Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates........... 5 Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates......... 5 Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data....... 7 Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions...... 7 Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates.... ........ 8 Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education programs.... 9 Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data.... ....... 9 Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All Their Goals on Their Child's IEP Were Accomplished. ............ 10
PAGE # REQUIREMENTS 48 (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) 48, 55 - 60
(b) 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 Narrative (c) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a three-day Projects Directors meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of the project. Budget Narrative (d) The applicant must budget $4,000 annually for support of the State Personnel Development Grants Program Web site currently administered by the University of Oregon (www.signetwork.org) 55-56 (e) If a project receiving assistance under this program authority maintains a Web site, the applicant must describe how they will include relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry- recognized standard for accessibility Significance & Project Design 12 - 47 (f) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional development practices that will increase implementation of evidence-based practices and result in improved outcomes for children with disabilities; Project Design 26 - 47 (g) Provide ongoing assistance to personnel receiving SPDG-supported professional development that supports the implementation of evidence- based practices with fidelity Project Design 26 - 47 (h) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoing professional development to personnel, including to personnel in rural areas and to other populations, such as personnel in urban or high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) Needs & Significance 3 - 25 (i) State Personnel Development Plan that identifies and addresses the State and local needs for the personnel preparation and professional development of personnel, as well as individuals who provide direct supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities Budget Narrative Support Letters
(j) Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, parent training and information centers, or community parent resource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State Personnel Development Plan Budget Narrative 1 (k) Not less than 90 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grant for any fiscal year for the Professional Development Activities Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant (CFDA 84.323A) Abstract
The Delaware Department of Education is proud to submit our 2012 SDPG proposal to the Office of Special Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education. The proposal has been a collaborative effort, involving partners from the Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens; the Parent Information Center; representatives from the University of Delawares School of Education, Center for Teacher Education, and Center for Disabilities Studies, as well as Delaware Technical and Community College; LEA Special Education Directors and Coordinators; and DDOE staff from the Exceptional Children Resources office, the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, the College and Workforce Readiness Branch, and Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development. Based on the needs identified in DEs ESEA Flexibility Request; the FFY 2010 State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR); and data gathered through stakeholder meetings with the groups mentioned above, two goals were established: Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff. In developing this proposal, we followed the framework utilized in DEs ESEA Flexibility Request. Goal 1 activities will have a statewide focus on developing the capacity of staff and administrators in LEAs identified as Priority or Focus based on state assessment scores. Goal 1 activities will likely impact all students as teachers instructional capacity increases, but specific focus is on those students scoring at the lowest range of DEs state assessment and alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Goal 2 targets PD to build the capacity of LEAs to provide the supports necessary for students most at risk of dropping out of school due to social and/or behavioral challenges. We have used the SPDG Performance Measures and implementation science strategies to develop this proposal. All activities were considered and developed in the context of the key elements of competency, organizational, and leadership drivers necessary for successful implementation. Information gained from iterative improvement cycles will be used to inform and improve the implementation of effective practices. The expected outcomes of the DE SPDG proposal are to (1) increase reading and math proficiency rates as outlined in the DE ESEA Flexibility Request and SPP Indicator 3, (2) increase graduation rates and decrease dropout rates as projected in the DE ESEA Flexibility Request and SPP Indicators 1 and 2, (3) decrease suspensions and expulsions (SPP Indicator 4), and (4) improve the degree and quality of parent school engagement (SPP Indicator 8). Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 1
INTRODUCTION & WELCOME TO THE READER Thank you for reviewing the Delaware Department of Educations (DDOE) 2012 State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) proposal. Our proposal is a collaborative effort across DDOE offices and branches, our OSEP-funded Parent Information and Training Center, the Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS) at the University of Delaware (UD), and a number of LEAs. Our goals are (1) to increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies and (2) to increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of dropping out of school, through sustainable, evidence-based academic, social, and behavioral practices. As required by Absolute Priority 1, our proposal emphasizes the use of evidence-based professional development (PD) practices as demonstrated by the structure of our project design. All objectives are aligned with implementation drivers specifically linked to the SPDG performance measures. We have designed processes to gather implementation and intervention fidelity data and will use those data to improve project efforts and inform all stakeholders on SDPG efforts. We will incorporate technology into our PD though the development of online resources and online meeting facilitation. Addressing Priority 2, our efforts are linked to DEs Race to the Top plan, our ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request, and the OSEP State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report. State and local needs have been identified in each of these plans. Our focus on improving teacher effectiveness to increase student achievement in high need, Priority and Focus, LEAs will support each plan. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, we have included the required SPDG partners in developing this proposal, and they will be active contributors in the implementation of this SPDG. It is expected that virtually 100% of SPDG resources will be spent on activities directly related to PD. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 2
For DE, applying for the SPDG Competitive Priority is a given. The Race to the Top grant provided impetus for the adaptation of Component V of our teacher evaluation system which is related to student growth. Full implementation of the revised teacher evaluation begins fall 2012 with growth measures used for the 2012-2013 appraisal system. Three measures inform Component V: (1) DCAS scores, (2) external (standardized assessments) and internal (educator developed assessments approved by DDOE) assessments, and (3) teacher established growth measures. We will gather data from DCAS reading and math assessments, as well as working with administrators in participating LEAs to obtain the results from the other measures beyond DCAS to inform ongoing PD. We will be able to examine student DCAS growth data immediately and school-level data as it becomes available. As we discuss in greater detail in the Project Design section of this proposal, an initial step in all proposed PD is a needs assessment so that PD is linked specifically to LEA and teacher needs. Part of our planning with each LEA will be a careful examination of longitudinal student DCAS data and additional school-level measures indicating areas of growth or stagnation. The needs assessment process concludes with an LEA-specific PD action plan for implementing and sustaining a SPDG practice. As part of our ongoing evaluation process, we will seek input from teachers on how well the PD is meeting their needs for improving student achievement. Findings and plans on the use of data will be shared first with our advisory board as discussed in our Management Plan section. As findings might change the scope of the DE SPDG, we will stay in regular communication with our OSEP SPDG Project Officer. Thank you for taking the time to read our proposal.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 3
NEED FOR PROJECT This section provides the data and analyses of the data that have driven the development of the DE SPDG proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to facilitate the greater use of evidence- based practices and resources in DE schools and districts to improve upon statewide needs related tograduation rates and achievement gaps. Quantitative data from the DEs ESEA Flexibility Request (http://tinyurl.com/DE-Flexibility) and FFY 2010 State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) (http://tinyurl.com/DE-2010-SPP-APR) as well as qualitative data gathered through stakeholder meetings held in May and J une 2012 were used to inform our study of state need. DDOE staff convened five stakeholder groups to discuss state needs and to propose strategies for overcoming these barriers. Two meetings were held with DOE staff, one with staff from the Exceptional Children Resources (ECR) office and a second with staff from the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College & Workforce Readiness Branch. The meetings served to gather input from the offices leading the implementation of LEA interventions and supports based on the ESEA flexibility waiver. An evening meeting was held with representatives from the Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens and the Parent Information Center, Delawares PTI. Representatives from the UDs School of Education, Center for Teacher Education, and Center for Disabilities Studies, as well as Delaware Technical and Community College also provided input. Data from each of these meetings were synthesized for common themes and potential strategies. This analysis was shared with LEA Special Education Directors and Coordinators, who recommended priority strategies to be used to increase the academic performance and graduation rates for students with disabilities. Our resulting two goals are: Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 4
Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff. Delaware Demographics Delaware has three counties, 19 LEAs, 22 charter schools, and 210 total schools (which includes the charter schools and 17 special schools). Based on 2010-2011 Accountability determinations, 66 schools (or 32%) have been identified as needing School Improvement. DEs relative small size is challenged by the diversity of the state. The northern part of the state borders large economic centers and is impacted by the benefits and challenges involved with larger urban communities. The southern part of the state is rural, sparsely populated, and faces the benefits and challenges of other rural communities. Almost half of DEs students qualify for Free/Reduced Lunch programs. Student demographic data are displayed in Table 1. Table 1: Student Demographic Data Count White African- American Hispanic Other EL Low Income Special Education 130,610 49.4% 31.8% 13.0% 5.7% 5.3% 45.9% 13.6% Graduation and Dropout Rates After a three year decrease in the graduation rates of students with disabilities, there has been a steady increase in graduation rates over the last three years. However, the discrepancy in graduation rates between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since 2006. In 2006-07, as part of a statewide high school redesign, Student Success Plans (SSP) became a graduation requirement in DE for all students from 8th through 12th grades. The SSP Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 5
focuses on student long-range planning for postsecondary pursuits, the identification of courses leading to those goals, and supports that will assist in high school completion and preparation for careers. The data in Chart 1 provide support for the effectiveness of this process.
Delawares dropout rates for students with disabilities followed a similar pattern to state graduation rates for the same group between FFYs 2007 and 2009, with rates moving in the desired direction. However, the dropout rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY 2009 and 2010 (see Chart 2). As reported in DEs FFY 2010 SPP APR, the primary cause of this increase in dropout rate from 1.3% to 6.7% was believed to be economic-related, as many of these individuals dropped out of school in an attempt to assist their families financially. This time period coincides with the economic recession and high unemployment rates. DDOE is working collaboratively with community and adult service agency partners to expand initiatives to combat the current dropout rate.
