-time special education teachers has been evaluated for five recent time periods. Figure 8 provides a summary of these results.

Figure 8. Percent of First-time Special Education Teachers Beginning Their Fourth


Year of Teaching in Alabama.

This type of retention information can also be obtained for all special education teachers. Retention for all special education teachers has been just about 55 percent for the last four years. Over the same time period, retention for first-time teachers was just below 50 percent. The retention rate for both groups appears to have remained stable over the last four years. SPDG activities are aimed at increasing special education skills and satisfaction, thus, increasing the retention rate for both first-time special education teachers and the entire special education teaching cadre.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

00-01 to 03-04 01-02 to 04-05 02-03 to 05-06 03-04 to 06-07 04-05 to 07-08

Years taught

Percent

APPENDIX A

Vmath Classroom Observation Teacher Reflection Tool


Teacher: ______________________Grade: __________ Date: ___________Years teaching program: ________ Attended Training (circle one): Yes NoCampus: ______________________ District: __________________________

Start Date: Minutes per Day:End Date: No. Days per Week:

Group Size: Progress Monitoring:(none or how often)

No. of Participating Students per Class:

Delivery Model:(circle one)

In-classPull-OutOther

Student Selection: (circle one)

High stakes Other

Taught by (circle one): Teacher Interventionist

Other

Directions: Use this tool to determine the level or your level (teachers) of implementation for each component and to note change over time. Record the frequency that best represents your classroom observations or current instructional practice.

Complete the chart using the following key:Rarely = 1 Sometimes = 2 Often = 3 Always = 4

Components Frequency Notes

1. ORGANIZATION Vmath materials are close at

hand. Small group instructional area

is clearly identified.2. INSTRUCTION

Use of Teacher’s Edition Teacher follows four-step

lesson format provided. Teacher delivers instruction

using explicit language. The Three Read Process is

utilized to plan for instruction. Teacher uses Test Prep and

Error Correction procedures for students to ensure mastery.


Components Frequency

Notes

Instruction is intense and intentional.

Transparencies are used to model Getting Started and Guided Practice.

Focus is on student responses and checking for mastery.

Teacher provides frequent feedback and monitoring during independent practice.

Student Engagement Students respond chorally

and individually. Teacher ensures students are

engaged at all times. Students are motivated and

interested in the learning.3. PACING

Teacher keeps the instruction moving at an appropriate pace to complete the steps within each lesson.

4. MANAGEMENT Other students in class are

engaged in independent activities.

Interruptions are minimal.5. DIFFERENTIATION

Initial Assessment is administered and analyzed for planning. Scores are entered online.

Benchmark scores are reliable and entered online.

Progress Monitoring occurs regularly and scores are entered online.

Module Pre-Tests and Post-Tests are administered and scored are entered online.


Final Assessment is administered and scores are entered online.

Classroom data is analyzed to inform instruction.


APPENDIX B

Evolution of the Makes Sense Strategies Software


Evolution of Makes Sense Strategies software

Since its inception, Makes Sense Strategies (MSS) has continuously evolved and is currently in its eighth version. The evolution of MSS has been informed by a series of scientific-research validation studies and extensive observations and feedback from practicing teachers (inservice) and teacher-candidates (pre-service) representing K-12 general and special education, as well as pre-service teacher education faculty.

Versions 1.0 – 2.0 used during SIG 1 (site licenses purchased by AL-SDE):

The original version of MSS might best be described as an electronic book containing a set of downloadable, non-interactive black-line masters of graphic organizer resources depicting four types of information structures: hierarchic, compare/contrast, cause/effect, and sequence and numerous articles authored by Drs. Edwin Ellis and Marcia Rock about teaching effectiveness and specific routines for implementing specific instructional and classroom management tactics for using the graphic organizers when teaching.

Analysis of user data indicated that (a) users rarely, if ever, accessed the electronic articles, and (b) there was a need to:

Develop interactive graphic organizers (e.g., downloadable files of graphic organizers in which users could key-in information and then print the completed graphic organizer).

Provide multiple examples of how teachers have used the graphic organizers across the curriculum.

Develop language literacy Smart-sheets (visual devices similar to graphic organizers specifically designed to address reading and process writing).

Develop a more user-friendly navigation system for the software.

MSS was subsequently re-designed to address the above limitations and then disseminated via AL-SIG 1 MSS Professional Development.

Versions v3.0-6.0 used during SIG 2 (AL SDE site license donated by Edwin Ellis):

Analysis of user and outcome data revealed important information that was subsequently used to guide further refinement and enhancement of MSS. Pertinent findings included:

Elementary, middle, and high schools implementing MSS Scaffolded Process Writing made significant gains on percentage of students meeting the writing standard as compared to non-MSS schools; however, MSS was used in these schools largely as a support for developing process writing skills; MSS was not widely used across the curriculum for teaching other subjects like science, social studies, or vocabulary. Thus, there was a need to develop features of MSS which would promote wider application.

