The California Department of Education and the Partnership Committee on Special Education
A State Program Improvement Grants Program, CFDA 84.323A
Background: The original State Improvement Grant, as delineated in the 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has provided the California Department of Education with a unique opportunity to forge a whole new era of broad-scale, collaborative partnerships. The second State Improvement Grant reaps this enormous benefit from the first—along with significant information about what’s most needed now and what works.
Objectives: The Partnership’s rationale for selection is that these objectives directly address key identified needs and reflect the research-based “core messages” selected by the Partnership:
Activities: To achieve these objectives, the project will fund the activities that were selected for inclusion based on 1) their contribution to important and quantifiable systemic change, 2) their strong foundation in research and effective practice, and 3) their capacity to be “scaled up” to meet the needs of California’s large and diverse population.
Project participants: All required partners and many optional partners are included. As appropriate, given the objectives, there is an emphasis on including parents/family of students with disabilities.
Expected outcomes: Achievement of the objectives will be measured by precise indicators that detail the expected outcomes.
| Page # | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Narrative, d.1 pp. 56 | (a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in project activities. (See Section 606 of IDEA) |
| Narrative, b.2.a., pp. 20 | (b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this notice must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects. (See Section 661(f)(1)(A) of IDEA) |
| Narrative, all pages | (c) Applicant must describe steps to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. (See Section 427, GEPA) |
| Budget | (d) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a two-day Project’s Directors’ meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of the project. |
| MOUs | (e) The project shall, consistent with its partnership agreement established under the grant, award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, and parent training and information centers, as appropriate, to carry out its State improvement plan. |
| Budget | (f) The project shall use not less than 75 percent of the funds it receives for any fiscal year to ensure that there are sufficient regular education, special education, and related services personnel who have the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities and developmental goals of young children; or to work with other States on common certification criteria |
The original State Improvement Grant (SIG), as delineated in the 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has provided the California Department of Education (CDE) with a unique opportunity to forge a whole new era of broadscale, collaborative partnerships. The Department has used this opportunity to change the entire system of decision making in the State, opening the planning and resource allocation process to the highly representative and inclusive group, the California Partnership Committee on Special Education (PCSE or Partnership) in compliance with IDEA Section 1452(b).
Though federal grants often have the goal of creating internal systems change, the amount of funding available frequently becomes subsumed or marginalized, especially in larger states, resulting in an ineffective effort of the proverbial tail attempting to wag the dog. The State Improvement Grant has proved to be the exception—a dramatic exception—in California. The original grant has changed nothing short of the entire vision of the special education support process, planning, implementation, and assessment.
As the State approached the planning for this second full State Improvement Grant (SIG2), there was no question about priorities, no discussion about the use of evidenced-based practice, and no controversy over process. These issues and many others have become part of the Partnership’s annual agenda, a process which has brought an unprecedented consensus of understanding and willingness to put individual agendas aside for the common good. The second State Improvement Grant reaps this enormous benefit from the first—along with significant information about what’s most needed now and what works. The Partnership is pleased to offer this proposal for the next stage of systems change in California.
This SIG proposal, SIG2, is based on the work of California’s Partnership Committee on Special Education (PCSE) that has been operating for almost 6 years to analyze the need for systemic change of the special education (SE) system, the priorities for resource allocation to meet these needs, and the results of the SIG and other efforts to make the needed changes. In the process of fulfilling their duties, the PCSE examines a myriad of data including the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures reflected in the SIG Biennial Performance Report, information from the SIG Annual Report, data from the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP), the Self-Assessment, and the rank order of 618 data. The PCSE SIG Evaluation Task Force works closely with the SIG and other projects to determine the degree to which current efforts are effectively addressing the needs.
Annually the PSCE examines the data and current progress in meeting the identified needs and creates priorities. Those priorities then guide the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE), Special Education Division in their allocation of resources, including the potential resources requested in this current SIG application.
The major areas of need in services, infrastructure, and opportunities are explored below.
Compliance issues: Compliance findings are evolving as changes in the direction and scope of the California Department of Education (CDE) monitoring processes have shifted to balance procedural guarantees with educational benefit.
Procedural Guarantees. From a procedural standpoint, the most frequent compliance issues are in the following areas:
These, and other high frequency items are checked in each review. The frequency of these findings has reduced over time, as more districts have participated in CDE monitoring processes.
Educational Benefit. For the last two years CDE has placed increased emphasis on monitoring for educational benefit. This has occurred in two ways. First, CDE reviews are customized based on the performance of districts on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to the Department’s goals and based on concerns expressed by parents in the district. So, for a given district, the items reviewed are selected (via software) to assess procedural issues that are programmatically linked to the KPIs. The second method for monitoring educational benefit is an educational benefit file review process. Conducted jointly by CDE and district staff, the educational benefit review involves a detailed look at the IEPs planned for a child over 3-years. As a part of the review, the team evaluates the relationships between the present performance, the needs identified, goals and services established to support the needs, and the progress made in each need area. In addition, IEPs are compared across years to determine if the IEPs were reasonably planned to result in educational benefit (e.g., were the goals and services adjusted in response to the progress that was made by the student). These two processes have led to increased findings related to:
Largely, these results reflect several general problems in providing in-service and support to staff and planning services for students:
These monitoring findings may, in some measure account for the following statewide results:
Special education students meeting high standards for academic and non-academic skills: The results for California’s students with disabilities are delineated below.
Students with disabilities participation in STAR: STAR is the Standardized Testing and Reporting system in California that combines scores from a nationally normed test (currently the CAT 6) with scores from the criterion-referenced California Standards Test which is grade and subject specific. A student taking any section of either test is counted as participating in the STAR. In 02-03, 94.9% of special education students participated in STAR.
Academic performance in STAR for students with disabilities: The part of the STAR which is nationally-normed (initially SAT 9, now CAT 6) provides a percentage of students with disabilities scoring >50% on the combined language arts and math tests. In 02-03, 19% scored at this level, compared to 50% of all students nationally.
Students with disabilities exiting with a diploma: The chart below shows a clear increase in the percentage of students with disabilities exiting with a diploma, certificate or GED.
| Year | High School Diploma | Certificate of Completion or High School Proficiency through GED |
|---|---|---|
| 99-00 | 37.6% | 13.2% |
| 00-01 | 51.6% | 11.4% |
| 01-02 | 58.8% | 6.2% |
| 02-03 | 58.7% | 7.6% |
Students with disabilities returning to GE: Between 1999-2000 and 02-03, California’s rate of students returning to GE dropped slightly from 6.4% to 5.6%. However, the field acknowledges that these figures are not highly reliable for comparative purposes due to the wide variance in protocols among the districts and the changing definitions over time.
Students with disabilities dropping out: The chart below shows that California has made steady progress in reducing the number/percentage of students with disabilities dropping out of school. The rate has declined over 50% between 1997-98 (7.3%) and 02-03 (3.6%).
| Year | Percent Dropped Out of School |
|---|---|
| 97-98 | 7.3% |
| 99-00 | 4.5% |
| 00-01 | 4.1% |
| 01-02 | 4.0% |
| 02-03 | 3.6% |
Performance of students with disabilities on measures of literacy: The performance of California’s students with disabilities on measures of literacy shows progress and promise at the elementary school level and very little or no progress at the middle/high school levels. The combined STAR tests scores in reading are shown below for 4th, 7th, and 10th grade students over the 5 year period of 1997-98 to 01-02; 02-03 was not included due to the change between SAT 9 and CAT 6 that year. The chart demonstrates the 14.8 point growth in averaged scaled scores for 4th graders, compared to a 6.9 point increase for 7th graders and a .3 point decrease for 10th graders.
| 97-98 | 98-99 | 99-00 | 00-01 | 01-02 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4th Grade | 598.7 | 604.6 | 611.7 | 614.5 | 614.1 |
| 7th Grade | 634.5 | 636.1 | 642.1 | 644.5 | 641.4 |
| 10th Grade | 655.9 | 659.4 | 662.1 | 660.1 | 655.6 |
The problem becomes even more dramatic when data from the California Standards Test in English/Language Arts (CST E/LA) is examined. As previously discussed, the CST is a criterion-referenced test designed to carefully align with the State’s academic content standards. Grade level specific exams are given each year to all students whose scores are reported in 5 levels: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic and Far Below Basic.
