January 2007
Funds for this project come in part from federal funds awarded as a State Program Improvement Grant to California (CFDA 84.323A) allowed In Part D of Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004. These dollars are considered local assistance funds and will assist individuals serving children birth to 22 years of age and their families.
Listed in this report are brief summaries on the following activities:
Centrally Coordinated Technical Assistance (TA)
Centralized system of technical assistance in the form of content training, follow-up training facilitation, and coaching.
Leadership Site Program
LEAs with model programs compete in a competitive award process and are identified and funded to share their work and participate in the learning community.
Regional Leadership Institutes
Regionally-based Leadership Institutes designed to support and sustain learning communities.
Building Effective Schools Together (BEST)
Training and coaching to help schools develop and implement a schoolwide discipline program based on positive behavior supports.
Related State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators:
The Centrally Coordinated Technical Assistance (TA) activity was developed to meet the need for a centralized system of easy-to-access TA for educators, service providers, and families/consumers. The intent of this activity is to provide TA focused in the seven State-identified core message areas: collaboration between special and general education, literacy, positive behavioral supports, parent and professional partnerships, transition, least restrictive environment, and IDEA.
In this activity, sites make specific requests for TA and receive financial assistance and coordination support. TA can take the form of content training, follow-up training, facilitation, or coaching. For example, a site may receive literacy training in the use of the DIBELS assessment and then request TA to help support ongoing coaching for teachers in the use of assessment findings for student placement.
During the first State Improvement Grant (SIG 1) TA was not targeted at any specific group of sites, with the exception of State Progress Monitoring sites. During SIG 2, TA became a significant piece of the Leadership Site Program, with participating sites being required to both deliver and receive TA.
| Years | Number of TA Days | Approx. Number of Participants | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIG 1 | 2000-2005 | 659 | 17,800 |
| SIG 2 | 2005-2006 | 49 | 1,500 |
| SIG 2 | 2006-2007 (estimated) | 51 | 2,100 |
The TA days reported here for SIG 2 are site requested TA only. The SIG 2 TA associated with the Leadership Site Program is documented in reports related to that activity.
The following data is for 2005-2006. The completed activity data for 2006-2007 has not been received or analyzed.
| Core Message Area | Number of Events | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| SE & GE Collaboration | 15 | 31% |
| Literacy | 6 | 12% |
| Positive Behavioral Supports | 15 | 31% |
| Least Restrictive Environment | 2 | 4% |
| Parent/ Professional Partnerships | 1 | 2% |
| Transition | 5 | 10% |
| IDEA '97 | 5 | 10% |
| Role | Number of Participants | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher: SE | 293 | 26% |
| Teacher: GE | 228 | 20% |
| Admin: SE | 71 | 6% |
| Admin: GE | 74 | 7% |
| Parent/ Family | 56 | 5% |
| Paraprofessional | 76 | 7% |
| Other Certified Professional | 148 | 13% |
| Other | 174 | 16% |
Event Evaluation Information
Related State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators:
The Leadership Site Award Program was developed after identifying the success of and need for site-to-site modeling and coaching. In this program, each year high performing sites are identified through a rigorous competitive process. Eligible sites must be public schools serving the needs of middle and high school students, including students with disabilities. These sites are awarded for their exemplary programs based on best practices in the areas of reading, positive behavioral supports, collaboration, transition, and family-school partnerships.
These sites are financially supported to share their work statewide at Regional Leadership Institutes and other conferences, to function as a model for sites who visit the school or district and view the program in action, to participate as an ongoing member of the State Leadership Institute community, and to continuously improve their model and practices through professional development and technical assistance.
Leadership sites are asked to both deliver technical assistance (TA) to each other and to sites outside of the learning community. In addition, they are asked to receive TA in order to continuously improve their own program.
| Number of Sites Awarded | Number of TA Events | Approx. Number of Participants | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIG 2 2005-2006 |
12 | 65 | 820 |
| SIG 2 2006-2007 |
5 | 103 | 1,600 |
| SIG 2 2007-2008 |
11 |
| Collaboration | Behavior | Literacy | Transition | Parent Partnerships | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-2006 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| 2006-2007 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 2007-2008 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| Total | 15 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 28 |
The following data is for 2005-2006. The completed activity data for 2006-2007 has not been received or analyzed.
| Core Message Area | Number of Events | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| SE & GE Collaboration | 58 | 88% |
| Literacy | 5 | 8% |
| Positive Behavioral Supports | 1 | 2% |
| Least Restrictive Environment | 0 | 0% |
| Parent/ Professional Partnerships | 1 | 2% |
| Role | Number of Participants | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher: SE | 167 | 27% |
| Teacher: GE | 199 | 32% |
| Admin: SE | 60 | 10% |
| Admin: GE | 88 | 14% |
| Parent/ Family | 11 | 2% |
| Paraprofessional | 13 | 2% |
| Other Certified Professional | 24 | 4% |
| Other | 54 | 9% |
Event Evaluation Information
Related State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators:
The Regional Leadership Institutes began in 2002 with the intention of replicating the success of the Statewide Leadership Institute at a regional level and to support sustainable change. The goal of this activity is to develop a responsive service delivery system by bringing together regional networks of professionals, individuals with disabilities, and parents working together to effect system change in California's public education system.
Over time participants develop collaborative and effective, research-based educational programs and strategies that meet the needs of their sites. A Regional Institute is not merely an event, but a process. The learning community is encouraged and supported to stay connected over time through face-to-face meetings, online conferencing, and conference calls.
