CalSTAT, a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division, supports training and technical assistance (TA) activities throughout California. The second State Improvement Grant (SIG2), received from the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), supported this work from 2005 to 2008, and OSEP continues to fund CalSTAT activities through a subsequent grant. TA delivery and outcomes during the recently-completed SIG2 are detailed in this report.
TA supports improved education outcomes through customized problem-solving around specific situations or issues. TA delivery is broadly flexible around the needs of requesting sites, and can include training, coaching, visits with award-winning schools or programs, and more. TA is available to schools, districts, parent groups, and other education agencies and organizations. To learn how your site can receive TA, visit CalSTAT online at http://www.calstat.org/GeneralSiteRequestedTA.htm.
During SIG2, CalSTAT delivered TA to teams from more than 1,200 individual schools and school districts from over 500 LEAs in 54 of California's 58 counties. There were 472 training and technical assistance (TA) events with 13,422 participants. 51% of these were GE/SE Collaboration TA events.
TA is most often delivered to school or district “site teams,” which include GE and SE teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals as well as other certificated professionals and parents. Over eight years of professional development delivery, CalSTAT has learned that these broadly diverse, representative site teams are key to generating the desired outcomes.
| Role | Number of Participants | % |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher: General Education | 1,954 | 31% |
| Teacher: Special Education | 1,661 | 27% |
| Administrator: General Education | 544 | 9% |
| Administrator: Specail Education | 339 | 6% |
| Paraprofessional | 233 | 4% |
| Parent/Family | 196 | 3% |
| Program Specialist | 81 | 1% |
| Other Certificated Professional | 700 | 11% |
| Other | 504 | 8% |
Training and TA are provided around research-based core messages and practices from eight Core Message Areas (described online at http://www.calstat.org/cores.html), including:
| Core Message | Number of Events | % |
|---|---|---|
| SE/GE Collaboration | 242 | 51% |
| Literacy | 91 | 20% |
| Behavior | 53 | 11% |
| Transition | 47 | 10% |
| Family Partnerships | 14 | 3% |
| RtI | 14 | 3% |
| IDEA | 6 | 1% |
| LRE | 5 | 1% |
Sites choose which core message area they want to receive TA in, so this emphasis on General Education/Special Education Collaboration has been driven by the needs of schools and districts. To measure outcomes in this area specifically, a survey around collaboration was distributed to sites who received three or more days of GE/SE Collaboration TA over two or more years during SIG2. These survey findings are summarized starting on page 4.
Through a 5-point scale on end-of-event surveys, participants gave high ratings to TA’s usability and overall quality, and reported substantial increases in knowledge.
| Knowledge Prior | 2.9 |
|---|---|
| Knowledge After | 4.2 |
| Usability | 4.3 |
| Overall | 4.3 |
Follow-up surveys were emailed between 3 and 6 months after events, finding that a majority of the respondents had repeatedly implemented and shared the strategies presented through TA and that these strategies had worked well. Of 1,238 participants, responding with a 5-point scale:
To better-understand outcomes in the central core message area of General Ed/Special Ed Collaboration, CalSTAT identified sites receiving three or more days of TA in collaboration over at least two years, contacting them with a survey about collaboration outcomes. Of the 349 sites meeting this criteria, 63 surveys were returned.
The first section of the survey asked sites to rate the degree of collaboration at their site overall and in nine key areas, both before and after receiving TA. A ten-point rating scale was used, between 1 (totally separate) and 10 (totally collaborative).
| Assessment | Intervention | Core Curriculum | Teaming | Parent Role | Accountability | Administration | Resources | Professional Development | Overall | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | Prior | After | ||
| Degree of Collaboration | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 7 | |
| 8 | 0 | 19 | 2 | 19 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 19 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 19 | 3 | 19 | 5 | 18 | 2 | 23 | |
| 7 | 5 | 14 | 8 | 18 | 9 | 18 | 5 | 14 | 6 | 14 | 8 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 14 | 5 | 16 | 11 | 16 | |
| 6 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 8 | |
| 5 | 13 | 6 | 13 | 2 | 12 | 5 | 14 | 4 | 18 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 15 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 3 | |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 13 | 1 | |
| 3 | 16 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 15 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 8 | 0 | |
| 2 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
The vast majority of responding sites described increases in the degree of collaboration at their sites in nearly all nine key areas and overall. A few sites reported no change in some areas, and only one site reported a decline, which was in one area only (Teaming), and was a one-point shift from 10 to 9.
| Prior to TA | After TA | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment | 4.5 | 7.1 | +2.6 |
| Intervention | 4.6 | 7.4 | +2.8 |
| Core Curriculum | 5.0 | 7.4 | +2.4 |
| Teaming | 5.0 | 7.4 | +2.4 |
| Parent Role | 5.1 | 6.4 | +1.3 |
| Accountability | 4.8 | 7.1 | +2.3 |
| Administration | 5.7 | 7.8 | +2.1 |
| Resources | 5.0 | 7.2 | +2.2 |
| Professional Development | 5.2 | 7.7 | +2.5 |
| Overall | 5.1 | 7.4 | +2.3 |
The second section of the survey asked sites several open-ended questions. Responding sites were generous in taking the time to provide detailed comments describing their sites before and after receiving TA, their experiences along the way and their expectations for the future. Some major themes from these comments were:
Direct comments from responding sites include the following.