The CST levels of Proficient and above are considered as acceptable for NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for K-8 students. For 9-12, AYP was benchmarked at scores for math and English for 10th graders on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Those scores (set considerably above the “passing” score for the CAHSEE) were found to be statistically equivalent to the Proficient score on the CST for grade 10. Thus the CST LA gives quite an accurate picture of progress on the AYP literacy measures, as well as the State standards, for students with disabilities. The chart of CST E/LA 2003 scores on the next page demonstrates several significant findings about literacy levels of California’s students with disabilities.
| Total Proficient of Above | Advanced | Proficient | Basic | Below Basic | Far Below Basic | Total Less than Proficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 4, All Students | 39% | 15% | 24% | 35% | 18% | 8% | 61% |
| Grade 4, Students with Disabilities | 14% | 5% | 9% | 24% | 27% | 34% | 85% |
| Grade 7, All Students | 36% | 10% | 26% | 33% | 18% | 14% | 65% |
| Grade 7, Students with Disabilities | 6% | 1% | 5% | 17% | 24% | 53% | 94% |
| Grade 10, All Students | 33% | 11% | 22% | 30% | 22% | 14% | 66% |
| Grade 10, Students with Disabilities | 5% | 1% | 4% | 14% | 34% | 47% | 95% |
Students with disabilities receiving educational services equal to their GE peers. Historically students with disabilities have not received equal treatment in the education system, leading the IDEA 97 to focus on two specific areas of equality—access to the GE curriculum and relative rates of punishment in terms of suspensions and expulsions.
Students with disabilities being integrated into GE: While the trend demonstrates an increase over the last 5 years in involvement of SE students in the GE environment, the data is not consistent enough to be credible. CDE has taken steps to create a more universal definition of percent of time students are integrated into GE, so data should be more reliable in the future.
Students with disabilities expelled or suspended compared to GE students: California’s capacity to collect valid data in this area has increased over the last 5 years, but the initial data is not clean enough to present a real trend line. In 02-03, 57,389 students with disabilities or 9.2% were suspended one or more times; the number and percentage of GE students is not available. However, the expulsion rates are comparable, with 906 or .15% of students with disabilities being expelled compared to .16% of GE students.
Students with disabilities reflected GE ethnicity/socioeconomic status: California continues to have an over-representation of some ethnic/racial groups and under-representation of others in various disability groups, though the over-all disparity index has dropped from 10.7 in 1999- 2000 to 10.3 for 02-03. The chart below shows the enrollment in SE compared to GE by ethnicity statewide. African-Americans continue to be most over-represented and Asian- Americans most under-represented, the exact opposite of the make-up of college undergraduates.
| Enrollment | Native American | Asian or Pacific Islander | Hispanic or Latino | African American | White | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Education | 53,898 0.90% |
700,671 11.30% |
2,819,504 45.20% |
515,805 8.30% |
2,106,042 33.70% |
6,244,403 100.00% |
| Allowable Range (+/- 20%) |
High 1.08 Low 0.72 |
High 13.56 Low 9.04 |
High 54.24 Low 36.16 |
High 9.96 Low 6.64 |
High 40.44 Low 26.96 |
|
| Special Education | 5,804 0.90% |
39.180 5.80% BELOW |
293,779 43.50% |
81,569 12.10% ABOVE |
255,000 |
6,75,332 100.00% |
Students with disabilities being served by highly qualified personnel: This performance measure includes data on both the quantity of personnel available and the degree of their professional training. Between 1998-99 and 02-03, the number of SE teachers increased nearly 28%, from 79,340 to 101,386. This marks substantial progress, as the number of students with disabilities in California during the same period increased by only 7%.
During the same period, California’s fully certified SE teachers decreased only slightly, from 80.1% being fully certified in 1998-99 to 76.4% in 02-03—a generally positive sign given the vast increase in total personnel during that timeframe. The remaining personnel are teaching under emergency permits or credential waivers, both of which require enrollment in SE coursework and progress toward SE certification.
California does not require Interstate Collaborative Agreements to meet personnel preparation needs, as in-State colleges/universities offer all of the following specialization areas:
See section b immediately below.
b.1. Significance of the activities to address the identified weaknesses. The chart below shows the summary of the identified weaknesses/gaps, the State’s response and the source of funding for that response. Those activities to be funded through the SIG2 are indicated and then explored in greater depth in the balance of this section. As noted above, the rationale for selecting strategies for inclusion in the SIG2 included 1) their contribution to important and quantifiable systemic change, 2) their strong foundation in research and effective practice, and 3) their capacity to be “scaled up” to meet the needs of California’s large and diverse population.
The other funding source cited is CalSTAT, the California Services for Technical Assistance and Training, a State-funded comprehensive service system providing a wide scope of activities to support improvement in services to children/youth with disabilities and their families. CalSTAT is operated through a sub-contract from CDE to the Sonoma State University California Institute on Human Services and is closely aligned to the SIG. Additional strategies addressing the needs are delineated, with funding sources, in section c.6, pp. 54-55.
| Identified gap/weakness | State response | Funding source |
|---|---|---|
| Increase quantity of personnel through improved recruitment and retention | California Task Force on Teacher Recruitment and Retention | CalSTAT |
| Increase quality of personnel through pre-service training | Pre-Intern Award Program | CalSTAT |
| Objective 1: Increase quality of personnel through in-service professional development | Statewide Leadership Institute Regional Leadership Institutes Targeted core messages TA Special Edge; Rise Library |
SIG SIG SIG CalSTAT |
| Objective 2: Improve educational coordination | State Leadership Institute Regional Leadership Institutes Site to Site TA |
SIG SIG SIG |
| Objective 3. Improve academic performance of students with disabilities | Regionalized training Regional Leadership Institutes All core message TA New model site ID/support |
CalSTAT SIG SIG SIG |
| Objective 4. Improve behavior supports or behavior outcomes | California BEST TA | SIG |
| Objective 5. Increase participation of parents and families | Family Participation Fund African American Outreach |
SIG CalSTAT |
| Objective 6. Improve data collection and data dissemination | TED Dissemination SIG Evaluation Design |
SIG SIG |
Activities: The PCSE has chosen various strategies to address the objectives. Core message TA: Technical assistance (TA) is defined in the SIG as including a broad range of activities—any training, facilitation, modeling, problem-solving, trouble-shooting, or coaching that supports the efforts of IHEs, SELPAs, districts, schools, families and parent organizations, and other organizations to more effectively educate students with disabilities. TA may be delivered on-site, on-line, by phone, or via fax or hard-copy.
All SIG-supported TA must be linked to the CDE-approved “core messages”. Core messages convey fundamental research-based principles in the following priority topic areas; areas specifically targeted in SIG2 are asterisked:
The core messages are posted on the CIHS web site along with bibliographies of supporting literature and research; see www.calstat.org/cores.html.
In SIG2, core message TA is delivered in several ways: centrally coordinated TA, site-tosite TA, California’s BEST cadre TA, Regional Institute TA, and TED dissemination TA. The first is described directly below, with the others following.
• Centrally coordinated TA involves support and centralized coordination of TA services to educators (including institutes of higher education), education administrators, education-related service providers, and families/consumers. When requests are received, SIG staff respond with a type of triage process where one of the TA Coordinators first refers the caller to the general guidelines for TA posted on the website at http://www.calstat.org/ta.html and requests a call back, if the need/request conform to the guidelines. S/he then discusses the need and potential alternative resources to meet the need. If SIG-funded TA is appropriate at that point, s/he awards a number of TA days, usually 1-2 but up to 6 maximum.