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates Special Education All Students Discrepancy between Groups 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates Special Education All Students Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 6
Academic Performance Delaware implemented a new statewide assessment system (Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System DCAS) in 2010-12, so only baseline data are available at this time. On average, students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their nondisabled peers. These baseline results were used as part of our ESEA Flexibility Request to calculate the 2016-17 targets that are designed to result in a 50% reduction in the percent not proficient for each group by content area (see Table 2). Targets for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 were determined by increasing the targets in equal increments from the baselines to the 2016-17 targets. These rigorous targets require specific, evidence-based practices, implemented in a scientific manner to obtain the desired results. Table 2: Reading and Math Data Subgroup 2011 Baseline Targets 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ELA All 64.0 67.0 70.0 73.0 76.0 79.0 82.0 English Language Learners 41.4 46.3 51.2 56.1 60.9 65.8 70.7 Students with Disabilities 29.7 35.6 41.4 47.3 53.1 59 64.9 Economically Disadvantaged 51 55.1 59.2 63.3 67.3 71.4 75.5 Math All 64.2 67.2 70.2 73.2 76.1 79.1 82.1 English Language Learners 48.9 53.2 57.4 61.7 65.9 70.2 74.5 Students with Disabilities 30.2 36.0 41.8 47.7 53.5 59.3 65.1 Economically Disadvantaged 52 56.0 60.0 64.0 68.0 72.0 76.0 Suspension/Expulsion Data For the 2009-2010 academic year, no LEAs were identified with a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspension for greater than 10 days for students with disabilities when compared to Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 7
the number of students without disabilities. Of the states 37 LEAs, two LEAs which exceeded the states relative difference were excluded from the calculation due to an n size below 15. Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data
While there were no discrepancies in suspension/expulsion rates between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers, the unduplicated count of student with disabilities suspended or expelled has not changed significantly since 2005. As shown in Chart 4, after four years of 20% increases and decreases in the number of suspensions/expulsions, there was a decline between 2008 and 2009 (partly explained by a change in measurement in 2008), to just below the 2005 amount. This was stabilized in 2010. These data suggest there is a persistent problem of a large group of students missing too much instructional time. Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 8
Least Restrictive Environment Data DEs LRE data is promising on one hand, as the amount of time students with disabilities spend in a general education setting continues to grow, while the amount of time students spend in resource and segregated classrooms has steadily decreased (see Chart 5). Yet, approximately 40% of students with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than 20% of the school day. Compounding this barrier is the finding that the number of students educated in separate settings has increase slightly since 2005. These are often the students who are most at risk for low academic performance, to be suspended or expelled, and to drop out.
Parent Involvement Data Parent satisfaction data reported in DEs FY 2010 SPP APR were positive overall, but there is still room for improvement. The return rate for this reporting period was only 12.6%, so it is difficult to say these responses are representative of all DE parents. This return rate is lower than last years return rate of 17.3%. Keeping in mind that the low response rate makes generalization difficult, overall, parents reported high satisfaction levels, with 86% of parents responding that they were very or somewhat satisfied with their childs special education services in FFY 2009 and 2010 (see Chart 6). When parents were asked if they had an opportunity to be an active 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates Inside Regular Class >80% Insider Regular Class <79% & >40% Inside Regular Class <40% Separate Setting Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 9
participant in their childs IEP meeting, 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, with the large majority strongly agreeing. Parents responded that their childs IEP provided necessary services to meet IEP goals at a rate of 87 - 89%. Approximately 86% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children, although half of these respondents agreed, rather than strongly agreed. These data are presented in Chart 7. However, when parents were asked if their childs IEP goals were accomplished, only 58% reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met (see Chart 8 on the next page). So, overall parents reported high levels of satisfaction with each item, except how well the IEP goals were accomplished.
6% 8% 33% 53% 5% 8% 36% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not at all Satisfied Somewhat not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education Programs FFY 2009 FFY 2010 97% 89% 86% 97% 87% 85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I had the opportunity to be an active participant in my child's IEP meeting.* IEP provided services, supports, & accommodations necessary to meet goals.* School seeks my involvement for improving services and results for my child.* Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data FFY 2009 FFY 2010 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 10
Communication Needs Much of our focus in this proposal is to provide PD to help LEAs address the needs of students scoring at the lowest range of both the DCAS and the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1). With the DCAS-Alt1, many of the lowest performing students are students with significant communication needs. Table 3 shows the percentage of students in each of the communication levels, based on self-report data from the 2010-2011 alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Table 3: 2010-11 Communication Level Data Communication Level Percent Abstract 54.4 Concrete 38.3 Pre-symbolic 7.3 Approximately 7% of DE students in the alternate assessment do not have a reliable means of communication and as a result, are not able to fully engage in the general education curriculum. In addition, the students reported to be Concrete symbolic still need additional communication supports in order to make continued growth toward fully Abstract communication. The DE Deaf-Blind project has provided some PD related to communication assessment, but the PD was 58% 58% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FFY 2009 FFY 2010 Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All Their Goals on Their Child's IEP Were Accomplished Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 11
limited to students with deaf-blindness and did not reflect all students with communication barriers. As we will discuss in the Significance section, we will work with Dr. Kearns and Kleinert from the University of Kentucky, to replicate a PD model developed through the current KY SPDG so that LEAs can meet the communication and academic needs of students with significant communication needs. Summary Our goals are to improve the academic and social/behavioral outcomes for students most at risk of low performance in the DCAS and DCAS-Alt1. While the graduation rate for students with disabilities has increased over the last three years, the discrepancy in graduation rates between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since 2005. The dropout rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY 2009 and 2010. Students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their nondisabled peers, with only approximately 30% of students with disabilities scoring proficient or higher in these subjects. This problem is compounded when approximately 40% of students with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than 20% of the school day. Adding to this is the finding that the number of students educated in separate settings has increased slightly since 2005. SPP data related to parent satisfaction with services found overall satisfaction with parent engagement and relations with their childs school, yet only 58% reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met. To address these needs, in the next section we discuss the proposed evidence-based strategies that will be used to insure that a higher percentage of students with disabilities, particularly those in Priority and Focus schools, are more proficient in ELA and Math, and graduate from high school, college and career ready (CCR). Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 12
SIGNIFICANCE Delawareans pride themselves as early innovators, creating significant solutions to difficult problems throughout history. Delaware was one of the first Race to the Top states in 2010. This section describes the strategies that will be used to insure that there is systematic improvement in the needs identified in the previous section, particularly increasing graduation rates, decreasing dropout rates, and increasing proficiency in reading and math for students most at risk for not achieving. This section is divided in two parts. We begin by providing a rationale for the significance of the professional development framework we will use to achieve our proposed outcomes. Then we provide evidence for the significance of the initiatives we have proposed. Significance of Proposed Framework Professional Development Delivery Delaware is known for the ability to collaborate, meaningfully engage and solicit input among the many constituencies, including teachers and their representatives, not only because of size, but because of the common goal of improving student outcomes. This has been the case for many decades and continues with the current leadership as evidenced by the development of the Delaware Education Plan in 2009, the Race to the Top award in 2010 and the ongoing revisions to the statewide teacher evaluation system. This application followed that same path of engagement and because of this engagement the proposal evolved and reflects a commitment to putting in place processes that support students graduating college- and career- ready. Delaware ESEA Flexibility Request (p.10) In developing this proposal, we followed the DEs ESEA Flexibility Request framework. Concurrently, we carefully reviewed our SPP. Specific attention was given to looking at existing Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 13
activities in both plans to either avoid duplication, or to provide to additional resources to ongoing work. Evidence of this strategy was our stakeholder meetings with staff from the ECR office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College & Workforce Readiness Branch, to make sure a collaborative theme was present from day one of proposal development, continuing through implementation, evaluation, and refinement. Figure 1: Delaware Education Support System
Following the lead of the ESEA Flexibility Request, SPDG PD activities will focus on selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE personnel already working with those schools. DE has identified 10% of the states lower performing Title 1 Statewide Technical Assistance Sessions (All LEAs) Topics may include success planning, goal setting, and alignment, monitoring, resource allocation, building leadership capacity (including building collaboration between general ed, special ed, and EL), curriculum alignment, or DPASII. Focused Technical Assistance Sessions (LEAs in Moderate or Higher) Topics may include school climate, assessment, interventions, or time utilization.
Targeted Support TA and Reporting (LEAs in Advanced or Higher) Targeted DOE staff support to identify & prioritize needs, realignment of DOE resources to support prioritized needs, & quarterly Success Plan reporting.
1 to 1 Support, TA & Monitoring (LEAs in Intensive) One on one support from DOE staff to identify & prioritize needs, realignment of DOE resources to support prioritized needs, & quarterly monitoring.
