California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U. S. Department of Education.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 10:00am – 2:30pm
CA Department of Education, Room 2408
11:00 - Noon
Discussion and Update on Promoting Special Education Supports Module (SESM) for CA School Climate Survey (CSCS), the Closing the Achievement Gap (CTAG) Workbook, and the Demonstration Site Study (Need for User-Friendly Data Displays)
Special Education Supports Module (SESM) Demonstration Site Activities: Focus Group Recommendations for the CA School Climate Survey (CSCS) and WORKBOOK
Background Notes: June 9, 2010
Reviewed the history of connection between SESM and CSCS surveys. TAs a direct results of this groups prior work, 24 questions were developed and designed and are now part of the CSCS. Reviewed the checklist of strategies (six in total) to increase participation rate. Shared public relations packet and encouraged committee members to implement these strategies. SESM is research based and related to Ken Futernick’s research. Copy ready article samples provided. Questions about getting data back from survey and use by organizations. The climate survey is not mandatory and group is to encourage educators to take survey. A list of districts and participation can be accessed through helpline and website. The group set a deadline of the next group meeting (November 17, 2010) and members will share completed activities.
Data- handout of powerpoint presentation provided. The focus of this group is recruitment, training and retention. Retention has been the primary focus and collecting data. Reviewed the 24 questions on SESM. Reviewed the Workbook for improving school climate and closing the achievement gap. There are 93 items on climate survey and the length is a deterrent for some and takes about 15 minutes to complete. Reviewed a hypothetical dissemination process. Group discussed strategies to use data to improve school climate. Reviewed data that was collected from a district and discussed how it could be used. Questions and suggestions posed to make data accessible and understandable.
ACTIVITY UPDATE: November 17, 2010
Since the June 9th Leadership Team Meeting efforts to gather feedback from selected fieldsites have resulted in some specific recommendations related to the overall California School Climate Survey. A number of meetings have been held with representatives from “MetroTown” and two target sites for further research were identified.
In early July, a preliminary meeting was held with selected representatives and the Associate Superintendent from MetroTown to discuss the goals for using local data to improve school climate and to assess potential pilot sites for ongoing activities. An overview of recent district reorganization strategies was discussed in depth and two sites (one elementary and one junior high) were targeted as possible pilot sites. Further discussion was held related to ongoing program improvement efforts and the need to combine activities into a comprehensive systems approach for selected schools. It was recommended that any attempt to directly work with a field site not be started until late September due to high work demands associated with the start of the school year.
In September efforts to identify the selected target schools were undertaken at the local level and a preliminary meeting with principals and several other key staff was scheduled mid-October. Principals from the targeted schools were in attendance and the primary goals of the pilot study were outlined. Discussions focused on an overall program improvement effort for the targeted sites and the issues related to data review using the Special Education Supports Module Workbook. A number of other issues related to demographic and site specific topics were also discussed. It was agreed that district representatives would review the 2008-2009 MetroTown Data using the SESM Workbook and plan a subsequent meeting where these data and the usefulness of the Workbook could be discussed in depth
On November 9, 2010 a focus group meeting of MetroTown representatives was held to provide specific feedback on the Workbook for Improving School Climate and Closing the Achievement Gap (CTAG) with specific attention to the Special Education Supports Module (SESM). Additionally the group was encouraged to address some of the perceived logistical issues for site level use of data from the overall California School Climate Survey (CSCS). The following section provides a synopsis of the feedback provided by the MetroTown Focus Group and a summary of the overall recommendations for consideration.
MetroTown Focus Group Recommendations for the CA School Climate Survey(CSCS) and WORKBOOK
November 9, 2010
First, the group focused specifically on the Special Education Supports Module questions and the overall structure of the SESM section of the Workbook. Prior to the meeting several members had taken the time to transcribe MetroTown data into the selected data tables (i.e. Barriers Tables 9.6-7 & S1; Integration and Collaboration Tables 9.9-12 & S2; Expectations & Supports Tables 9.14 & 9.18 & S1; Personnel Supports Tables 9.19-22 & S1). It was noted that this activity was time-consuming and that the table layout in the Workbook did not match to actual layout from their data.
As the review continued, it was noted that while some focus group respondents liked the concept of summary tables, the information provided here only included responses of Strongly Agree (SA) rather than a combination of Strongly agree (SA) and Agree (A) to capture overall positive responses. Further, it was noted that when looking at data from the Total District (TD) column it would be useful to see data numbers which do not include special educator responses for comparison. This led to questions being raised as to how the selected tables were chosen for inclusion in the SESM Workbook section.
Additionally, questions were raised about information sought from selected questions. In some cases, questions were deemed as more appropriate for secondary versus elementary school staff (e.g. CSCS20 “encourages students to enroll in rigorous courses such as honors and AP”). In other cases it was noted that questions seemed to be more appropriate for district level versus site level response. For example, school sites do not have much control over training of paraprofessionals or district pay scales, so respondents wondered if there might be some way to differentiate questions designed primarily for administrators versus questions aimed more directly at site level issues.