The effectiveness of the Regional Institute model is supported by team participation. All participating sites are asked to send a team that would ideally have a special education and general education teacher, an administrator, a resource specialist, a school counselor, and a parent representative.
| Years | Number of Events | Approx. Number of Participants | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIG 1 | 2000-2005 | 25 | 3,300 |
| SIG 2 | 2005-2006 | 16 | 1,300 |
| SIG 2 | 2006-2007 (estimated) | 15 | 1,150 |
The following data is for 2005-2006. The completed activity data for 2006-2007 has not been received or analyzed.
| Core Message Area | Number of Events | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| SE & GE Collaboration | 9 | 57% |
| Literacy | 5 | 31% |
| Positive Behavioral Supports | 0 | 0% |
| Least Restrictive Environment | 0 | 0% |
| Parent/ Professional Partnerships | 1 | 6% |
| Transition | 1 | 6% |
| Role | Number of Participants | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher: SE | 183 | 25% |
| Teacher: GE | 267 | 36% |
| Admin: SE | 51 | 7% |
| Admin: GE | 87 | 12% |
| Parent/ Family | 18 | 2% |
| Paraprofessional | 20 | 3% |
| Other Certified Professional | 55 | 7% |
| Other | 57 | 3% |
Event Evaluation Information
Related State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators:
The need for improved positive behavioral management training for educators and service providers was identified by the State and found to be a critical element in creating a safe and supportive environment for students that encourages academic achievement and healthy social development. The State contracted with the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior (IVDB) to provide BEST trainings to 57 schools in the state of California. BEST is a schoolwide discipline program based on PBS and helps schools develop and implement positive school rules, rule teaching, and positive reinforcement systems.
To increase the capacity of the state and the sustainability of the program, a cadre of 45 trainers was prepared to provide BEST trainings. The cadre was supported in providing an initial 37 trainings at which 197 sites received instruction in the BEST program. The cadre was then funded to provide ongoing coaching to these sites to support fidelity of implementation. The coaching component includes both one-on-one time with sites and annual booster trainings for site teams.
Cadre trainers meet annually to further develop their content knowledge and facilitator skills. The annual meetings focus on progress monitoring methods, continuous improvement, and updates in the BEST program.
In 2006-2007 the cadre teams were each given the opportunity and funding to provide an additional BEST training. Five teams received funding and trained approximately 35 new sites.
| Years | Number of Events | Number of School Sites Trained | Approx. Number of Participants | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIG 1 | 2000-2003 general |
57 | 400 approx. |
2,600 |
| SIG 1/ SIG 2 | 2003-2006 cadre |
37 | 197 | 1,600 |
| SIG 2 | 2006-2007 estimated | 5 | 35 | 200 |
After two years of cadre training and support, 134 of the 197 sites (68%) have implemented BEST to varying degrees. The other 63 sites (32%) elected not to pursue implementing BEST at their sites with cadre assistance. An important lesson learned was to ensure that sites are truly committed to implementing BEST before they undergo training.
| Degree of Implementation | Number of Sites | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Fully Implemented | 19 | 10% |
| Partially Implemented | 100 | 51% |
| Minimally Implemented | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown/ Not Engaged | 63 | 32% |
134 Site Implemented BEST (68%) with Ongoing Cadre Support
197 CA BEST Cadre-Trained Sites
Sites that have "Partially Implemented" BEST may have actually implemented BEST to a great degree but are still engaged in the ongoing work of implementation in many areas. Based upon 2005-2006 surveys completed by 74 sites, below are the average degrees to which various key elements of BEST have been implemented, and on the next page, the averages from 98 sites of all the items for each setting.
| Key Schoolwide Element | Average Implementation In Place/ Accomplished = 1.6-2.0 |
|---|---|
| Expectations Defined | 1.7 |
| Expectations Taught | 1.4 |
| Reward System | 1.3 |
| Violations System | 1.3 |
| Monitoring | 1.1 |
| Management | 1.0 |
| District Suppport | 1.0 |
| Overall Implementation Average | 1.3 |
| Behavioral Support Item | Item Average | Current Status item in place : 1.6+ |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | Rules Defined | 1.7 | In Place/ Accomplished |
| Emergency Situations | 1.6 | In Place/ Accomplished | |
| Administrator Participation | 1.6 | In Place/ Accomplished | |
| Behaviors Taught | 1.5 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Rewards | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Problems Defined | 1.3 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Instruction Continues | 1.3 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Behavior Support Team | 1.3 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Families Informed | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Consequences Defined | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Office/Class Distinct | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| All Staff Involved | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Ongoing Training | 0.9 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Annual Reports | 0.9 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Behavior Reported | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Booster Activities | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Support Team Budget | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Non-Classroom | Expected Behaviors | 1.5 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work |
| Supervisors | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Scheduling | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| All Staff Involved | 1.3 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Rewards | 1.2 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Behaviors Taught | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Features Modified | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Supervision Skills | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Quarterly Data | 0.7 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Classroom | Expected Behavior Defined | 1.8 | In Place/ Accomplished |
| Taught Directly | 1.7 | In Place/ Accomplished | |
| Problem Behavior Defined | 1.6 | In Place/ Accomplished | |
| Acknowledged Regularly | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Consistent Consequences | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Procedures Consistent | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Instruction Continues | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Materials Match Ability | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Transitions | 1.4 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Teacher Opportunities | 1.2 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| High Academic Success | 1.1 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Student | Teacher Assistance | 1.3 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work |
| Family/Community Involved | 1.2 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Identify Students | 1.0 | Partially In Place/ Still Needs Work | |
| Functional Assessment | 0.9 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Team Responds Promptly | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Monitor/Feedback | 0.8 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Family Training | 0.7 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place | |
| Local Resources Used | 0.6 | Needs Attention/ Is Not In Place |