An impediment to MSS application in content-area subject teaching was teachers experienced difficulty planning use of MSS because they could not easily envision


how a given graphic organizer might be applied to their curriculum/their students; they generally experienced difficulty translating learning standards to graphic organizers and specifically experienced limited skills differentiating core ideas and essential-to-know details that students should learn from related interesting, but trivial information.

The Alabama Reading Initiative emphasized, among many elements, the importance of vocabulary instruction but many teachers were unable to envision how MSS could be used to teach vocabulary.

Use of MSS in pre-service teacher education was superficial, piecemeal, and not integrated throughout the TE programs.

Implementation fidelity was not sufficiently emphasized, and school leaders generally had limited knowledge of how support it.

User- and outcome-data were used to inform the next evolutionary leap in MSS. Some of the key features that were added to MSS include:

SMART-sheets for Teachers: To enhance teachers’ ability to differentiate content-curriculum, three Smart-sheet devices were developed, evaluated, and refined: “Core Ideas of the Unit,” “Essential Understandings of a Core Idea,” and “MSS Enhanced Lesson Plan.” Evaluation of their use by pre-service teacher-candidates demonstrated highly significant increases in their ability to conceptualize and plan differentiated instruction in big ideas of the curriculum as well as plan and use a range of other MSS devices in three areas: (a) pre-assessment of student knowledge, (b) teaching new information, and (c) facilitating reflective reviews of previously taught information.

SMART-sheets for Learners: MSS research suggested that almost all subject-matter lessons primarily address one of 15 possible topics (Person, Group, Place /Geography, Event, Process, Theory, Idea, Debate, Issue, Policy, War/Conflict, Belief, Problem, Invention, Thing/Object). Thus, for each topic, specific sets of “Smart-sheets” were developed. A Smart-sheet is analogous to a graphic organizer, but contains embedded semantic prompts designed to: (a) focus attention on what is essential to understand about a topic, (b) cue the learner to engage in highly-robust cognitive elaboration thinking processes, or (c) take some kind of strategic action. The Smart-sheets were designed so that teachers can ask themselves which of the 15 topics their lesson is primarily about and then select the appropriate Smart-sheet to use when planning and teaching the lesson. Likewise, students can use the SMART-sheets as guided-reading tools to increase comprehension of texts as note-taking guides and as pre-writing planning guides when writing about specific content-area topics.

Subsequent research demonstrated that when the devices are used by high school high-, typical, and low-achieving students, as well as low-achieving students with learning disabilities, significant gains are evidenced in both breadth and depth of history knowledge when compared to when the same teachers used traditional text-based instructional resources.


SMART-sheets for Leaders. To enable instructional leaders to more effectively support fidelity implementation of MSS, a series of Smart-sheets for leaders were developed, refined, and evaluated. The first category focused on Smart-sheets that leaders and teachers use to analyze existing school climate and related factors to determine existing assets and inhibitors to successful schoolwide MSS implementation. The second category featured a series of Smart-sheets used to plan incremental change, evaluate fidelity, and apply action research to determine the impact of MSS on student outcomes.

Subsequent research validated these devices by examining teachers with histories of effective MSS implementation to determine which factors contributed most heavily to their success.

Current version (v 6.1-8.2) (SDE site license donated by Edwin Ellis): As per feedback and requests from teachers, the current version features two new components.

Math Literacy Smart-sheets. A series of individual Smart-sheets and example elementary, middle, and high-school applications of each have been developed for each of the following categories:

Mathematical Concepts Computational Processes Rules/Theorems.

Social/Behavior Literacy Smart-sheets. A series of individual Smart-sheets and example elementary, middle, and high-school applications of each have been developed for each of the following categories:

Behavior Literacy Character Building Perspective Taking Goal setting & Self-advocacy Self-control

In addition, a series of Smart-sheets been developed to facilitate teacher-analysis and understanding of complex student behaviors to enable them to develop more sophisticate behavior and social interventions. The Smart-sheets feature techniques for:

A*B*C Behavior Analysis Analysis of Goals of Misbehavior Analysis of Overt and Covert Behavior Antecedents Analysis of School Behavior Antecedents Analysis of Home Behavior Antecedents Analysis of Reactions to Behaviors Student Analysis of Behavior


Multiple Perspectives on Same Behavior Events

Under developmentCurrently, the entire MSS software is being redesigned to streamline the navigation system and up-date all of the graphic organizer and Smart-sheet resources and teacher samples.

A companion Web site is under construction that will feature a MSS User-Forum allowing teachers and teacher-candidates throughout the world to communicate ideas about how they use MSS, share examples, and pose questions.

In addition, a Spanish language version is currently under development to support English language learning.


APPENDIX C

SELECTED VMATH STUDENT GAINS









3 - alspdg.org · Web viewThis grant pairs language arts and social science pre-service teachers and veteran teachers. MSS is a major focus of the grant, with expectations of the

Documents