Some pull out for specific core subjects, and some push into the classroom. In addition, both certificated teacher and aide ran groups include SE and Non-SE students. RSP [resource specialist program] teacher monitored all progress.
Prior to our district’s involvement with CalSTAT, we had a very traditional model for delivering services to students with IEPs [individualized education program]. SE teachers had caseloads and taught the students on those caseloads.
Students were referred to a student study team. There was not a systematic approach in providing intervention services in the GE setting prior to SST [student success team] referral. At the SST meeting the focus was usually on identifying the student for SE services. SE staff worked in isolation and developed their own curriculum and curricular modifications without a supportive structure that enables frequent communication or collaboration with GE staff. In addition, they did not always have access to a full range of core curricular materials.
The use of a formalized progress monitoring system was not being utilized. There was a disconnect/lack of structured communication regarding formalized progress between SE and GE in the area of literacy.
SE and GE staff collaborates more effectively. School sites have GE interventions and most referrals for SE assessments happen after it is clear the interventions were not working. SDC [special day classes] students are more integrated in GE classes when appropriate. GE teachers and administrators are more engaged in the IEP process to determine needs, goals, and services.
Each district has a collaboration and intervention plan. New service delivery systems started in all districts. Training more focused on specific needs and interventions.
Teachers meet weekly to review data and discuss students. Students are served based on their needs as indicated by the shared data. Even students without an official label can access these services.
Now that over 36 school sites have attended the RtI trainings—supported by CalSTAT funding—for the past two years and the PEAK 3 Literacy series for one; [our county] now has more school districts looking to make an entire shift in all their schools to an RtI service delivery model. Systems change is happening in [the county].
While we still operate using a ‘blended services’ model, we have broadened our service delivery model so that it aligns more closely with the RtI model. As a result, we have far fewer ‘intensive’ intervention classes with the development and success of our approach. Additionally, we are identifying fewer students for SE under the SLD [specific learning disability] category. We have also been working on our strategic supports to prevent students from getting to that intensive level.
Main issue we have to deal with and we continue to deal with is time. We have increased instructional minutes and we are trying to implement a full collaboration model. When and how often do we meet to fully implement the principles of collaboration?
The greatest challenge has been the fundamental belief that not all students can meet the expectations and standards addressed in the core curriculum. Additionally, there is the belief that GE teachers may not have the skills to deliver curriculum to students with IEPs. “ I don’t know how to teach those students.” These two challenges are at the core of our ongoing professional development.
The statewide leadership institute has provided us with the exposure to best practices throughout the state and the opportunity to network with the practitioners who are implementing these best practices. Each year the institute has inspired a new group to think differently about serving students in the LEA.
Weekly collaboration time—school wide—strictly focused on curriculum and instruction. Training on how to use data to drive instruction. Building trust and relationships. Challenging the culture of the school. Celebrating successes. Setting yearly school-wide and department goals. Requiring objective, outcomes, and feedback for all lessons.
Now that the administrative team has focused knowledge of the goals and purposes of collaboration the support is much more effective and consistent in reaching the goals associated with collaboration
Once a site team gets excited and learns to facilitate the processes and has good data to measure progress, we have seen great movement.
Students have more success in the GE setting and also we feel that the results of collaboration has also aided in the passing of the exit exam as well as completion of high school requirements.
One of the most dramatic results of our changing our service delivery is that we have decreased the number of students in SE by 1,100 over the last 5 years. Additionally, many regular education students are successfully served in collaborative classrooms that might otherwise be referred for SE. Several of our schools have seen a steady rise in test scores of their students with disabilities.
Since adopting the co-teaching model, our behavioral referrals have dropped drastically. The students are in with their peers and not isolated. We actually exited students who probably would not have been able to be exited in a non-collaborative model.
When we hear our teachers, parents, and students speak about collaboration they are passionate and enthusiastic and state they would never turn back to the way it used to be.
We hope to sustain the changes we have seen by creating the foundational systems that will support this work regardless of who is in charge or who is involved. Our teachers would never want to return to the old model of doing school. Our district is providing the resources we need to implement assessments and interventions with fidelity.
District is continuing to work with certificated staff and employees bargaining groups to expand collaboration. Additionally, the district is working on benchmark assessments, common formative and summative assessments, and “translating essential standards into student friendly language.”
SE is working more closely in the PLC’s [professional learning communities] to become part of the weekly rotation time. This is a time where the teachers identify students who need additional help in a particular skill set. The students divide into fluid, flexible groups among the grade level teachers to re-teach that particular skill to proficiency using differentiated instructional strategies. We hope to incorporate our SE students into this rotation.
This report was developed for CalSTAT by the SIG Evaluation Team of Cheryl “Li” Walter, PhD, and Alan Wood.
CalSTAT (California Services for Technical Assistance and Training), at Napa County Office of Education, is a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division. Visit CalSTAT at http://www.calstat.org.
“CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds awarded in Part B of Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Program Improvement Grant to California (CFDA 84.323A) allowed in Part D of Public Law 108-447, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004. These dollars are considered local assistance funds. Both funds are to assist individuals serving children birth to 22 years of age and their families.”