TA requests are prioritized according to the following criteria: those that…
TA is budgeted at $400 per day. This “TA day” budgeting mechanism is used as the basis for subcontracts and invoicing. However, it has become clear that this framework must be implemented flexibly to accommodate the very diverse ways in which TA is provided. The budgeted TA days serve as target deliverables for the project, but TA requests may not align directly with TA days. Certain TA requests, such as customized field-requested training, may appropriately encompass several TA days. On the other hand, one TA day may stretch across weeks or even months when the TA is provided in increments via e-mail or fax.
The TA day funds are paid to the district/SELPA/Parent Training Institute, etc.—not to the TA provider. This has resulted in significant leveraging of funds, as many TA providers in California charge more than $400/day. The requesting site may hire their own consultant or may have their needs matched by SIG staff with a consultant from the over 500 in the current SIG/CalSTAT consultant pool.
Regional Institute sub-contractors receive $5,000/day for up to 2 days to cover direct Institute and wrap-around follow-up costs and $1,500/day to support parent trainers.
b.2. Likelihood that the project will result in system change or improvement. The project design has a high likelihood of resulting in systemic improvement because…
As change theorists have known for years, the likelihood of systemic improvement is dependent on a complex of factors, not just the viability of the change design. In addition to the solidity of the project design in terms of system improvement, California is primed for change, as evident in the following factors:
b.2.(a) Involvement of individuals with disabilities or parents of these individuals. Individuals with disabilities and parents of persons with disabilities have been involved in the selection and planning of the State Improvement Grant activities and will be involved in the implementation and evaluation of the activities. This involvement is detailed below.
Planning: The PCSE is charged with the SIG planning, and this eclectic group is comprised of all required and many optional partners under law. Within this group, there are 5 persons who are self-described as individuals with disabilities and 49 persons who are selfdescribed as parents/family members of individuals with disabilities. Because the total membership is 100, persons with disabilities and parents/family members constitute approximately 54% of the whole—a very good representation for the planning body.
Implementation: Persons with disabilities and parents/family members will be highly involved in the project implementation. The following discussion focuses on Objective 5, “to increase participation of parents/family members of children with disabilities in the systems change process.” By including this as a separate objective rather than subsuming parent/family participation in other objectives, the SIG2 highlights the absolute necessity of improving parent/family involvement as a means of realizing the other objectives—increasing the quality of personnel who serve students with disabilities, increasing access to general education curriculum for students with disabilities, increasing the academic performance of students with disabilities, and improving behavior supports and outcomes for students with disabilities.
The indicators chosen to measure the success of this objective show the depth of the State’s commitment to include parents/family members in every aspect of the project.
Indicator 5.a. Increase the number and proportion of persons self-identifying as “parents/family members” in SIG-sponsored TA and Regional Institutes. To show progress in this indicator, the project will require that organizations/institutions conducting TA, receiving TA, participating in the Regional Institutes, and organizing the Regional Institutes place a premium on the attendance and involvement of parents/family members. Some methods the project may use to ensure progress on this indicator include…
Indicator 5.b. Increase the number of parents/family members taking an active leadership role on school teams at Institute activities. To show progress in this indicator, the project will require that organizations/institutions conducting TA and Regional Institutes increase the number of parents/family members participating on site Leadership Teams each year.
Indicator 5.c. Increase the participation of low-income families in local/regional SE advisory bodies. The typical committee having policy influence in SE issues at the local or regional level is the Community Advisory Committee. This indicator will be included in the contract for the provider of the Family Participation Fund.
Indicator 5.d. Increase the participation of parents/family members in decision-making committees that are not specifically SE-oriented. The Family Participation Fund speaks directly to the issue of increasing the participation of low-income parents/families of children with disabilities in decision-making level committees, and 15% of that fund will be set aside to support parents/family member participation in GE committees. In California at the site level, the required committee that has a significant effect on policy and resource allocation is the School Site Council. Other periodic policy/resource site committees include the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) family committee for high school accreditation and the parent/community committee for schools receiving funding under the Immediate Intervention for Under-performing Schools Program. All districts with significant percentages of English Learners must support an English Learner Advisory Committee which heavily influences policy and resource allocation; most also have a parent advisory group that works directly with the Superintendent. Many districts and SELPAs also support a parent advisory committee.
At the State level, there are a myriad of committees in the Department of Education, as well as other relevant Departments such as Developmental Disabilities. The project maintains a list of key committees and is on listserv notifications for openings which are then publicized to active parent/family members of children with disabilities in the K-12 community.
For involvement of committees at this level, the SIG2 will expand the efforts of the Family Participation Fund to increase the number of stipends and increase the publication of their availability to low income parents of children with disabilities.
Indicator 5.e. Increase the impact parents/family members have through their participation in educational reform committees. This indicator goes beyond merely increasing the numbers of parents/family members to target an increase in the impact they report that they have on local, regional, and statewide educational advisory and policy-making committees. An increased emphasis on training for effectiveness for parents participating in these committees can be realized through TA by CACs, Family Empowerment Centers, and other parent organizations around family partnerships core messages.
Evaluation: Parents/family members will be involved with the evaluation of the project on multiple levels. First, as discussed above, they will be directly responding to structured inquiry about their effectiveness in local, regional, and statewide educational advisory and policy-making committees. Second, they will be surveyed about the effectiveness of the SIGfunded TA in meeting their needs, and these findings will be included in the quarterly formative evaluation structure to generate continuous improvement in project outcomes. Third, a random sample of those who are involved in the delivery of TA will be interviewed to determine the quality of that experience, e.g. the support provided, the equality of their membership on the team, the importance of their contribution, etc. Fourth, as a result of their involvement in districtand SELPA-level program effectiveness analysis, parents/family members will increase their understanding of data-based decision making and using project-data to help make key decisions at the local level. Finally, as members of the PCSE, parents/family members will be evaluating the project and recommending adjustments to generate optimal outcomes for all objectives.
b.2.(b) Historical success in creating systemic change/improvement. The first SIG and SIG Supplement targeted a variety of outcomes, with significant success for most. The section below reflects the activities conducted under these first two grants. The content foci for all activities were the common principles or “core messages” developed by the PCSE and approved by the California Department of Education. These core messages articulate critical research findings and essential components of effective application in the following high-priority topic areas: connecting special education to the California Reading Initiative; positive behavioral supports for a safe and healthy school, collaboration between general and special education; family partnerships; transition from school to adult life; improving the IEP process—IDEA 97; and LRE. Within each content area are 3-5 core messages which appear in Appendix C “T/TA Core Message Areas;” the complete bibliography of supporting research for each is available at www.calstat.org/cores.html. The TA provider or organization receiving SIG dollars has been required to focus on one or more of these messages in all SIG funded TA.
Objective focus area 1: Improving Personnel Quality and Quantity. A major focus of the first SIG was instituting measures to address systemic change in the improvement of SE personnel quantity and quality. This was accomplished through several strategies, as discussed below.
Dissemination of Core Message TA. Over the 5-years of the SIG, research-based core message knowledge/skills have been disseminated through TA delivered through 2 mechanisms:
1.1. Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs). The Regional Coordinating Council was designated by the PCSE as the vehicle in which SIG TA dollars could be used to meet local and regional needs while efficiently disseminating consistent high-quality personnel development and family education in the core message areas. In year one of the SIG, the existing Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs) were realigned to match 11 education regions utilized by a variety of general education initiatives. In practice, RCCs provided TA based on core message areas through contractual agreements which included implementation of other selected SIG-funded activities. In the final year of the grant, RCCs delivered a minimum of 10 training days in core message areas based on local and/or regional need. RCCs were further supported by centralized TA funds for those sites who wished to augment training with follow-up TA. Actual distribution of TA content is shown for the last year in the chart below demonstrating a concentration in behavior—which led to the focus on positive behavior interventions in the SIG Supplement—as well as literacy, SE/GE collaboration, and IEP improvement through IDEA 97.
| Main Topic | Number of Trainings | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| SE & GE | 78 | 12% |
| IDEA '97 | 69 | 11% |
| Transitions | 35 | 5% |
| Parent/ Professional Partnerships | 27 | 4% |
| Least Restrictive Environment | 18 | 3% |
| Behavior | 243 | 37% |
| Literacy | 186 | 28% |
In follow-up e-mail surveys at least 3 months after the TA event, 87% of participants responded that they had implemented their newly learned skills/knowledge, and 58% indicated that they had implemented their learning repeatedly. In addition, 85% reported having shared their learning with other professionals or parents, with 60% having shared their learning repeatedly. Data collection and analysis validity was carefully monitored as the intent of the project was to increase participant skills/knowledge, have them implement their new learning, and then have them share it with others to further disseminate the skills/knowledge and contribute to more widespread system change. For the 656 trainings provided in 2000-2003, participants averaged a 20% increase in knowledge/skills. Also, the trainings were rated highly, overall 4.5, and in terms of participants reporting that they will share and use their learning, and that they anticipate it will assist them in addressing the needs of students with disabilities.