Minimal Support Moderate Support Advanced Support Intensive Support Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 14
schools with the largest achievement gaps in ELA and Math as Focus schools. Approximately 15 schools annually will be identified as Focus schools. Five percent (8 schools) of DEs lowest performing schools will be identified as Priority schools based on statewide assessment data. As shown in Figure 1 (on the previous page), the DDOE has developed a tiered method of professional development, focusing most resources on schools and LEAs in greatest need. Minimal and moderate levels of support and professional development are available to all schools. The Priority and Focus schools require advance and intensive support and will be the focus of DEs SPDG efforts. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year and will include additional Focus LEAs based on identified needs within Year 2. Over the course of the grant, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through the accountability system. Significance of Implementation Strategies We have used an implementation science framework to develop the project design discussed in the next section. SPDG Performance Measure #1 was designed to make sure evidence-based professional development was being practiced in SPDGs. Five specific drivers (four competency drivers and one organizational driver) have been identified as crucial to successful professional development: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment and Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention. All proposed objectives and activities have been organized to address these drivers. The goals of this proposal have been carefully considered in developing activities within each of the driver domains. To insure the drivers do not operate in isolation, feedback and feedforward loops are necessary to facilitate ongoing improvement in the implementation of effective practices. These loops will be developed so that practice informs policy (PIP) and policy enables practice (PEP). Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 15
PIP cycles begin with the collection and analysis of implementation and intervention fidelity data, that is then shared with all stakeholders, particularly those in a position to influence policy (DDOE). PEP cycles operate in the opposite direction, with information flowing across state, regional, and local personnel so that all SPDG participants are knowledgeable and skilled in the implementation of SPDG activities. The work of the State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-Based Practices project (SISEP) has suggested that increased innovation fluency can be enhanced through the development and use of practice profiles. Practice profiles are a process for identifying the critical components of an innovation or intervention. Each critical component identifies a gold standard of implementation, acceptable variations in practice, and ineffective practices and undesirable practices. We will use practice profiles as a tool for evaluating how well each intervention is implemented, as another tool to insure a strong focus on fidelity of implementation (how the PD is provided) and fidelity of intervention (to what the degree is the intervention being used properly in schools). Last, to make sure an evidence-based approach to PD is used, we plan to use Dunst and Trivettes (2009) Participatory Adult Learning Strategy (PALS) as a model for training and coaching. PALS addresses three aspects of adult learning: planning, application, and deep understanding. During the planning stage, the training topic is introduced and illustrated so the learner is aware of the strategies to be introduced and understands the applicability of the strategies to their work. In the application stage, participants have the opportunity to practice the new strategies, as well as thinking through how to evaluate the implementation of the strategy. Last, deep understanding requires reflection and mastery.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 16
Significance of Initiatives Keeping students engaged and performing well are essential strategies in keeping any student in school and on track to graduate. Lower performing students as a result are often at risk for dropping out. We have proposed a number of strategies to increase student engagement and performance as methods for keeping students with disabilities in school and successful. Most of our strategies are targeted at LEAs with the highest needs, providing professional development on the use of sustainable, evidence-based academic, social, and behavioral practices to improve school and post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. PD will focus on strategies to support students who are performing the lowest on the DCAS state assessment. Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. Activities under Goal 1 focus on developing academic IEP goals that are linked to the CCSS, implementing the Strategic Instructional Model from the University of Kansas, and increasing the capacity of LEAs to support students with challenging communication needs. Developing Academic IEP Goals Tied to the CCSS This proposal provides the support for DE to move forward in two areas related to IEP development. First, DDOE has traditionally used a compliance protocol to ensure LEAs are addressing the IDEA-required IEP and secondary transition requirements for students with disabilities. Through the SPDG initiative, a more comprehensive tool will be developed to better address student results and reflect best practices. The adoption and implementation of the CCSS necessitated new consideration of the IEP development process to ensure that IEPs adequately reference the standards for both instruction Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 17
and assessment. Well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core content and evidence-based instructional strategies, must also identify the necessary supports, modifications, and accommodations. PD will focus on the use of the CCSS as a framework with the IEP detailing the student-centered plan that provides access to the curriculum to promote academic success. This change in focus will require sustained PD, particularly in training on the CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities. During the first six months, DOE staff and key stakeholders will review foundational materials in order to establish a training curriculum. Materials include Courtade and Browders (2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core Standards and Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPs. Holbrooks seven-step process is designed to develop IEPs aligned with state academic grade-level content standards. Each step is followed by guiding questions for the IEP team to consider in making data-based decisions. This process can help school personnel to: (a) consider each students strengths and needs to develop goals focused on closing the gaps between the students levels of academic achievement and grade-level standards; and (b) use data to make decisions, including selecting the most appropriate assessment option. The goal is to support IEP teams to develop documents that, when implemented, provide access to the general curriculum and enable students to demonstrate academic achievement linked to grade-level content. Current federal policy requires that alternate achievement standards be linked to grade level content that promotes access to the general curriculum. The Courtade and Browder text provides a clear framework for aligning academic state standards and IEPs for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. It promotes overall ELA and math skill development, self- determination skills, assistive technology, and real life activities to increase active, independent Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 18
responding and to give meaning to academic concepts. These IEP improvement activities set the stage for the next objective, professional development on evidence-based instructional strategies. Evidence-Based Instructional Strategies In recent years, training and coaching has been provided on the use of evidence-based practices such as co-teaching, differentiation, accommodations, and universal design for learning. Professional development was provided by DOE staff as co-teaching, differentiation and UDL related to previous SPDG goals. Additionally, PD on co-teaching has been an initiative of specific LEAs with PD provided by LEA staff and outside consultants. Professional development and technical assistance related to accommodations, particularly for the state assessment, has been on-going. SIM is based on three interrelated components: Learning Strategies, Content Enhancement Routines and Teaming. Learning Strategies are used by students to help them understand information and solve problems. Learning strategy instruction focuses on making the students more active learners by teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to solve problems and be successful. The Learning Strategies Curriculum is divided into strands, or categories of skills. Strands focus on (1) how students acquire information, (2) what helps students study information once they acquire it, and (3) helping students express themselves. Other strategies focus on reading, math, writing, studying & remembering information, improving assignment & test performance, effectively interacting with others, and motivation. Content Enhancement Routines are used by teachers to teach curriculum content to academically diverse classes in ways that all students can understand and remember key information. Content Enhancement is an instructional method that relies on using powerful teaching devices to organize and present curriculum content in an understandable and easy-to- learn manner. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 19
Some Content Enhancement Routines help teachers think about and organize content, then present it in such a way that students can see the organization. Others help teachers explain text, topics, and details. A third group helps teach complex concepts so students gain a deep understanding and develop a shared vocabulary for talking about important information. A final group of routines help students complete work in the classroom. SIM posits that altering the poor performance of underachieving students occurs only when teachers are well supported in their work and when teachers carefully team with others on behalf of those students who struggle to succeed. SIM provides a number of supporting programs and materials designed to improve communication and teaming both within the classroom and within the larger community. Teaming can help provide a sustained, well-coordinated, and well- orchestrated balance of curriculum content, skills, and strategies. Teaming involves general and special educators, administrators, parents, physicians, counselors, coaches, and other individuals or agencies that have contact with the student in some way. Bringing this group into the teaming environment helps ensure a consistent message to the student as he or she continues to pursue academic success. Communicative Capacity To achieve greater access to both curriculum and assessment, an increase in capacity must occur in order to meet the needs of students with significant communication disorders. This need and subsequent strategies have received increased attention in the last few years. A recent 19- state symposium on communication was held by the National Center and State Collaborative, one of two national consortiums funded by OSEP to develop new alternate assessment systems, with corresponding professional development activities. DDOE staff attended the symposium as a NCSC Tier II state. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 20
Two data collection tools will inform our communication intervention. At the state level, questions from the Learner Characteristics Inventory (LCI) (Kearns, Kleinert, and Towles- Reeves, 2006) will be added to a student questionnaire that will be completed for all students participating in the DCAS-Alt1, Delawares alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The LCI is designed to enhance the demographic data collection for the test. The students who participate in the DCAS-Alt1 represent a highly diverse population with varying levels of communication and other complex characteristics. This information will be useful both for state policy makers examining assessment participation, but will also allow us to determine which LEAs are working with students who have complex communication needs. The Communication Matrix (Rowland, 2004) is an assessment tool designed to specify how an individual is communicating and to provide a framework for designing communication goals. First published in 1990, it has been revised in 1996 and 2004 with an online format added in 2011. Its intended use is for educators and speech-language pathologists to determine the expressive communication skills of children with significant communication needs. Students with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication Matrix to determine IEP strategies addressing their communication needs. The Matrix is currently being used in DE, so it is familiar to many teachers and SLPs. Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff. Similar to Goal 1, Goal 2 addresses three types of PD activities. First, we focus on the development of IEP goals that address behavioral and social needs. Second, we will work with Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 21
the DE PBS Project to further develop the capacity of Delaware schools to implement intensive PBS and other interventions for students with challenging behavior and/or diagnosed mental health needs. The last activity focuses on developing the capacity of LEAs to implement social skills training to students at risk of dropping out. Developing Behavioral IEP Goals Similar to developing clear, well-developed academic IEP goals as we discussed related to our first goal, writing clear, measurable behavioral IEP goals is equally important. The IEP behavioral goals are necessary for identifying appropriate and necessary supports to allow students to achieve their goals. This is the foundational activity for Goal 2, setting the stage for work around Tier 3 behavioral interventions and social skills training. Professional development on behavioral goal setting will be delivered as part of training on academic IEP goals. Bateman and Herr (2006) provide a quality reference for developing IEP goals, starting with present level of performance, developing measureable and meaningful goals and objectives, how to project annual goals and track performance. In addition, we will utilize Writing Measurable Functional and Transition IEP Goals by Herr, Bateman, and Kinney (2012) to focus on behavioral and social goals. Intensive Behavioral Interventions The DE PBS Project has provided training on Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR, Dunlap et al., 2010) to five LEAs in DE. PTR is a five-step process. Each component has its own evidence base. The steps are teaming, goal setting, functional assessment, intervention, and evaluation. At the heart of the intervention are Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Support Plans. The U.S. Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences funded a study of Prevent-Teach-Reinforce to determine if the intervention was more effective than control conditions (business as usual) in decreasing severe problem behaviors and increasing pro-social Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 22
and academic skills of students. Results from this study found statistically significant decreases in problem behaviors and increases in social skills (as measure by the Social Skills Rating System), as well as increases in time spent engaged in academics for students receiving the PTR intervention (Iovannone et al., 2009). A functional behavior assessment is a set of strategies used to determine the underlying function, or purpose, of a behavior, so that a Behavior Support Plan can be developed. FBA consists of isolating and describing the problem behavior, identifying antecedent events that influence the behavior, developing a hypothesis of the behavior, and testing the hypothesis. Professional development on FBAs and BSPs will be included as part of the PTR process, as well as part of targeted training in LEAs with this need. Many states implementing positive behavioral support initiatives have struggled in providing high quality PD on Tier 3 behavioral supports. Students with extreme behavioral or emotional challenges require comprehensive interventions. These students often have significant clinical problems that are chronic, hard to change, and often threaten other students, teachers, and others. Examples of Tier 3 interventions include school-based mental health services, comprehensive wraparound or system of care services, individual counseling/behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, desensitization, cognitive-behavioral strategies (e.g., Second Step), etc. In year 1, DOE staff and stakeholders will prioritize Tier 3 intervention strategies for implementation with Priority and Focus LEAs.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 23
DE Social Skills Project Many students identified as needing behavioral interventions need training to address deficits in social cognition. A meta-analysis of 55 studies researching the outcomes of social skills training for children on the autism spectrum found that programs held in typical classroom settings were more likely to result in positive changes than programs held in other settings. Generalization of the constructs taught is necessary for students to learn and internalize the necessary social skills. Presently, few educators receive training in social skills interventions as part of their undergraduate and graduate school training. The responsibility for professional development in this area often falls to LEAs, with limited resources to implement the necessary social skill interventions (Belini et al., 2007). Research through the Arkansas SPDG (2009) found that social skills instruction was an essential component for teaching students the cognitive-behavioral steps needed to master interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict resolution, and coping skills. DDOE, in conjunction with CDS staff, developed a Social Skills Pilot in 2009-10. Schools volunteer to participate and nominate one or two group facilitators per school. The facilitators receive professional development, materials and consultation on implementing groups that teach social cognition and communication skills. The groups are based upon the Social Thinking curriculum developed by Michelle Garcia Winner. Before individuals are able to use social skills, they must be able to take the perspective of others and recognize that these viewpoints can be different from their own. Typical social skills programs focus only on teaching discrete social skills (e.g., how to initiate conversations) and often students are not able to generalize the skills learned in the group to real social situations outside the group. The social cognitive approach seeks to develop a students ability to understand how others think and feel and how his or her Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 24
behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to promote positive social interactions and develop friendships. Fifteen schools in four districts have participated in the pilot project. Summary From the start of proposal development, our intent was to make sure all professional development was aligned with DEs strategies outlined in our ESEA Flexibility Request and SPP. To do so, we have worked closely with staff from the Exceptional Children Resources office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College & Workforce Readiness Branch to design this proposal. Most of our work will focus on supporting selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE and other personnel already working in these LEAs. We have used an implementation science framework to develop this proposal, with information loops (PIP and PEP cycles) designed, involving data collection, reporting, and sharing of results. These activities will insure that all PD and evidence-based interventions are implemented as designed, and with the results expected. The significance of our interventions is as important as the significance of our PD processes. We will use a variety of foundational materials by Courtade and Browder as well as Bateman and Herrto support our PD efforts related to IEP goal development. The connection of IEPs to the CCSS is timely and critical. SIMs three interrelated components: Learning Strategies, Content Enhancement Routines and Teaming have a strong research base and have been used by other SPDGs. A focus on Tier 3 behavioral interventions will provide LEAs with the necessary strategies for keeping students with complex behavior needs in their home schools, in classrooms taught by highly qualified content teachers. DE, as a Tier 2 member of the NCSC, was able to attend a recent 19-state symposium to learn and inspire our work in providing evidence-based Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 25
communication interventions. The DE Social Skills Project, based on the Social Thinking curriculum (Garcia Winner), allows students to better understand how others think and feel, and how their behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to promote positive social interactions and develop friendships. The initiatives related to IEP development, academic and behavioral tiered interventions as well as communication and social skills provide a network of support to LEAs as they prepare students for academic success.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 26
QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN
This section presents the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved for our two goals. A listing of each activity associated with each objective, as well as when it will be accomplished and who will perform the work, is included in Table __ in the Management Plan section. (ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field. (v) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population. (vi) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning & support rigorous academic standards for students. The criteria above have been discussed in the Needs and Significance sections. As discussed in the Significance section, our SPDG activities are connected to existing state priorities and are implemented to support existing programs. We also link to other agencies including Prevention and Behavioral Health Services, the DE PIC (PTI), the DE Deaf-Blind Project, our University Center on Excellence on Developmental Disabilities (CDS), and other related agencies so there is a coherent and sustained PD infrastructure. Our work is designed to build the capacity of personnel teaching in Priority and Focus schools. (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (iv)The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 27
Intensive Tiered Supports (Behavioral/ Social) Communication Skills
Social Skills Our framework contains two goals, both focused on improving student outcomes through PD to low performing LEAs to build their capacity to support students with the most intense academic and behavioral needs. Each goal begins by building a strong foundation, with IEPs developed with well-written academic and behavioral goals. The academic IEP goals are to be linked to the CCSS. Building on the foundation, we will implement evidence-based targeted strategies (SIM and PBIS advance tiers interventions) to improve student academic and behavioral outcomes. Augmenting these practices are communication and social skill interventions, also designed to impact student outcomes. So, within each goal is a continuum of strategies designed to improve student achievement and behavior. There is also a continuum and connection of strategies across the two goals. IEP training will address both academic and O b j .