Next, the focus group sought to address the incentives to complete the survey and the overall time required to complete it. It was emphasized that passion not compliance was a prime motivator. The group members suggested that if respondents felt that completing the survey might result in greater support from district personnel or more voice in decision-making that results would be more valid and participation rates would be higher. They also noted that the survey was TOO LONG and for many required more than one setting to complete.
Overall, the respondents saw value to the concepts provided by the data but unanimously voiced concerns that the information was overwhelming and TOO MUCH. They noted that many questions in the overall survey were redundant and questions aimed at similar ideas were grouped together. Their number one recommendation was to reduce the overall number of questions on the entire California School Climate Survey and combine all sections into ONE SURVEY.
The next section provides an item by item summary of the Focus Group recommendations for items on the SESM section and the overall California School Climate Survey. NOTE; The Main survey includes 69 items, the Learning Supports Module includes 22 items and the Special Education Supports Module 24 items, for an overall total of 115 items.
Specific Recommendations for the CA School Climate Survey(CSCS) Offered by the MetroTown Focus Group, November 17, 2010
SORUCE: http://cscs.wested.org/resources/cscs.pdf
RECOMMENDATION 1: The demographics section from the main CSCS survey and the Special Education Supports Module (SESM) should be combined and offered at the beginning of a redesigned single survey instrument.
CSCS Demographic Questions 1-5
KEEP: Add Option for Other Related Service Provider (e.g. Speech Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist, etc.)
KEEP: Add Option for General education students
KEEP
KEEP
KEEP
SESM Demographic Questions 1-5, CSCS SECTION 3, p9
It is recommended that these questions be combined (with the following revisions) with the demographic questions at the beginning of the survey.
Replace C) Education Specialist with special education: Mild/moderate, Moderate/ severe
Note special education teachers did not identify with the formal CTC credential title
Demographic Items for Deletion: 2 SESM Items 3 & 4
Total Demographic Section: 7 CSCS Items 1-5 & SESM Items 1 & 2
RECOMMENDATION 2: The following items from the Special Education Supports Module (SESM) were reviewed and designated items should be combined into a redesigned single CSCS survey.
Other items should be considered for a branched response section designed for district rather than school specific responses.
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about this school.
This school …
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Not Applicable
|
Delete from Staff Survey but Keep for District Level Response Sectionsets high expectations for students with IEPs. Keep – Necessary? Perhaps move closer to same question for all students.
Delete from Staff Survey, Keep for District Level Response Section
Need a Comparable Question for General Education
SESM Items for Deletion: 2
Items #7 & 12
SESM Items for Inclusion in a District Level Response Section: 3
Items #13, 16 & 21
Total SESM Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 15
Items #5,6,8,9,10,11,14,15,17,18,19,20,22,23, & 24
RECOMMENDATION 3: The following items from the CSCS Main survey p.3-6 were reviewed with recommendations as noted.
CSCS Items for Deletion: 4
Items #8, 11,16 & 27
CSCS Items for Inclusion in a District Level Response Section: 2
Items #20 & 21
Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 21
Items #,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,32
RECOMMENDATION 3 Continued: The following items from the CSCS Main survey p.3-6 were reviewed with recommendations as noted.
How many adults at this school ...
Nearly All Adults |
Most Adults |
Some Adults |
Few Adults |
Almost None |
Do you feel that you need more professional development, training, mentorship or other support to do your job in any of the following areas? If the indicated training is not needed for your job, mark “Not Applicable”
Yes |
No |
Not Applicable |
Based on your experience, how many students at this school ...
CSCS Items for Deletion: 4
Items #33,39,40,52
Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 21
Items #34 ,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56
RECOMMENDATION 3 Continued: The following items from the CSCS Main survey p.3-6 were reviewed with recommendations as noted.
How much of a problem AT THIS SCHOOL is ...
Insignificant Problem |
Mild Problem |
Moderate Problem |
Severe Problem |
RECOMMENDATION 4: Delete the Learning Supports Module, Section 2
The Focus Group noted that the directions are confusing, the scale for responding is not consistent and some of the questions are redundant. To reduce overall survey length it was suggested that other options for health related information be explored.
(SEE PAGE 10 for a listing of the 22 items suggested for deletion)
CSCS Learning Supports Module Items for Deletion: 22
Items #1-22
Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 12
Items #58-69
Demographic Section: 7 CSCS Items 1-5 & SESM Items 1 & 2
SESM Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 15
Items #5,6,8,9,10,11,14,15,17,18,19,20,22,23, & 24
Items for Inclusion in CSCS: 54
Items #,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,32
Items #34 ,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56
Items #58-69
TOTAL ITEMS 76
For an Inclusive Survey Designed to Address Issues for Closing the Achievement Gap and Retaining Qualified Teachers for All Students
The following questions are ONLY for staff at this school who have responsibilities for services or instruction related to health, prevention, discipline, counseling and/or safety. If you have such responsibilities, continue through this module.
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither Agree nor Disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
This school ...
The next questions ask about this school’s health or prevention services and activities.
To what extent does this school …
A Lot |
Some |
Not Much |
Not At All |