1.2. Centrally Coordinated Technical Assistance. The second primary delivery mode for TA in the initial SIG was through a centralized, coordinated TA service to educators (including institutes of higher education), educational administrators, education-related service providers, and families/consumers. TA includes any training, facilitation, and coaching that supports the efforts of schools and families to more effectively educate students within the core message structure. Technical assistance may be delivered on-site, on-line, and utilizing other modes of communication such as phone, fax, and paper-copy distribution.
The chart below shows the considerable field-based interest SE and GE collaboration. It also reflects how the SIG project has used TA to build on the outcomes of the Leadership Institutes by offering Site to Site TA and providing follow-up/ongoing TA to individual sites to implement system changes.
| Main Topic | Number of Events | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| SE & GE | 192 | 44% |
| IDEA '97 | 87 | 21% |
| Transitions | 16 | 4% |
| Parent/ Professional Partnerships | 39 | 9% |
| Least Restrictive Environment | 3 | 1% |
| Behavior | 49 | 12% |
| Literacy | 37 | 9% |
With 423 events and 8,782 responses to questions about learning, quality, and intent, the results were quite similar to those for RCC TA events—high rates of implementation and sharing of the training: 84% implementing the learning at least once, 57% repeatedly; 85% sharing the learning at least once, 64% repeatedly. Additionally, given the fact that this end-of-event evaluation instrument has been normed on over 30,000 participants, deviations from the normal high ratings become flags of success or concern.
Objective focus area 2: Improving Service Coordination
2.1. Collaborative Leadership Statewide Institute. This institute is a unique opportunity for professional growth that allows participants to contribute to a community of learners who are working to improve education in California. The goal of the Statewide Institute is to support the development of collaborative systems involving general and special educators and families in implementing effective, research-based, educational programs and strategies.
Through the Institute, school site teams involved in collaborative change efforts come together with other educators and family leaders to share learning, develop skills, and plan for action. Institute participants form a learning community that remains connected over time through the use of a variety of communication and information-sharing strategies.
The Institute has a face-to-face and an Internet online component. The online component involves up to four weeks of virtual conferences that take place before, during, and after the faceto- face meetings. Additionally, an ongoing, interactive website features participant-driven conferencing that focuses on priority topics and virtual site visits to successful schools.
The Institute has evolved over the past five years in both content and structure. Initially, three statewide meetings were held focusing on behavior, reading, and collaboration respectively. Thereafter, two meetings with up to 12 weeks of wrap-around online learning were held per year with learning strands in each previously listed area in addition to other forms of convening and educating adult learners such as: the use of open space technology, round table discussions sponsored by sites with promising practices or information, the establishment of online tools with year-round access, and the inclusion of high-level system change speakers such as nationally recognized author and speaker Dr. Margaret (Meg) Wheatley. The learning community has grown to approximately 700 participants and stays connected via the Internet. On average, in years four and five, 300 participants have gathered each year for one statewide meeting and four weeks of wrap around learning. Approximately half of the participants are new to the community each year, and the role designation is typically as follows: SE and GE teachers, administrators, program specialists, and parents of children with disabilities.
The chart below shows responses of participants in the Statewide Institute either 6 months or 12 months after the event. A very impressive 97% have implemented the strategies and 69% implemented them repeatedly. This somewhat masks the even more intense result that is generated because the Institute is attended by a site team, magnifying the effect.
| Implemented Learning at Least Once (3, 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) |
97% |
| Implemented Learning Repeatedly (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) |
69% |
2.2. Collaborative Leadership Regional Institutes. In year five of the SIG, the project expanded its efforts to grow the Statewide Institute learning community by supporting regionally-based institutes at the local level making available both financial and administrative support to those entities demonstrating capacity and interest. Regional institute host sites contract to deliver training based on specific desired outcomes, specifically to create an ongoing learning community, sustain and expand system change, encourage and support meaningful family involvement, identify and share successful practices.
Sites focus on the core messages and deliver them through the guiding principals of the statewide meeting: adopt a whole systems approach, build connections over time, emphasize shared leadership, and deliver high priority content in a format that encourages integration and application. Sites follow a specific format and convene once per year with online wrap around learning to support their ongoing role as host regional institute sites. Last year 15 events involving 1,587 participants were held: 2 focused on IEP improvement/ IDEA 97, 3 on literacy, and 10 on SE/GE collaboration. Participation ratios are shown in the chart below:
| Role | Percent |
|---|---|
| Teacher: SE | 17% |
| Teacher: GE | 21% |
| Administrator: SE | 5% |
| Administrator: GE | 11% |
| Program Specialist | 7% |
| Parent | 3% |
| Psychologist | 6% |
| Resource Specialist | 1% |
| Speech & Language Pathologist | 1% |
| Not Specified | 8% |
| Other | 20% |
The Regional Institute participants recorded an 18% increase in knowledge/skills and, at the 3 month follow-up, 86% reported that they have implemented and shared what they learned, 48% implemented their learning repeatedly, and 63% shared their learning several times.
2.3. Site-to-Site TA. A third method of increasing knowledge/skills in collaboration has been through site-to-site TA, including peer mentoring and model site visits. Currently there are 11 Collaborative Challenge Model Sites identified and awarded for demonstrating success in the collaboration core message area from 1999 to 2001. The Model Sites share information related to their programs based on research data and evidence of promising practices. Site to site TA has included online virtual tours, on-site visits, model site conference presentations and phone TA.
The project conducted a survey specifically of the 100 sites that received TA focused on SE/GE collaboration to determine if their service delivery system had changed post-TA. With 42 sites responding, findings showed that, prior to TA, the sites were operating more separately than collaboratively (4.19 on a 10 point scale). After receiving TA, the sites were operating more collaboratively than separately (6.66 on a 10 point scale). The chart below shows the relationship of TA days to change, with the trend line showing greater TA generating greater collaboration, with perhaps diminishing returns after 14 days.
| Days of TA Received | Average Difference in Degree of Collaboration |
|---|---|
| Recieved 1 Day of TA 10 sites |
1.5 |
Recieved 2 Days of TA |
2.1 |
| Recieved 3 Days of TA 8 sites |
3.1 |
| Received 4-6 Days of TA 4 sites |
2.0 |
| Received 7-9 Days of TA 8 sites |
3.0 |
| Received 10-13 Days of TA 3 sites |
3.2 |
Received 14-17 Days of TA |
2.9 |
| Overall Average Difference | +2.47 |
These findings were echoed in written survey responses with 80% of sites reporting change most often from a pull-out service delivery model to one with much greater inclusion of RSP and SDC services in GE classrooms through differentiated instruction based on assessment. Participants reported, “Much more integration working collectively as a team and monitoring of progress;” “more measurable goals via the SST process;” ”more team-taught courses with SE and GE teachers in core subject areas;” “a three-tiered remedial reading program taught by one reading specialist, four resource teachers and two GE teachers;” and similar outcomes.