5 :
F a c i l i t a t i v e
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
D r i v e r
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 28
behavioral goals. It is quite likely that many students who will benefit from SIMs intensive academic interventions will also be impacted by an LEAs implementation of strong Tier 3 behavioral interventions. As displayed in Figure 2, the initiatives described in the Significance section are organized under Goal 1 and Goal 2. The Process Drivers described in the center column outline the objectives used to organize the Project Design section. Linking the two goals is a system that addresses SPDG Priority 1 an effective and efficient system for delivery of PD, as well as the first SPDG Performance (GPRA) Measure (described in more detail on page 14 in the Significance section). The organization of activities within each goal was developed within an implementation science context, as operationalized within SPDG Performance Measure 1. So for each goal, we describe how personnel providing PD and LEAs receiving PD will be selected; how training and coaching will be delivered, by whom, and with what accountability; what performance measures will be put in place to gather data for accountability and program improvement purposes; and how organizational capacity and leadership will be nurtured to sustain the proposed work. Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. This goal focuses on providing professional development within identified Priority and Focus LEAs through the ESEA flexibility requirements, targeted to improving the academic achievement of students scoring the lowest on the general assessment (DCAS), as well as students whose communication needs are limiting their performance in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (DCAS-Alt1). Professional development will be provided by DDOE staff and partners at the Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS). Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 29
Three streams of PD are planned for Goal 1. First, we will focus on the quality of IEPs, making sure there are well-developed academic goals with linkages to the CCSS. Next, we will implement the KU Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) as targeted and intensive interventions for low performing students. Our third stream focuses on increasing the capacity of LEAs to support students with the most significant communication challenges. The first eight months of Year 1 will focus primarily on planning, curriculum and instrument development, fine tuning of the evaluation plan, and relationship building/strengthening. This will put us in position for kick-off training events in the summer and fall of 2013. Professional development will be targeted at schools within identified Priority and Focus LEAs. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year and introducing additional LEAs across the three streams based on identified needs. As the grant continues, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through the accountability system. Outcome 1: To improve the quality of IEPs in specifying academic goals necessary for students to access the Common Core State Standards. As Delaware moves forward in implementing the CCSS, insuring that students with disabilities are provided academic instruction linked to these standards is essential. This begins with well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core content. A focus on standards-based IEP development will help to ensure that IEP goals are aligned with the CCSS and will be a new initiative within DE as PD on standards-based IEPs has not been conducted in the past. The adoption of the CCSS makes it imperative for IEPs to have established goals and benchmarks, linked to the CCSS, and to assess students academic performance, as one measure of CCR. This change in focus will require sustained PD, particularly in training on the CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 30
Outcome 2: To increase the use of evidence-based instructional practices by school personnel. To increase the graduation rate and decrease the dropout rate of DE students, it is essential that students receive the highest quality instruction, based on the use of evidence-based instructional practices, so that they are academically proficient and engaged in school. Students most at risk of failing academically are often those that need specialized instructional strategies to learn the core content. We will adopt the Kansas Universitys SIM as our primary intervention. SIM is discussed in greater detail on page 18 of the Significance section. Outcome 3: To increase the communication capacity of students with communication disorders. National and state data clearly show that there are too many students who cannot communicate sufficiently to participate fully in instruction and state assessment systems; yet effective communication systems have not been identified for many of these students or there is insufficient capacity to support the use of the communication systems. Our proposed communication activities draw from lessons learned by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at the UK, who are just completing a similar initiative through the KY SPDG. Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated the impact of this PD on student, team, and school outcomes. Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to high needs schools and high needs students. To sustain the three PD activities just described, it is necessary to develop and support an infrastructure that can sustain this work after the funding period is over. Delaware has a wealth of coaching excellence across the states IHEs, CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 31
organizations. We will develop and support a PLC designed to provide on-going support around IEP development, the use of evidence-based instructional practices, and communication support. These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following five objectives. Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic and communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD. (Selection Driver) This objective focuses on (1) the selection of individuals responsible for providing professional development, (2) the selection and commitment of LEAs to participate in the professional development, and (3) the selection of interventions and the degree to which they are determined to be evidence-based. During the first quarter of Year 1, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP academic goals, SIM, and communication supports for students with disabilities. PD providers, primarily DDOE and CDS staff will be assessed in relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training for any new PD providers and benchmarks for coaching feedback. The competencies will be reviewed by the program developers for each intervention we are adopting (Holbrook/Courtade, University of Kansas, University of Kentucky) to ensure the validity of the process. Areas of in need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the trainer/coaches PD Plan. Any individuals hired to work on any of the SPDG initiatives will be recruited and evaluated based on the identified competencies. Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus LEAs/schools. LEAs will agree to provide the necessary resources and supports for school staff Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 32
to participate. A sample letter of commitment with roles and responsibilities all participating LEAs would agree to is included in Appendix A. To insure that SPDG PD is based on teachers need, existing data will be reviewed and discussed among PD providers and participating LEA personnel. Data will include SPP Indicator 13 data, reviews of the degree to which IEP academic goals are linked to the CCSS, annual student reading and math DCAS data, formative or progress monitoring data, and LCI data. A review of existing math and reading curricula will also be conducted to ensure they are evidence- based and are implemented with fidelity. Teachers, administrators, and parents will be surveyed to determine their knowledge and use of best practice, standards-based IEP, evidence-based instructional strategies, and degree of knowledge and skills related to communication. For the communication initiative, LEAs will be recruited based on (1) students communication needs, as measured by the LCI and (2) recommendations from parents, teachers, and/or administrators. It is expected we will work with eight to ten communication teams each year. To make sure the communication initiative is meeting students needs, participating students with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication Matrix (Rowland, 2011) to better understand students communication needs. Students rated as Levels I, II, or III on the Communication Matrix will be identified as potential participants, after consideration is given by students, parents, and IEP teams. School teams will be identified to potentially include school and district administrators, related service providers (particularly SLPs), general and special education teachers, parents, assistive technology specialists, and any other individuals identified on the IEP. A needs assessment survey will be conducted with each team to determine existing knowledge and skill base. The needs assessment data will be used to develop individual LEA action plans to guide their PD. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 33
Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of DE teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, & other community members to support students academic and communication needs. (Training Driver) We will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS) method of training (Dunst and Trivette, 2009), discussed on page 15 in the Significance section to ensure all training uses adult learning principles and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant knowledge and skills will be collected and analyzed, how PD providers will be trained, coached, and observed, and the data that will be used to improve trainer skills and the content of training is described below. Academic IEP Goals Linked to the Common Core State Standards We have researched various tools for training and coaching on IEP development and will use Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPs and Courtade and Browders (2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core State Standards as professional development tools for improving the degree to which IEPS have strong academic goals, linked to the CCSS. Both were discussed in greater detail in the Significance section (see page 16). Training topics will include identification of student needs, crafting goals aligned to the CCSS, and selection and implementation of appropriate services, accommodations and modifications. Prior to DE SPDG staff providing any training, they will review the Courtade and Browder and Holbrook materials and will consult with the authors if determined to be necessary to ensure fidelity with the training curriculum. Training fidelity tools and processes will be discussed in the Performance Appraisal section. Training data will be tracked and used to improve future PD.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 34
SIM Training During the first six months of the project, a cadre of trainers from the DDOE, CDS, and local LEAs will receive training from the University of Kansas SIM staff. Training will be driven by local needs, with the appropriate SIMs strategies taught. Training will follow the SIM training protocols to ensure fidelity to the model. A state-wide kick off training for all participating LEA personnel will occur each summer. A mid-year booster training will be provided to allow school personnel to come together to share what they have learned and challenges they face. After the initial training and careful reviews of LEA needs data, a professional plan will be developed to guide future training and coaching opportunities. The PD schedule over the course of the grant is: Year 1 PD will be delivered to four Priority LEAs, with one to two school teams (grades 4 10) from each LEA. Year 2 Ongoing training and coaching with initial cohort of schools. Implementation of strategies within one classroom in each school. Year 3 Expanded implementation across a grade or grade band; continued coaching; identify potential staff for further PD. Year 4 Expand implementation across schools. Provide PD for additional LEA staff. Year 5 Expand PD across schools using trained staff within LEA. Communication Training DE SPDG staff will receive training from Drs. Kearns and Kleinert to ensure that fidelity of implementation and intervention occur. Prior to implementation, a kick-off training will be conducted each summer with new LEA teams. PD will be team-based, with teams supporting one or more students from a school or LEA. Training topics will include use of the Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 35
communication matrix, assistive technology, and strategies to support communication. Trainers will include CDS consultants, DDOE staff, and personnel from the DE Assistive Technology Initiative. The DE trainers will be coached and supported by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at U.K. The kick-off training will conclude with student action plans developed for each student team. A one day mid-year booster will be held to address common topics across teams and to update action plans as necessary. Training data will be reviewed to inform future training events. Parent/Family Training Concurrently, the PIC will conduct a parallel set of trainings informing parents and families of students in LEAs being served about standards-based IEPs connected to the CCSS, evidence- based instructional strategies, and interventions for increasing students communicative competence. The DE PIC will offer workshops addressing communicative needs focusing on strategies to support the students at home. Training materials will be developed in conjunction with DDOE and CDS staff. The training will likely be provided through formal workshops, Lunch & Learn webinars, individual family consultations, and further training of PIC staff. Members of the DE Leadership team will participate in parent/family workshops as necessary. Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver) Following the guidelines of SPDG Performance Measure #1, this section describes the accountability process for the development and monitoring of coaching, and the feedback to be provided to coaches. The multiple sources of information that will be used to provide feedback to coaches, is also discussed. Two levels of coaching will be used to ensure strategies are implemented with fidelity. At the state level, experts (state coaches) in the areas of developing strong academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS, SIM, and communication supports will provide Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 36
guidance and support to LEA coaches. The LEA coaches will serve as coaches to personnel in their districts who are implementing Goal 1 activities. Participating LEAs will have developed LEA PD plans at the completion of their initial training; outlining the training, coaching, and any other resources needed to successfully implement the Goal 1 activities in their schools. LEA coaches will develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful coaches for teachers, administrators and staff in their districts. A coaching fidelity checklist will be developed for each initiative, based on the PALS model. This checklist will be used with state/LEA coaching, as well as coaching conducted within the LEA. State coaches, in conjunction with LEA personnel, will collect intervention fidelity data, the degree to which academic IEP goals, SIM, and the communication interventions were implemented as designed. Existing SIM instruments will be used to assess SIM fidelity. For the IEP and communication components, fidelity instruments will be developed through the use of the practice profile process. At monthly coaching meetings between state and LEA coaches, up to four sources of data will be available for review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the LEA PD plan, the coaching fidelity protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will necessarily be available or reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches and LEA PD plans will be expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face, through Skype, web-conferencing software, and or phone. Coaching specific to the communication component will take place between state coaches and LEA teams via monthly webinars and/or phone calls to facilitate parental involvement. Coaching calls will follow the fidelity protocol discussed previously. Short videos will be filmed at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the intervention period, demonstrating the use of a Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 37
particular strategy for the month, to be reviewed by the team as part of the monthly call. Data on the impact of SDPG coaching and student communication improvements will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to inform future PD. We will develop and support a PLC designed to expand and provide on-going coaching to support the implementation of SIM and the communication interventions (both driven by well- developed academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS) and to support professional development for LEAs on supporting students requiring advanced behavioral interventions. Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment Driver) The project evaluator, working closely with the DE SPDG Management Team, will develop training, coaching, and intervention fidelity instruments during the first two quarters of Year 1. Each intervention fidelity instrument (IEP development, SIM, and communication interventions) will be developed in accordance with the evidence-base it is derived from. IEP training and coaching fidelity protocols will be developed in alignment with the research presented in the Holbrook/Courtade and Browder publications, and reviewed by the authors. SIM fidelity instruments are provided by the University of Kansas. Fidelity protocols established by researchers at U.K. will be used to assess the implementation of communication strategies. Pre/post training assessments will also be developed during this time. The DE SPDG Management Team will be responsible for overseeing fidelity measurement and reporting. Project evaluators will train and coach the state and LEA coaches on the use of implementation (training and coaching) and intervention (i.e., IEP development, SIM, and Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 38
communication) fidelity instruments. An easy to use, web-based data management system (using tools such as SurveyMonkey and Microsoft Access) will be developed. Data on the implementation of training and coaching will be collected at all trainings and selected coaching events between the state and LEA coaches, as well as similar events with LEA coaches and the school staff they are working with. The implementation fidelity instruments will be developed based on the PALS model. Fidelity data for training events will be collected by participating members of the DE SPDG Management Team to obtain a diversity of perspectives on how well training has been implemented. Twice a year, a DE SPDG Management Team representative will join an LEA coach for a local coaching visit, to validate the ongoing self- report data from the regional coaches. The monthly coaching protocol will be linked to the action plan and serve as a fidelity check as to the degree to which PD activities have been implemented. Other data to be collected and reviewed include DCAS and DCAS-Alt1 annual reading and math results (SPP #3), reading and math formative data, student communication data (from the Communication Matrix and student videos), LRE data (SPP #5), IEP SPP Indicator 13 data, and parent engagement (SPP #8). These data will be collected, reviewed, and analyzed annually. All participating LEA personnel will be surveyed annual to gather quantitative and qualitative impact data to inform project management and implementation. These data will be used to inform the PIP PEP cycles discussed on pages 14 - 15 of the Significance section. Objective 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to develop quality academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and communication interventions in their schools. (Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention Driver) Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 39
SPDG Performance Measure #1 addresses two Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention strategies: (1) administrators are trained appropriately on the SPDG-supported practices and have knowledge of how to support its implementation and (2) leadership analyzes feedback from staff and makes changes to alleviate barriers and facilitate implementation, including revising policies and procedures to support new ways of work. Training modules will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on implementation of academic IEP goals, SIM, communication interventions, and parent engagement strategies. As school and district administrators play a large role in IEP development, this component is critical to successfully sustaining this work. Training will also address implementation fidelity to support ongoing coaching of teachers, as well as intervention fidelity so that administrators are more aware of the instructional strategies being implemented. A particular focus will be on how administrators can support their staff in the ongoing implementation of these activities. We will also provide guidance to administrators, teachers, and staff on analyzing data to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP cycles. The modules will initially be conducted as real time webinars, but will also be archived on the DOEs website related to special education. The modules will provide overviews of each initiative, including training, coaching, and evaluation strategies. In addition, administrators will participate in follow-up online meetings or phone conferences for feedback and discussion. Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence- based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 40
This goal focuses on students who are frequently removed from the general education classroom and often are removed from their home school and sent to a separate setting due to social and behavioral concerns. Objectives and activities proposed are designed to build the capacity of LEAs and schools to keep students with behavior support needs in their home schools and in general education programs the majority of the school day. Our four primary expected outcomes for this goal are: Outcome 1: Improved quality of IEPs in specifying behavioral goals. DEs LEAs have struggled to develop quality goals that lead to the outcomes of reduced suspensions and expulsions, as well as greater amounts of time spent in general education classrooms. Activities conducted under this objective will be implemented in conjunction with academic IEP goal development activities for Goal 1 if appropriate to the needs of the LEA and identified schools. If the needs of the LEA relate to behavioral/social IEP goal development only, training activities will be conducted related to this area. Outcome 2: Increased use of evidence-based social support strategies by school personnel. The second set of activities focuses on a targeted social skills intervention to increase use of positive, pro-social behaviors. The DE Social Skills Project (based on Winner, 2008) was piloted by the DE-PBS Project in one LEA during the 2009-10 school year. In the last two years, 15 schools across four LEAs have participated in the Social Skills Project. We will scale up the implementation of the DE Social Skills Pilot, with a particular focus on middle and high schools. Through the pilot, facilitators received PD, resources and materials, and on-site coaching and consultation. School staff also received PD to support the generalization of skills across settings and how to develop programming and IEP goals related to social skills. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 41
Outcome 3: Increased use of evidence-based individualized tiered behavioral supports by school personnel. Students who need intensive Tier 3 interventions to support their success in inclusive settings are the focus of the third activity. Many DE students have complex behavioral and mental health needs that require more intense, wraparound interventions. These activities require strong collaborative efforts by agencies such as Delawares Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families; Department of Health and Social Services; the PIC of DE; CDS; the DDOE; and LEAs. The DE PBS Project coordinates and provides much of the PD on tiered behavioral supports in the state. Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to school staff supporting students with intensive social and behavioral needs. Similar to Goal 1, the objectives below explain how we will develop an infrastructure that can sustain this work. Delaware has a wealth of coaching excellence across the states IHEs, CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent organizations. We will develop and support a PLC designed to provide on-going support around developing quality behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and intensive Tier 3 behavioral supports. These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following five objectives. Objective 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD. (Selection Driver) Using the practice profile process, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP behavioral goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral supports for middle and high school students. DDOE Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 42
staff and other personnel responsible for implementing Goal 2 activities will be assessed in relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training for any new professional development providers and benchmarks for employee reviews. The competencies will be reviewed by experts such as Delawares National PBIS Center regional contact, Dr. Lucille Eber. Areas in need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the trainer/coaches PD Plan. Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus LEAs. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year. As the grant continues, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through the accountability system. Participating LEAs must complete an agreement form established to demonstrate their commitment to participation in each of the DE SPDG initiatives. Teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents in participating LEAs and schools will be surveyed to determine their knowledge and use of behavioral IEP goals, pro-social interventions, and Tier 3 behavioral supports. Existing student data collected on problem behaviors will be reviewed. The results of the survey and behavior analysis will help shape the PD provided. Each LEA will develop a PD action plan, utilizing evidence-based strategies to address their identified needs. Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and other community members to support students needing social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports. (Training Driver) As discussed in Goal 1, we will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS) method of training (Dunst and Trivette, 2009) to ensure all training uses adult learning principles Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 43
and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant knowledge and skills will be collected and analyzed, how PD providers will be trained, coached, and observed, and the data that will be used to improve trainer skills and the content of training. All state trainers will attend a two-day training to better inform themselves of the SPDG practices and to receive training on the PALS training process. Behavioral IEP Goal Development Training on developing quality behavioral IEP goals will be provided to all school districts through the development of online modules, in conjunction with training on standards-based IEPs with strong academic goals (discussed in Goal 1). These modules will be on the DE SPDG website. More directed IEP training will also be provided to LEAs participating in the Social Skills Project and receiving PD on Tier 3 behavioral interventions. Tier 3 Behavioral Interventions Tier 3 training will focus on: (1) tiered interventions and supports through PBIS, (2) functional behavior analysis (FBA) and Behavior Support Plans (BSP), and (3) transition strategies into general education classrooms. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) is a Tier 3 behavior intervention process for completing Functional Behavior Assessments and developing Behavior Intervention Plans. There is a formal training component and ongoing coaching throughout the year. Functional Behavioral Assessment & Behavior Support Plans A targeted, in-depth instruction in the process of conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Support Plans (BSP). Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 44