Objective focus area 3. Improving Student Academic Outcomes. A major SIG focus has been improving student academic outcomes, as measured through the model collaborative sites’ Academic Performance Indicator (API) level, California’s method of ranking schools primarily by standards-aligned, criterion-based student test scores. The scores of the 23 sites that had received >3 days of TA and had received some of that TA prior to 2002-2003 to allow time for change, showed a 78 point average gain in their API score between the 1999 and 2003. The model sites also reported other student outcomes including decreased special education referrals and improved attitudes among both teachers and students.
Objective focus area 4: Improving Behavioral Supports and Outcomes. The SIG focus on improving student outcomes was addressed, in part, through a behavioral management program developed at the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior (IVDB) at the University of Oregon. This program, Building Effective Schools Together (BEST), is a school-wide curriculum based on principles developed by the National Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (an OSEP-funded research center) at University of Oregon. By SIG year 4, 1006 school team members from 166 schools teams were trained in BEST. With 58 trainings and 2,313 responses, participants reported a 20% knowledge/skills gain, 91% rate of implementation and 67% for repeated use, and 89% rate of sharing, with 78% repeatedly sharing. The SIG Supplement funded training/support of a cadre of 45 trainers who have delivered 20 BEST I and 12 BEST II trainings to school site teams, with the results shown in the graph below.
| Item | Response (1 to 5) |
|---|---|
| Before Training Knowledge | 3.4 |
| After Training Knowledge | 4.4 (a 20% increase) |
| Overall Rating of Training | 4.4 |
| Will Share Learning | 4.4 |
| Will Use Learning | 4.5 |
| Learning Will Assist Me | 4.4 |
Objective focus area 5: Improving parent/family participation and knowledge. The SIG funded two specific efforts to address this objective: the Family Participation Fund and the African-American Outreach Program. Both are described below.
5.1: Family Participation Fund. This is a system-focused goal aimed at increasing the presence of parent and family representatives of individuals with disabilities on key initiative committees at decision-making levels. Stipends were made available and expenses reimbursed for parents from all cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, geographic and disability groups to support their participation on policy and decision-making bodies. Outreach successfully targeted families from communities that are traditionally underrepresented in decision-making, such as low-income families and families of color. Especially in the last year, the Fund has supported predominately families making $29,000 per year of less, and the majority of recipients have been ethnic minorities, particularly African American and Latino families.
| Ethnicity | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| African American | 480 | 48% |
| Asian/ Pacific Islander | 34 | 3% |
| Caucasian/ White | 233 | 23% |
| Hispanic/ Latino | 145 | 15% |
| Native American | 26 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 3% |
| Did Not Specify | 51 | 5% |
5.2: African American Family Outreach. This activity has been carried out through a sub-contract with Parents of Watts (POW), a community-based, multi-service, parent-led organization. Through their efforts, a limited number of very low-income families living in Watts received the intensive services they needed to become more effective partners in their children’s education. In addition, Sweet Alice Harris, Executive Director of POW, delivered motivational, strategy-focused presentations to families, educators, and administrators in various areas of the state to assist in the development of partnerships between families, especially lowincome families of color, and educators. This project has consistently shown high levels of change, although with a limited number of families being served.
| Evaluation Item | Response (1 "Not At All" to 5 "Very Much) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| I Understand Laws and Services | 1.8 | 2.9 | 4.1 |
| I Participate in IEP Meetings for My Child | 3.3 | 4.3 | 5.0 |
| I am an Effective Advocate for My Child | 2.2 | 3.1 | 4.4 |
| I Have Connected Learning at Home with Learning at School | 3.0 | 3.8 | 5.0 |
| I am Involved in School Activities/ Committees | 2.1 | 3.3 | 4.4 |
Objective focus area 6: Improving pre-service recruitment, retention, and qualification. Two components of the first SIG focused on improving pre-service recruitment, retention, and qualification: the pre-intern program, and the IHE task force. Both are discussed below.
6.1. The Pre-Intern Program. The SIG has provided ongoing funding for four preintern projects geared toward improving the recruitment, retention, and subject matter passage rates of pre-interns. The focus has been on special education pre-interns, but the project also worked to educate all pre-interns who will interface with students with disabilities in the classroom. The ultimate goal has been to increase the number of fully credentialed teachers in California. Each project provides an array of services to program participants.
The average subject-matter exam pass rate was 58.4% for all test takers, according to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Pre-Intern Report October, 2001. The ambitious goal of the SIG-funded programs was to achieve a pass rate of 80% for participants who completed the test preparation modules. The 2000-2001 pass rate of 75.6% exceeded the statewide average but fell just short of the program goal. However in 2001-2002, the pass rate of 90.1% far surpassed the program goal. The 2002-2003 figures are for all SIG pre-intern participants (including those who did not complete the test preparation modules.) Among those who completed test prep in 2002-2003, 84.3% passed their subject- matter exams. The combined pass rate for the three years of the program is 79.9%, which meets the program goal.
6.2. The IHE Task Force. In years one and two SIG dollars were allocated to Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to reduce the number of students that were “wait listed” for teacher credentialing classes with a special education degree emphasis. At the end of this period, the PCSE reviewed this activity, considering both its original purpose—to increase the number of fully credentialed teachers in the state—and the number of individuals that were actually being impacted by this activity. The PCSE determined the original purpose of this activity would be better served by appointing a subcommittee, the “IHE Task Force,” to make recommendations for a more comprehensive approach to such a large systemic problem. The committee members (eight total) have included IHE professors, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, the California Association of Professors of Special Education Board President and a representative of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
The IHE Task Force met in year three and created the “California Strategic Plan for Teacher Recruitment, Preparation and Retention of Special Education Teachers” and presented the plan for review and further recommendation by the PCSE. This newly revised plan then moved into implementation in years four and five. The plan includes 14 distinct activities spread across three activity areas: teacher recruitment, preparation, and retention. The IHE Task Force presently meets six times per year to coordinate and review the progress of the strategic plan.
In year four, one activity the task force sponsored, the IHE Connections Meeting, was a 2-day leadership meeting to build public awareness and focus on issues related to SE teacher shortages. Findings included that the professors gained significantly from sharing resources and information. In fact, 12 of the 33 respondents (36%) specifically mentioned “making connections and networking” a great benefit of the meeting—a significant harbinger of system change.
Objective focus area 7: Improving Data Collection and Use. The last area of emphasis in the first SIG, improving data collection and use, was addressed through three elements: evaluation database, evaluation task force, and the Training Evaluation Database (TED).
7.1. Evaluation Database. Many charts displayed above were generated from a database developed to enable end-of-event and effect-over-time data to be entered and summarized, as well as automating follow-up email surveying of training participants. This data provides periodic feedback to SIG managers, Regional Coordinating Councils, and the SIG Evaluation Task Force in making recommendations based upon the data to the PCSE. The database has significantly increased the value of the SIG’s continuous improvement efforts.
7.2. SIG Evaluation Task Force. The SIG Evaluation Task Force meets twice annually to review data and make recommendations to the PCSE, reviewing data from the previous year’s activities in the fall and data from the previous year outcome objectives in the spring. This is a small stakeholder committee with significant parent participation.
7.3. Training Evaluation Database (TED). TED was developed as part of sustainability planning around the SIG and in response to the need to produce reports with the data collected by SELPAs. Many SELPAs collect but have no easy way to summarize, and therefore use, the data gathered for their planning processes. TED has standard reports that can be generated at the push of a button for specified data ranges and levels of aggregation.
Goal: The central purpose of the State Improvement Grant is to improve outcomes for students K-12 with disabilities. To address this complex and multi-faceted purpose, the California Partnership Committee for Special Education (PCSE or Partnership) formally adopted as the goals for the State Improvement Grant the research-based “required elements of an effective educational system now and in the future” listed in IDEA Part D, Subpart I §1451(a)(6). As discussed above, the group then prioritized the needs, chose research-based and proven activities to address these needs, and assigned to the SIG funding those crucial elements required for systemic change.