Person-Centered Planning Participants learn several methods of developing action plans in this module, including MAPs (Making Action Plans) and PATHs (Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope) and how to determine which tool to use. Annually, a kick-off training will be conducted each summer with new LEA teams who will be implementing the Social Skills Project and receiving PD on Tier 3 behavioral interventions. CDS consultants and DDOE staff will conduct the training. The kick-off training will conclude with the development of LEA action plans for each LEA team. A one day mid-year booster will be held to address common topics across teams and to update action plans as necessary. Social Skills Project Existing training curriculum will be reviewed (see bulleted items below), while also conducting research on other evidence-based behavioral practices for this population of students. All curricula will be reviewed by the same experts who review the PD competencies discussed in the previous objective. Topics will include interventions based on the Social Thinking approach, peer mediated learning, video modeling, self-management, and social stories. Parent/Family Training Similar to activities in Goal 1, the PIC will conduct a parallel set of trainings informing parents and families of students in LEAs being served about writing IEPs with well-developed behavioral goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral interventions. The same training formats discussed in Goal 1 (formal workshops, Lunch & Learn webinars, individual family consultations, and further training of PIC staff). Training materials will be developed in conjunction with DDOE and CDS staff. Members of the DE Leadership team will participate in parent/family workshops as necessary. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 45
Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports. (Coaching Driver) At the state level, experts in the area of social skills and Tier 3 behavior supports will receive additional training to provide guidance and support to LEA coaches. The LEA coaches will serve as coaches to personnel in their districts who are implementing Goal 2 activities. Participating LEAs will develop LEA PD plans, outlining the training, coaching, and any other resources needed to successfully implement the Goal 2 activities in their schools. LEA coaches will develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful coaches for teachers, administrators and staff in their districts. To ensure fidelity in PD, a coaching fidelity instrument will be developed by the DE SPDG Management Team. The desired practiced will be modeled in monthly meetings between state and LEA coaches. Staff from the DDOE, CDS, and the PTI will be available to serve as state coaches. Other experts will be used as necessary. State coaches will meet with their selected LEA coaches to review the LEA and Coach PD plans once a month. These meetings will focus on training and coaching efforts conducted in the participating LEAs. Besides these monthly formal meetings, ongoing contact between state and LEA coaches will be encouraged through the use of e-mail and phone. Regional coaches, working with LEA personnel, will also collect intervention fidelity data, the degree to which behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral interventions were implemented as designed. These instruments will be developed through the use of the practice profile process. At monthly state-level coaching meetings, up to four sources of data will be available for review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the LEA PD plan, the coaching fidelity protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 46
necessarily be available or reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches and LEA PD plans will be expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face, through Skype, web-conferencing software, and/or phone. We will develop and support a PLC designed to expand and provide on-going coaching to support the implementation of the DE Social Skills Project and to support professional development for LEAs on supporting students requiring advanced behavioral interventions. Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment Driver) The project evaluator, working closely with the DE SPDG Management Team will develop training, coaching, and intervention fidelity instruments during the first two quarters of Year 1. The DE SPDG Management Team will be responsible for overseeing fidelity measurement and reporting. Project evaluators will train and coach the state and LEA coaches on the use of implementation (training and coaching) and intervention (i.e., IEP development, social skills instruction, Tier 3 behavioral interventions) fidelity instruments. Data on the implementation of training and coaching will be collected at all trainings and selected coaching events between the state and LEA coaches, as well as similar events with LEA coaches and the school staff they are working with. The implementation fidelity instruments will be developed through the practice profile process, discussed previously. Fidelity data for training events will be collected by participating members of the DE SPDG Management Team to obtain a diversity of perspectives on how well training has been implemented. Other data to be collected and reviewed include Office Discipline Referrals, SPP data on suspensions/expulsions (SPP #4), LRE (SPP #5), and parent engagement (SPP #8). These data Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 47
will be collected, reviewed, and analyzed annually. An annual impact and satisfaction survey will be administered to all participating LEA personnel to gather quantitative and qualitative data to inform project management and implementation. These data will be shared with the DE SPDG Management Team quarterly and used to inform the previously discussed PIP PEP cycles. Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to implement the social skills and Tier 3 interventions in their schools. (Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention Driver) A training module will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on implementation of behavioral IEP goals, social skills instruction, Tier 3 behavioral interventions, and parent engagement strategies. The modules will initially be conducted as real time webinars, but will also be archived on the DOEs website related to special education. The modules will provide overviews of each initiative, including training, coaching, and evaluation strategies. A particular focus will be on how administrators can support their staff in the ongoing implementation of these activities. Another component will provide guidance to administrators, teachers, and staff on analyzing data to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP cycles.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 48
QUALITY OF PROJECT PERSONNEL This section of our proposal explains the employment policy for the DDOE, as well as similar policies for specified organizational partners and potential contractors. Following the review of employment policy, the qualifications of key project personnel are provided. Staff resumes are in Appendix C. Affirmative Action The DDOE is an Equal Opportunity Employer. It does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age or Vietnam era veteran status in employment, or its programs and activities. All DE SPDG partners also strongly promote employment opportunities for all individuals. These agencies are also very aggressive in their hiring practices in recruiting and maintaining high rates of underrepresented groups. All avenues will be utilized in recruiting ethnic minorities, women, elderly, and individuals with disabilities. Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) of 1994 requires that each applicant for funds ensures that steps are taken to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, federally funded projects for program beneficiaries with special needs. The following steps will be taken to address the equity issues in Section 437: a) every educator, paraeducator, school administrator, related service provider, student with disabilities, and parent enrolled in any of proposed SPDG professional development activity will have an equal opportunity to be engaged in the training that is provided by the SPDG project staff; b) all materials disseminated by, to and for project personnel will be in an accessible format; c) all facilities that house SPDG project activities will be fully accessible; d) interpreters will be available as requested; and e) closed or open captioned materials will be available as requested. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 49
Below, we outline the experience and responsibilities of key staff and consultants who will play a role in the DE SPDG. Three key staff (Mieczkowski, Celestin, and Touchette) are from the Exceptional Childrens Resources at the DDOE. The other personnel listed are: DDOE Staff Karen J ones, Linda Smith, and Michele Rush CDS Staff Beth Mineo, Debby Boyer, and new positions to be filled (2.5 FTE) PTI Consultant Marie-Anne E. Aghazadian External Evaluators Patricia H. Mueller (EEC) and Brent Garrett (PIRE) Principle Investigator (0.1 FTE, In-Kind) Mary Ann Mieczkowski is the Director of ECR of the DDOE. Ms. Mieczkowski is responsible for oversight of all fiscal and project activities. She will serve on the DE SPDG Management Team. Prior coming to the DOE, she was the Supervisor of Special Education Services for the Appoquinimink School District for ten years. She has a BA from the UD in Elementary Education and Special Education and a MA from J ohns Hopkins University in Special Education (severe and profound disabilities). Prior to this position, she worked at the DDOE, providing leadership and training in PBS, the DE Inclusion Project and the DE Alternate Portfolio Assessment. She also coordinated the Interagency Collaborative Team, which provided support and funding for students with mental health issues and interagency supports. Project Co-Director (0.40 FTE) Sarah Celestin, Ed.D. is an Education Associate with the DDOE. She will be responsible for oversight of Goal 1 activities including the management of contracts related to University of Kansas (SIM), University of Kentucky (Communication) and the UD (ACCESS Project) as it relates to this SPDG. At DOE, Dr. Celestin manages the IDEA Part B SPP and APR along with related general supervision activities. She also coordinates the ACCESS project, an initiative Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 50
related to curriculum and instruction for students participating in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Prior to working at the DOE, she served as the Principal Investigator for the DE Alternate Portfolio Assessment project at the UD where she provided coaching and technical assistance to special educators and administrators. As a previous special educator and project director, Dr. Celestin has experience leading initiatives related to IEP development, curriculum adaptations, and instructional strategies as well as the implementation of instructional coaching models. Project Co-Director (0.40 FTE) Brian Touchette has worked at the DDOE for 11 years as an Education Associate. Mr. Touchette will manage activities related to Goal 2 and consult on Goal 1 activities related to IEP goal development. He will be responsible for managing the contracts related to Evergreen Evaluating and Consulting, UD (the specific aspects of PBS) and the PTI as it relates to this SPDG. Before becoming an Education Associate, Mr. Touchette was on loan to the DOE for 2 years from his home District where he taught students with autism. At the DOE, he is assigned to the ECR Workgroup; however, he is equally involved with the Assessment Resources group. Parts of his responsibilities include State assessment for children with disabilities for both the general assessment and DEs Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards. Other DE initiatives he has led include PBS, the Inclusion Project, and development of a web- based IEP. He has also presented nationally on issues of how to include teachers of students with special needs in an educator effectiveness system (including those who teach students with the most significant cognitive disabilities) and how student growth can be used as part of these systems.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 51
DDOE Project Lead Goal 1 (0.20 FTE) Karen Jones works in the Teaching and Leaning Branch at the DDOE in the area of ECR. Ms. J ones will be responsible for activities within Goal 1. She will primarily be involved with development of training and coaching for activities related to both Academic IEP Goals and SIM. She leads the current SPDG to close the achievement gap in literacy and math for struggling readers, and supports higher education in developing highly qualified and the retention of special education teachers. She also leads the effort for Inclusive Schools and continues to build DEs infrastructure for providing accessible instructional materials in various formats. Ms. J ones is also the State NIMAS Coordinator, and works with the Curriculum Department in aligning Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction with the Delaware Recommended Curriculum. She provides technical assistance and teacher training in these areas, as well as RTI and the new IEP format - emphasizing bringing curriculum access and grade level expectations to all students to raise achievement. DOE Project Lead Goal 2 (0.10 FTE, In-Kind) Linda Smith is an Education Associate with the DDOE. Ms. Smith will be responsible for activities within Goal 2. She will primarily be involved with development of training and coaching for activities related to Behavior IEP Goals and Tier 3 Interventions. In addition, she will continue with the expansion of the Social Skills training and coaching. Ms. Smith coordinates Unique Education Alternatives for students with complex mental health and behavioral needs and serves as the DE PBS Project Co-Director. With over 30 years of experience in the field of special education, she has worked at the classroom level for 19 years with students preschool through adolescence who have learning disabilities as well as intellectual and multi-sensory disabilities. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 52
Data Manager (0.10 FTE, In-Kind) Michele Rush is the Part B Data Manager for the Exceptional Children work group. Ms. Rush will be responsible for compiling relevant data from State level databases related to each of the goals. In her work at DOE, she is responsible for all federal IDEA Part B reporting for the state of Delaware. She also fulfills data requests regarding children with disabilities for the DDOE, both internally and externally. As part of the Exceptional Children work group she participates in all phases of Compliance Monitoring. Director, Center for Disabilities Studies (0.05 FTE, In-Kind) Beth Mineo, Ph.D. is the Director of the CDS and a tenured associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the UD. She will be responsible for administrative oversight of the ACCESS and Positive Behavior Supports project. Dr. Mineo founded the Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative, the states AT Act program 21 years ago, and also directs the Centers Assistive Technology (AT) Unit. Trained as a speech/language pathologist and specializing in supports for children with significant learning and communication disabilities, she has extensive experience in project design and implementation, services for individuals with disabilities, AT development and utilization, and research and evaluation. Director of School Age Unit, Center for Disabilities Studies (0.10 FTE, In-Kind) Deborah Boyer, MS, is the director of the School-Age Services Unit at the UDs CDS. She will be responsible for supervision of the PBS project as well as general management of the School- Age Services Unit which includes the ACCESS project. Ms. Boyer will be the lead in the hiring of new CDS positions created through SPDG funding. Since joining the Center in 2001, Ms. Boyer has served as the co-director of the statewide PBS Initiative, a collaborative effort Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 53