Outcomes: This process resulted in 6 outcomes, detailed below, aligned with the SIG vision and targeting improved quality of in-service personnel, improved educational coordination, improved student academic outcomes, improved behavioral support and outcomes, improved parent/family participation, and improved data collection/use. From the prioritized needs and the outcomes directly related to those needs, the activity focal points for systemic improvement were developed as measurable objectives. All relate directly to the core messages.
These objectives were written in alignment with the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) standards and call for 1) the dissemination of research-based content through scientifically proven methods; 2) scaling-up of proven effective strategies; 3) enhancement of dissemination systems; and 4) improvement of performance of children with disabilities. Each objective has clearly quantifiable indicators of important outcomes which include the assessment mechanism and benchmark of success. The PCSE has found that this very clear, inclusive method of presenting measurable objectives clarifies the process for all constituents—not just those who speak evaluation jargon.
Objectives and outcomes: The objectives/outcomes are detailed below by outcome areas.
Outcome 1: Improved Quality of Personnel Working with Students with Disabilities: Objective 1. To increase the quality of personnel through the provision of core message, research-based, in-service professional development through technical assistance (TA) and Regional Institutes, as demonstrated by:
Outcome 2: Improved Education Service Coordination for Students with Disabilities: Objective 2. To improve collaboration between special education (SE) and general education (GE) by:
Outcome 3: Improved Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities: Objective 3. To increase the academic performance of students with disabilities as demonstrated by:
Outcome 4: Improved Behavioral Supports and Outcomes for Students with Disabilities: Objective 4. To improve behavior supports and outcomes for students with disabilities, as demonstrated by:
Outcome 5: Improved Participation of Parents/Family Members of Students with Disabilities: Objective 5. To increase the participation of parents/family members of children with disabilities in the systems change process by:
Outcome 6: Improved Data Collection/Use of Data in Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities: Objective 6. To improve data collection and the use of data by local educational agencies in identifying and addressing the need for T/TA to support the continuous improvement of outcomes for students with disabilities by:
In section a, 6 primary needs were identified; those needs—and the response in the SIG2 project—are delineated below.
Need 1: Increase the number of fully qualified SE personnel serving students with disabilities. Response: These efforts will be funded outside of the SIG2, as the activities effectively addressing the need do not constitute systems change at this time.
Need 2: Increase the knowledge and skills of SE, GE, and other personnel serving students with disabilities. Response: The PCSE believes that in-service training is essential to increasing the quality of personnel and better informing parents/family members. Over 85% of the SIG2 budget is devoted to this effort which includes the following activities: the Statewide Leadership Institute, the Regional Institutes, the comprehensive core message TA, the Model and Learning Site Communities in the core message areas, Site-to-Site TA, the Family Participation Fund, and the data collection/analysis tool TA. The SIG2 in-service TA adheres to the researchbased strategies for maximizing effect in adult learning.
Need 3: Improve education service coordination, particularly between SE and GE. Response: Increased collaboration was a strategy implemented in the initial SIG through the model site program. This successful approach will be scaled up in SIG2 to provide opportunities for increased Site-to-Site TA in this area. Additional model and learning sites, as well as Regional Institutes focused on collaboration, will assist in the scale-up efforts.
Need 4: Improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Response: The PCSE determined to target two specific areas for improved outcomes—literacy and behavior. The literacy focus was additionally targeted, given the overwhelming need indicators, to the middle and high school levels. This is logical given the outpouring of federal and State resources to generate preschool reading readiness and a strong foundation of reading skills in elementary school. Students who have fallen through the cracks in this system, particularly students with disabilities, show a clear decline in language arts achievement in middle and high school. Thus the SIG2 targets TA specifically to this group.
The second area of improved student outcomes targeted is behavior. Based on the very effective BEST program introduced in the original SIG and scaled up in the SIG Supplement, the SIG2 funds will be devoted to the support and institutionalization of BEST in the existing sites and the spread of BEST training through the California cadre of BEST trainers. The cadre was originally trained and partially supported through the SIG Supplement. Those trainers—all of whom are charged with professional development in their jobs at districts, County Offices of Education, or SELPAs—will now also be increasing the numbers of sites introduced and supported to implement BEST as a sustainability effort.
Need 5: Increase the participation of parents/family members of children with disabilities in the systems change process. Response: The initial SIG highlighted the effectiveness of 2 approaches to parent participation activities that held the potential for scaling up: the emphasis in the Statewide Leadership Institute and Regional Institutes on including parents as team members and the Parent Participation Fund to encourage low-income and under-represented parents to participate in the systems change process.
In SIG2, the Statewide Leadership Institute will carry an even greater emphasis on the inclusion of parents both on participating site teams and as co-presenters. The Regional Institutes will also place a premium on both levels of parent/family member inclusion. The Parent Participation Fund will be targeted specifically to low-income families and those from racial/ethnic groups under-represented in college, specifically African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and some Southeast Asian groups. The PFP will also emphasize participation in GE policy-setting/recommending groups, as well as SE committees.
Need 6: Improve data collection and data use to address system needs and to ensure continuous improvement. Response: In addition to the on-going SIG effort to increase evaluation capacity in the field, the SIG2 specifically provides TA to SELPAs and County Offices of Education that wish to use a database to monitor their 1) TA offerings, including the core message areas being covered; 2) the district and school site origins of their attendees; and 3) the roles of the participants at those sites. The database, TED, offers agencies an efficient electronic data management system that can provide meaningful reports upon which professional development resource allocations may be based.
As previously discussed, pre-service activities to meet identified needs for improved quantities of SE personnel are part of the State’s comprehensive program but are funded through CalSTAT using State funds. The SIG2 focuses on in-service TA to up-grade the knowledge/skills of existing personnel and parents/family members of children with disabilities.
The intentional coherence in this system is provided by the scientifically proven core messages that form the foundation for all TA provided by SIG funding. The research base for the core messages targeted for the SIG2 is presented below.
As noted above, the SIG2 effort will focus on specific, research-based core messages related to the objectives. The relevant research and effective practice related to each is detailed in the discussion below.
Objective 1. To increase the quality of personnel through in-service professional development. In-service professional development is the traditional vehicle for increasing personnel skills and knowledge. Indeed, the knowledge and skills teachers need to effectively teach children with special needs comes from preparation programs grounded in professional standards and on-going professional development (Boyer, 2003). Training makes teachers better able to do their jobs. Both the scope and quality of professional development experiences appear to be associated with SE teacher quality. Teachers whose recent in-service experiences covered a broad range of specified topics have higher aggregate teacher quality scores than those whose recent professional development covered fewer topics. Likewise, teachers who perceived their recent district-supported professional development as relevant and of high quality had higher teacher quality scores (Carlson, et al., 2002).
The need for in-service training is especially important amongst teachers of special education, as attrition rates for SE teachers exceed those for GE teachers by about one-third, and more continuing teachers transfer out of special education than in (Boe, et al., 1997). In a 1998 study, one third of entering SE teachers lacked standard certification for their assignments, as did 10% of all special education teachers (Boe, et al., 1998).
Decades of research have clarified the structure for highly effective professional development. Hocutt notes that “Several instructional methods appear to result in improvements in academic outcomes for students with mild disabilities. The more promising programs involve on-going teacher training, teacher planning time, and administrative support. When additional resources are provided, outcomes for non-disabled students may also be improved” (Hocutt, 1996). The principles of effective teacher training, all of which are addressed in SIG efforts, include: programs linked to school-wide efforts; teachers participating as helpers to each other and as planners, with administrators, of follow-up activities; emphasis on self-instruction, with differentiated training opportunities; teachers in active roles, choosing goals and activities for themselves; emphasis on demonstration, supervised trials, and feedback; training that is concrete and ongoing over time; and ongoing assistance and support available on request (Sparks, D. and Loucks-Horsely, 1989).
The SIG TA programs devote a significant share of training time to peer-to-peer instruction in learning community settings. Using highly qualified personnel who have “been there, done that” in successful programs is effective in offering feedback to the community, answering questions, helping plan future activities and set goals, discussing problems and plans, and supporting these research-based activities after participants return to their programs (Smollar, 1998). Effective training programs also give participants the opportunity to reinforce what they have learned by testing, repeating, and practicing, an element built in to all the SIG TA activities (Kennedy, 2003).
Clearly, to be effective, training programs must provide follow-up support to participants as they implement newly learned skills. When the intent of training is implementation of new knowledge and skills, specific plans for providing follow-up support to the participants must be woven into the training, not tacked on as an afterthought. Effective training assumes that the support provided to assure implementation is the second, but equally important, component of the training activity. (NTAC, 2000) This follow-up and support is inherent in all SIG TA activities, and a variety of support approaches utilized in the SIG have been demonstrated as effective including on-site visits, mentoring or coaching, video review, live video interactions, product review and feedback, and observations; these can be carried out face-to-face or on-line (NTAC, 2000.)
The SIG will address the need for ongoing teacher training through a variety of programs with demonstrated success, including the Statewide Leadership Institute, Regional Leadership Institutes, and the California BEST Trainers program. The project will implement continuous support for trainees through site-to-site TA as well as centrally coordinated TA. In addition, resources and information for teachers will be provided on an ongoing basis through the Special EDge newsletter and the RiSE Library, services funded through the State. The bottom line is “that special education can be no better – and no worse – than the quality of instruction provided by teachers” (Heward, 2003), and structured TA can affect that quality.
Objective 2. To improve collaboration between special education and general education. Improving the collaboration between SE and GE has a myriad of potential positive outcomes ranging from increased effectiveness in use of resources to increased access to GE curriculum for students with disabilities. The latter can have particularly wide-ranging results, including “a shared vision; national, state, and local policies; training and external support; organizational structure; and community advocacy” (Erwin & Soodak, 1995; Lieber et al., 2000, quoted in Soodak, 2002).
The landmark IDEA ’97 legislation stipulates that students with disabilities are entitled to access to the general curriculum. It also entitles students to participation and progress within that curriculum—language which provides great opportunities (Hitchcock, 2002). For teachers to successfully include students with disabilities in their classrooms, they must be provided with adequate staff development and technical assistance, based on the needs of the school personnel (e.g., information on disabilities, instructional methods, awareness and acceptance activities for students, and team building skills) (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 1993).
Special education directors in a nationwide survey chose information via the Internet as the most highly preferred form of TA (Thompson & Thurlow, 2003). But training needs to be reinforced through a shared vision that is most easily provided by working directly with professionals with like goals and successful, hands-on experience. The ideal combination, therefore, is a mix of face-to-face TA and Internet support. The State Leadership Institute is designed to offer both a face-to-face component and a web-based component to maximize effect while minimizing cost both to funders and to participants. These Institutes are enhanced and the messages reinforced by Regional Leadership Institutes.
Objective 3. To improve the academic performance of students with disabilities. Traditionally, special education has focused on improving the academic performance of students with disabilities by targeting efforts to those students and the personnel who provide special instruction/support. However, results from the field increasingly demonstrate that involving general education is key to student academic success, thus supporting the concept of SE/GE collaboration.
“Perhaps the biggest benefit for children with disabilities has been the focus of general education…. As schools make their plans for school improvement, they focus efforts on children with disabilities for the purpose of increasing the number of students scoring at the proficiency level. Because students with disabilities comprise a disproportionate share of students who are not at the proficiency level, they are the direct beneficiaries of district wide efforts to improve student performance” (a state SE director, quoted in Thompson & Thurlow, 2003).
The SIG will particularly focus on reading intervention, as that has long been recognized as fundamental for the academic success of students with disabilities. Through Reading First and other State/local initiatives, resources have been targeted to improve reading outcomes for all students in pre-K through grade 5, and the State is beginning to see the fruit of this effort.
Efforts for improving reading at the middle and high school levels have been less intensive and have had minimal impact to date. In California, the State has established reading intervention programs for middle schools and has recommended them for high schools. Some of these programs offer the type of intensive and individualized instruction Hocutt references: “Research suggests that the most effective interventions for students with disabilities…provide intensive and reasonably individualized instruction combined with very close cooperation between general and special education teachers; and careful, frequent monitoring of student progress” (Hocutt, 1996). The SIG will contract with model sites that are demonstrating significant success with students with disabilities—and general education students—using these programs to provide Site-to-Site TA. Additional TA will be provided to address specific site issues in implementing these types of programs.
Objective 4. To improve behavior supports and outcomes for students with disabilities. The PCSE supports the Positive Behavioral Support (PBS) approach for improving behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities. “Unlike traditional behavioral management, which views the individual as the sole problem and seeks to ‘fix’ him or her by quickly eliminating the challenging behavior, PBS views such things as settings and lack of skill as parts of the ‘problem’ and works to change those. As such, PBS is characterized as a long-term approach to reducing the inappropriate behavior, teaching a more appropriate behavior, and providing the contextual supports necessary for successful outcomes” (Warger, 1999).
PBS provides a broad range of systemic and individualized strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behaviors in all students (Sugai et al., 2000). PBS has been demonstrated to be an effective means of early intervention, especially when combined with parental involvement measures. If PBS is implemented early in a child’s school career, outcomes and experiences are greatly enhanced during the subsequent years of schooling (Fox, et al, 2002).
The California BEST Teachers program delivers a school-wide discipline program based on PBS methods, where school teams are trained to develop and implement positive school rules, rule teaching and positive reinforcement systems. BEST focuses on making civility and prosocial behavior a core value of the school’s culture which increases instructional time available for learning for all students, decreases time spent out of the classroom/school by behavioral offenders, and teaches lifelong skills in human relations. There is solid evidence that a pro-social behavioral culture creates safer and more effective schools. Decades of research (see, for example, D. Gottfredson, et. Al, 1997) demonstrate that a positive, inclusive, and accepting climate is essential for an effective school.
The California findings have been presented in section b above, pp. 32. The original Oregon study asked treatment and comparison schools to report the frequency of office discipline referrals pre/post BEST. All treatment schools reported reductions in referrals in the intervention year compared to the baseline and showed greater improvement than comparison schools. Middle school baseline year referrals ranged from 550-3167 and in the intervention year from 260-2608, making the average percent change a 36% decrease (range = -18 to -53%) compared to 82% increase in the comparison schools (range = -39 - +203%). Of treatment elementary schools with two years data, the average percent change was a 51% decrease (range = -18 to - 68.5%), with comparison schools showing a 7.5% decrease (range = -6 to 9%) (Sprague et al, 1999).
Objective 5: To increase the participation of parents/family members of children with disabilities in the systems change process. Decades of research have proven that “when parents become involved, children do better in school, and they go to better schools.” (Henderson & Berla, 1994). The proven value of parental involvement has corroborated the position of Joyce L. Epstein and Susan Dauber that parental/family involvement in a child’s education is the most significant factor in academic success — more significant than parental education level or socioeconomic status (Dauber & Epstein,1993). This is especially true for students with disabilities, where a national longitudinal study found that “parental involvement in a student's education was powerfully related to student performance. Controlling for other factors, students whose parents were more involved in their education missed fewer days of school and were much less likely to fail courses than were students whose parents were less educationally involved” (SRI International, 1997).
However, “Teachers must be trained to promote effective parent/family involvement in children’s education… It cannot be assumed that teachers will naturally know how to [do this]” (Carter, 2002). And likewise, parents/family members need information and support to work with the educational establishment. “It cannot be assumed that parents instinctively know how to involve themselves in their child’s education. In fact, many parents feel inadequate in teaching roles…and in dealing with the schools” (Simmons, Stevenson & Strand, 1993). This trend begins in the elementary grades and increases as students enter high school, even though “an adolescent’s success is influenced by his or her family even through the last year in school” (Trusty, 1999).