between CDS and the DDOE. She has provided PD on implementing PBS in schools and other organizations serving children throughout the state. Positions to be filled at the Center for Disabilities Studies, University of Delaware: Instructional Coach - CDS 1 (1.0 FTE) The Instructional Coach (CDS 1) will work in conjunction with the ACCESS project to provide project development, professional development, coaching, and evaluation related to standards- based IEP development and advanced tiers of academic intervention through SIM. The preferred candidate will have a Masters degree with special education certification and five years of successful teaching and/or coaching experience. Instructional Coach/Research Associate - CDS 2 (1.0 FTE) The Instructional Coach (CDS 2) will work in conjunction with the PBS project to provide project development, PD, and evaluation related to the development of behavioral/social IEP goals and advanced tiers of behavioral interventions and strategies to support students with behavioral and mental health needs. The preferred candidate will have a Masters degree in special education, counseling, or mental health with a concentration in behavioral/mental health supports and five years of successful teaching, coaching, or clinical experience. Instructional Coach/Research Associate - CDS 3 (0.5 FTE) The Instructional Coach (CDS 3) will work in conjunction with the PBS project to provide professional development and coaching related to the development of behavioral/social IEP goals and advanced tiers of behavioral interventions and strategies to support students with behavioral and mental health needs. The preferred candidate will have a Masters degree in special education, counseling, or mental health with a concentration in behavioral/mental health supports and five years of successful teaching, coaching, or clinical experience. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 54
Director of Parent Information Center of Delaware (0.10 FTE) Marie-Anne E. Aghazadian is the Executive Director, Parent Information Center of Delaware, Inc. She will be responsible for parent training and engagement activities such as lunch and learn webinars, workshops, and family consultation. Under Ms. Aghazadians leadership, PIC has emerged as DEs largest and only organization providing information, education and support to families of children with the broad range of disabilities as well as to families who experience barriers to being engaged in their childrens education. Prior to her career at PIC, she was the president of the Autism Society of DE (ASD) that was successful in helping establish the DE Autism Program and a continuum of vocational and residential services for adults with autism. External Evaluators Patricia H. Mueller, Ed.D. is President and founder of Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting Inc., (EEC) a woman-owned firm specializing in evaluation of federal-funded programs. Dr. Mueller has extensive experience evaluating federally funded education initiatives to include: SPDGs in MS, NH and VT; Regional Resource Centers; the National Center on Educational Outcomes; and IHE personnel preparation programs. She employs a systematic approach to evaluation that incorporates state-of-the-art methods and strategies in the field of evaluation. Brent Garrett, Ph.D. will collaborate with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation to coordinate evaluation activities. Dr. Garrett will serve as lead PIRE evaluator. He collaborates with other partners to assist in evaluating SPDGs in KY, VT, NH, and MS. He is supported by a PIRE team that brings a diverse set of methodological skills, using both quantitative and qualitative practices. The goal of his work is to provide scientifically sound evaluation findings in an easy to use, practical manner for the purpose of program improvement, assessing program impact, and assuring accountability of state and federal funds. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 55
ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES
In this section, we describe the DDOE and collaborating partners adequacy of resources to implement this work. The demonstrated commitment and relevance of each partner is discussed below and in their letters of support, found in Appendix B. We also discuss how our budget is appropriate to meet the project demands, and how the budget is closely linked to the project. (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization. Delaware Department of Education The DDOE has adequate facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources to support and sustain the activities of the SPDG during and beyond the funding period. The central office of DDOE is located in Dover with approximately 270 employees. DDOE will provide the support of its physical resources such as facilities, equipment, and supplies, as well as making available, to the maximum extent possible, its personnel in support of SPDG activities. Office space required by SPDG personnel is currently available within the ECR Group. The DDOE has telephones and computers ready for use by the SPDG staff. The DDOE maintains its own computer network, Internet access and electronic mail system. All computers and laser printers within DDOE are connected to the high speed Ethernet network. The DDOE also maintains an active website, which meets government-wide standards. A portion of this website will be used to post pertinent SPDG information. The DDOE ensures it will provide equipment needed by project staff or beneficiaries of project services. Materials developed in support of SPDG activities will be available in alternate formats such as audiotape, large print, and Braille upon request. Services, including sign language interpreters, Brailing, or other assistance will be provided, as needed, at all training Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 56
activities. Any videotapes developed by the project work will be appropriately captioned and audio-described. Finally, DE SPDG technology resources are designed to fully support our work. All Web content will conform to Priority Level 1 of the Web Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (www.w3c.org/wai/) and Section 508 Standards for Web- based Internet information/applications (www.section508.gov), which are based in part on the WAI Guidelines. The manual and automatic procedures used to evaluate the site will follow those recommended by the Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/) and will be performed on an ongoing basis. All print documents published and disseminated by the DE SPDG will be made available in alternate formats upon request. Parent Information Center of Delaware
The Parent Information Center of Delaware (PIC) has administered DEs only PTI through five consecutive grants from OSEP. PIC services include: individual technical assistance to families and professionals, workshops, audio conferences and webinars, electronic and print newsletters, a website, a lending library, referrals to programs and services and dissemination of informational materials in both English and Spanish. Over the past 25 years, the PIC has developed a large network of collaborative partnerships with local state and national agencies and organizations that uphold our efforts to provide training information and support to families of children with disabilities in Delaware from birth to age 26. Furthermore, PIC has been able to broaden its scope by securing supplementary programs that enhance the services provided by the PTI. Four years ago, PIC was awarded a Parent Information and Resource Center (PIRC) project funded by the US Department of Education under the Elementary and Secondary Education/No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The Delaware PIRC like the PTI, focused on families who experience barriers to participating in their Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 57
childs education with a strong emphasis on low-income, low literacy, minority, and non-English speaking families in both urban and rural areas of our state. The PIC maintains physical locations in each of DEs counties, with 11 full and part-time staffs. The organizations main office is located in Wilmington. PIC is proud to house the most comprehensive library on disability topics in the state with over 250 books on Autism Spectrum Disorder alone. The centers website, www.picofdel.org, features comprehensive and up-to-date information regarding the organization, its programs and services, archived audio conferences and trainings, an online resource center, downloadable toolkits and podcasts. Center for Disabilities Studies The Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS), at the UD, offers a variety of services and supports that advance the independence and productivity of individuals with disabilities and their families. Given the wide-ranging expertise of the Centers diverse staff, CDS is frequently sought as a partner to assist state agencies and organizations in research, evaluation, program planning and implementation, advocacy, and policy development. CDS is also one of 67 University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD) Research, Education, and Service nationwide. The Center is located in a single-story building equipped with switch- operated doors and accessible restrooms. Ample accessible parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to the entrance, and a large parking lot accommodates dozens of vehicles. Signage, crosswalks and an emergency call box have been installed to maximize the safety of staff and visitors. For the benefit of staff and guests, CDS routinely provides alternate access to events and materials, offering constituents sign language (ASL and tactile) and oral translation, and alternate formats of materials (e.g., large print, Braille, electronic format, and audiotape). Training sites are free of architectural barriers, and accommodation of individual needs for Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 58
portable ramps, assistive listening devices, screen enlargers and the like is achieved readily through the Assistive Technology Resource Centers. CDS staff have expertise with accessible web design, captioning, descriptive audio, and other mechanisms for optimizing the uptake of information. CDS is integrally connected with every state agency providing services and supports to individuals with disabilities across the lifespan. CDS currently is engaged in partnerships formalized by grant or contract mechanismswith the DDOE, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, Division of Public Health, and Division for the Visually Impaired. CDS has extremely strong working relationships with its DD Network partners, the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Council (DDC) and Delawares Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization (the Disabilities Law Program of the Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.), and 46% of CDS staff members are individuals with disabilities and/or family members of individuals with disabilities. The Center is the home of several projects closely aligned with the vision of the SPDG. The DE-PBS Project is a statewide initiative designed to build the knowledge and skills of DE educators in the concepts, content and practices of PBS. Project staff provides PD to schools in all levels of implementation and works closely with coaches within each school district who provide support to schools at the local level. This project, conducted in partnership with the DE Department of Education for the past 10 years, has been a catalyst for positive climate change in schools throughout the state. The Social Skills Project utilizes a school-wide approach to teaching social skills to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Asperger Syndrome, ADHD and other related social skills needs. Intensive PD and consultation is provided to group facilitators, as well as PD for the Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 59
students classroom teachers so that everyone is using the same vocabulary and skills can be reinforced in the classroom. Parent workshops are also offered to the parents of student attending social skills groups, as well as other families who are interested in supporting their childs social thinking at home. The Adapting Curriculum & Classroom Environments for Student Success (ACCESS) project is a statewide initiative funded by the DDOE focusing on access to both the academic curriculum and inclusive environments for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Project staff provides PD on modification of academic curriculum, determining a students placement, developing IEP goals, and progress monitoring. ACCESS staff also provides technical support for the development and implementation of the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1). Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc. Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting, Inc. (EEC) is a woman-owned small business located in J ericho, Vermont, founded in 1990 by Dr. Patricia Mueller. EEC consultants and associates have extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key stakeholders. EECs expertise is primarily in the area of education program evaluation and professional development. EEC consultants skills and knowledge are matched with the needs of the projects and expectations of clients. On this project, EEC will partner with evaluators at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 60
Support letters contained in Appendix B provide documentation of each partners commitment and contribution to the proposed workscope. The relevance of each partners contribution can also be found in the Personnel and Adequacy of resources section. (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project. (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
The largest investment of the DE SPDG in in personnel, either listed as salary and fringe, or as consultants. The personnel responsible and the amount of time required for implementing project objectives and activities are listed in our Management Plan (found on page 64). Personnel and other direct costs (travel, supplies, equipment, contractual, and other) are explained in detail in the budget narrative. We have given extensive thought on how to minimize or share costs among our collaborating partners. The budget narrative clearly outlines projected expenditures and discusses how the expenditure relates to specific activities. (v) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to this type of support.