Thus one of the core messages to be delivered through TA is that educators have ways to work effectively with families and that families must have the skills/understanding to work effectively with educators. Effective working relationships require systematic two-way communication — school to home and home to school (Epstein, 2001). This requires that the project provide educators and families with strategies and techniques for connecting learning activities at home and in the community with learning at school. The SIG will provide this through targeted training and technical assistance.
Another core message in relation to parent/family member involvement is that the system must prepare families to participate actively in school decision-making and to exercise their leadership and advocacy skills. Among under-represented ethnicities and low-income families, including parents in assessment, placement, policy-making, and advocacy is recommended to restore the balance of power in parent-professional discourse (Harry, 1992). This is exactly what the SIG Parent Participation Fund does.
Objective 6: To improve data collection and the use of data by local educational agencies in identifying and addressing the need for T/TA to support the continuous improvement of outcomes for students with disabilities. “Developing accurate reporting procedures on the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment programs has proven to be difficult, due to a lack of data, differing definitions of eligible testing populations, and the misalignment of data collection efforts and data management responsibilities” (Erickson, R., Thurlow, M. & Ysseldyke,1996).
Since those words were written, states have greatly improved their data collection for students with disabilities (Elliott, et al, 2000), but there is much work to do. However, California has a very limited data collection system at the local, regional, and State levels. To address the need, SIG will disseminate a SIG Evaluation Design that will provide extensive information on progress toward the program goals and implications for students with disabilities.
California currently has formal MOUs on the delivery of services for students with disabilities with 5 agencies: The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the California Department of Developmental Services, the California Department of Health Services, the California Department of Social Services, and the California Department of Rehabilitation. The major linkages with appropriate agencies and organizations are within the Partnership. The types of agencies and organizations represented are roughly grouped below, with the numbers of individuals in attendance each year noted; the letters of commitment for these organizations is in Appendix A.
| PSCE Role - Required Partners | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor's Office | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Departments and Parent Organizations | 11 | 23 | 28 | 35 | 21 |
| Department of Developmental Services | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| CA State Advisory Commission on SE | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Interagency Coordinating Council | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Institutions on Higher Education | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 7 |
| General Education | 2 | 10 | 12 | 8 | 6 |
| Special Education | 52 | 36 | 45 | 45 | 27 |
| Early Intervention Programs | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| Community-based/ Non Profit Agencies | 19 | 22 | 19 | 12 | |
| PCSE Role - Optional Partners | |||||
| Department of Rehab | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Department of Health Services | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mental Health | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Other Agencies | 24 | 36 | 46 | 21 |
The PCSE has provided a sounding board for resource allocation to support the comprehensive effort to improve teaching/learning and mastery of rigorous academic standards by students with disabilities. The funding behind this comprehensive effort is a patchwork. In section b.1, the chart shows efforts funded through CalSTAT and SIG. The following activities reflect another part of the comprehensive plan:
It is the policy of the California Department of Education, in alignment with federal Equal Opportunity Employment regulations, to encourage employment applications from underrepresented groups. In the case of the SIG, the only employment involving federal funds will actually be through Sonoma State University (SSU).
SSU is subject to all laws governing affirmative action and equal opportunity including Executive Order 11246 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act. SSU has an outstanding history of nondiscriminatory employment practices for members of traditionally underrepresented groups such as racial/ethnic minority groups, women, and persons with disabilities, as documented by the annual reports filed with the State; the personnel policies explicitly guarantee equal treatment and encourage applications for employment from members of underrepresented groups. Reports over the last decade show full compliance with the affirmative action/equal opportunity plans filed with the State. All staff positions in this proposal will be filled under stringent enforcement of these policies. If vacancies occur during the project, employment of new personnel will be fully subject to these policies.
For the SIG, Sonoma State University will send electronic job notices to all Historically Black Colleges and federally listed minority institutions, in addition to other colleges/universities. Notices will also be sent to associations of education professionals from underrepresented groups. All notices will state “Persons belonging to groups underrepresented in higher education are encouraged to apply.”
Persons with disabilities already employed by the California Institute on Human Services are provided with special support by the CIHS Assistant Director, who holds an M.A. in SE, the purpose being to ensure that they have all possible resources/assistance to compete for promotional opportunities.
SIG Administrators: The qualification for project administrators is to be a currently serving Director or Division Director for the California Department of Education—General Education, CDE—Special Education, and the California Department of Developmental Disabilities.
Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction Branch, Sue Stickel, M.A. Sue Stickel is the current Deputy Superintendent of the Curriculum and Instruction Branch at the California Department of Education. She came to the Department from the field, having served as a classroom and mentor teacher, a director of instructional support, and the assistant superintendent of curriculum and professional learning for the Elk Grove Unified School District. She additionally serves as an instructor in educational administration and teacher education for the California State University system. Ms. Stickel has been involved in providing professional development across the State in standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment, particularly in mathematics.
Administrator (California Department of Education, Special Education). Alice Parker, Ed.D. Dr. Parker served as the Director of Student Services for the San Mateo-Foster City School District from 1991 to January 1998 when she accepted the position of Director of the Special Education Division of the California Department of Education. In her previous position, she served as District Compliance Officer, OCR Officer, and 504 Coordinator, as well as all programs for students with special needs (e.g., gifted and talented, at-risk counseling, psychological services, Healthy Start, Limited English Proficient, etc.) In her current position, she presents the public position of the State in relation to educating individuals with disabilities, as well as working behind the scenes to influence public policy. She has worked extensively to involve the entire community of persons concerned with services to individuals with disabilities in planning for systemic change to improve outcomes for children and families.
Administrator (California Department of Developmental Disabilities). Richard Ingraham, M.S., is the current Manager of the Children and Family Services Branch of the California Department of Developmental Services. In this position, he has direct responsibility for California’s Early Start program, Part C of IDEA, as well as other programs and initiatives. Previously Mr. Ingraham served as the Department’s Chief of Health and Wellness and Community Program Specialist. His background includes service as clinical director, program director, and director of specialist services at various therapeutic facilities and service as a school psychologist. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of the Pacific and holds a Marriage and Family Therapist professional license.
SIG Designated Director: Coordinating the SIG2 and working directly with the operational subcontractor is Janet Canning, M.S., a Consultant in CDE’s Special Education Division. Ms. Canning has served in this role for both the original SIG and the SIG Supplement. She is additionally the Division’s lead staff on NCLB, the liaison to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Coordinator of the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development. She established the Division’s website and trained the current webmaster. Prior to coming to California, she was a psychometrist, a speech pathologist, and the Assistant State Director for the Oklahoma Department of Education. Person Loading Chart showing time in days per objective by key State/contractor personnel:
| Administrators | CDE Director | CIHS Co-Manag | CIHS Evaluator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 | 10 | 20 | 110 | 40 |
| Objective 2 | 5 | 15 | 30 | 50 |
| Objective 3 | 8 | 25 | 35 | 35 |
| Objective 4 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 15 |
| Objective 5 | 5 | 20 | 25 | 55 |
| Objective 6 | 2 | 15 | 10 | 40 |
d.3.(a) Qualifications of organizational subcontractors. The primary sub-contractor is Sonoma State University (SSU) which assists CDE in SIG administration through the California Institute of Human Services (CIHS). Tony Apolloni, Ph.D., the current Vice-President for Research and Sponsored Programs at SSU, is the Director of CIHS. Dr. Apolloni’s Ph.D. is in special education with an emphasis on using community supports for student success. He originated and has directed a number of system change projects which have trained over 20,000 state staff, teachers, administrators, parents, agency representatives, and service providers in effective educational reform. CIHS has successfully administered over 100 federal, state and private grants and contracts with combined total budgets of $50+ million. The Partnership’s first strategic planning meeting prior to the conception of the original SIG was designed by the Department of Education in conjunction with CIHS personnel.
CIHS has considerable experience as an organization in operating national/regional grant training and technical assistance projects. The Institute was created at SSU in 1979 to act as a catalyst for applying research knowledge to the solution of "real world" problems. The CIHS mission is to:
During the 25 years of its existence, CIHS has successfully completed federal, state, and private contracts and grants totaling ap