Sustainability has been an important consideration of our proposal development. Much of the proposed work focuses on building the capacity of existing personnel at the state and local level through enhanced coaching. DDOE staff will play key roles in implementing the SDPG and those activities will be able to continue after grant funding ends. Similarly with partners at the PTI and CDS, the skills developed through this effort will assist them as they continue to provide PD on the SPDG academic, social, and behavioral interventions. LEAs will have also developed the capacity to support these initiatives as a result of the PD they received from the SPDG.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 61
QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In this section, we discuss the adequacy of our management plan for achieving the objectives of the project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. We also discuss the efforts made to bring a diversity of perspectives to the development and implementation of these initiatives. (i) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project. Diversity of Perspectives Advisory Board In the Needs section, we discussed how we solicited stakeholder input from a diversity of audiences to develop this proposal. In this section, we discuss how we include the same diversity of perspective in the management, implementation, and evaluation of the DE SPDG. The DE SPDG Advisory Board will be composed of representatives of organizations that will be impacted by the proposed activities. This includes representation from the DE PTI, the Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens, IHEs, the CDS at the UD, Delaware Prevention and Behavioral Health Services (state mental health agency), and DOE units including the ECR office, the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, the College and Workforce Readiness Branch, and Curriculum, Instruction, and PD. The Advisory Board will meet quarterly during the first year, then bi-annually afterwards. They will be responsible for overseeing the SPDG and developing the final action plan for implementation. At each meeting, this group will review the progress on each objective and determine if the activities continue to support implementation of the goals of the grant. In Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 62
addition, this group will be critical in the ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant to meet the stated goals. Leadership and Management Teams On a day to day basis, the DE SPDG Leadership Team will oversee project activities. Mary Ann Mieczkowski, the Director of the ECR Office will serve as the Principal Investigator of the DE SPDG. Working under the supervision of Ms. Mieczkowski, Sarah Celestin and Brian Touchette, Education Associates with the ECR Office will be responsible for overseeing each initiative and the evaluation component. The Leadership Team will also be responsible for budgetary and related financial matters. With a number of partners requiring contracts, careful attention will be focused on budgets. Our budget and corresponding budget justification are presented in a separate section of the proposal narrative. All budgeted items are in specific alignment with our proposed objectives and activities. The budget also reflects the way in which some activities will be ramped up over the time of the grant and some will have a higher cost of implementation in the early years of the grant. The DE SPDG Management Team (MT) will review and approve project implementation activities. The MT will be composed of members from the DDOE, the PIC, CDS, and project evaluators. They will meet monthly either in-person or through online collaboration software to review current activities and plan for upcoming events. The DE SPDG MT will feed-forward information to the DE SPDG Advisory Board, as well as receive feedback from them. While reporting is primarily discussed in the evaluation section of the proposal, we feel that it is essential to stress the role that data will play in managing the DE SPDG in this section as well. Project evaluators will develop monthly reports, summarizing key activities and focusing on performance indicators and formative evaluation questions identified in the evaluation Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 63
section. These reports will be shared with the Management Team for decision making purposes. All PD staff will be responsible for monthly submission of data, based on the work they completed and outcomes influenced. The data from these reports will also be aggregated to form the basis of our annual reporting to OSEP and other stakeholders. Effective communication and coordination is essential to manage the proposed initiatives to reach our goal of improving student achievement. At the end of this section, we have included personnel loading charts and timelines for all projected activities that were described in the Quality of Project Design section. These charts will be used by the Management Team and evaluators to coordinate project activities and ensure activities are completed in a timely manner. ii. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. Tables 4 and 5 list the amount of effort for each key personnel for both goals. Tables 6 - 15 state which organizations/individuals will be responsible for each activity and when the activity will be implemented. Following each table is a list of milestones for each objective. Pertinent milestones will be reviewed at each Leadership Team meeting. The budget and budget justification were developed to minimize costs, while providing the supports necessary to implement the proposal. Our strategies for using implementation science have been discussed throughout the proposal. PIP/PEP cycles will be an integral component of our feedback/feedforward process, practice profiles will be used to identify the critical components of interventions and assist in evaluation instrument development, and we discuss the instruments to be used to assess implementation stages and organizational drivers in the Evaluation section. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 64
Table 4: Goal 1 Loading Chart Objective SC BT KJ CDS 1 MAM MR PIC 1 Obj. 1.1: Selection 15 6 3 30 2 6 0 Obj. 1.2: Training 20 8 20 60 0 0 10 Obj. 1.3: Coaching 39 2 15 110 0 0 6 Obj. 1.4: Performance Assessment 15 5 7 35 2 7 6 Obj. 1.5: Facilitative Administrative Support 15 5 7 25 9 0 4 Total Number of Days 104 26 52 260 13 13 26 FTE 40% 10% 20% 100% 5% 5% 10% SC- Sarah Celestin, BT - Brian Touchette, KJ Karen J ones, CDS Staff to be hired, MAM Mary Ann Mieczkowski, MR Michele Rush, PIC Marie-Anne Aghazadian Table 5: Goal 2 Loading Chart Objective BT LS CDS 2 CDS 3 MAM MR PIC 1 Obj. 1.1: Selection 10 7 30 0 2 6 0 Obj. 1.2: Training 15 15 60 45 0 0 10 Obj. 1.3: Coaching 23 15 110 80 0 0 6 Obj. 1.4: Performance Assessment 15 8 35 0 2 7 6 Obj. 1.5: Facilitative Administrative Support 15 7 25 5 9 0 4 Total Number of Days 78 52 260 130 13 13 26 FTE 30% 20% 100% 50% 5% 5% 10% BT Brian Touchette, LS - Linda Smith, CDS Staff to be hired, MAM Mary Ann Mieczkowski, MR Michele Rush, PIC Marie-Anne Aghazadian Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 65
Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. Table 6: Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic and communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD Goal 1 Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 1.1.1: Identify PD competencies SC (lead), CDS 1 Q1-2 1.1.2: P & F schools selected as SPDG LEAs SC (lead), BT, MAM, MR Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 1.1.3: Participating LEAs sign commitment letter SC (lead), MAM Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 1.1.4: Review of Priority and Focus school IEPs SC (lead), KJ , CDS1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 1.1.5: DCAS and DCAS-Alt1 review in P & F schools SC (lead), BT, MR, CDS 1 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 1.1.6: Review existing curriculum SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1 (lead) Q1-4 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 1.1.7: Teacher/administrator/staff/parent IEP and academic needs assessment survey conducted SC (lead), CDS 1, PIC 1 Q3 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 1.1.8: Communication needs assessment SC (lead), CDS 1 Q2-3 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 1.1.9: Action plan developed SC (lead), BT, CDS 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 P & F =Priority and Focus Schools Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 66
Objective 1.1: Milestones Competencies for PD providers identified State coaches/recruited/hired LEAs recruited Needs assessments conducted Action plans developed Table 7: Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, EB training to increase the competency of DE teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, and other community members to support students academic and communication needs.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 1.2.1: Training plan developed SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 DE SDPG staff receive 1.2.2: IEP training from IEP resources 1.2.3: SIM training from KU 1.2.4: Communication intervention training from UK SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1
1.2.5: Adapt training materials with local context considered SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1, PIC 1 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Training conducted in P & F schools on: 1.2.6: IEP training KJ (lead), CDS 1, SC, BT, PIC 1 Q4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 67
1.2.7: SIM training 1.2.8: Communication training 1.2.9: Parent/family training 1.2.10: Training data reviewed to improve future PD. SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1, PIC 1 Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Objective 1.2: Milestones Training plan developed Training materials developed All trainers are trained on specific interventions IEP, SIMS, communication, & parent training provided on schedule Table 8: Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 1.3.1: State coaches identified and trained SC (lead), BT, CDS 1 Q2-3 1.3.3: Identification of LEA coaches SC (lead), BT, CDS 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 1.3.3: Training of LEA coaches SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 1.3.4: Coaching plans developed SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 68
1.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols SC (lead), CDS 1 Q2-3 1.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches, with review of multiple data sources SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 1.3.7: Develop and support PLC SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Objective 1.3: Milestones State coaches identified and trained LEA coaches trained and identified Coaching plans developed Monthly coaching meetings occur
Table 9: Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 1.4.1 & 1.4.2: Review, adopt, and use implementation and intervention fidelity instruments for training and coaching on IEP academic goals, SIM, communication interventions, and family engagement strategies. SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 1.4.3: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 69
instruments. 1.4.4: Develop data management system for tracking implementation, intervention, & other process data. SC (lead), CDS 1, MR, EEC Q1-4 1.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching evaluation forms (using pre/post items) SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1, PIC 1, EEC Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 1.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership Team. SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 1.4.7: Collect outcome data (SPP 3, 5, 8, and 13) SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1, PIC 1, EEC Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 1.4.8: Conduct and report on annual school impact survey SC (lead), EEC Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 1.4.9: Student formative/summative data review SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 1.4.10: Collect and analyze other student data SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Objective 1.4: Milestones Implementation & intervention fidelity instruments developed Training evaluation forms developed Data management system developed Fidelity data submitted to project evaluators quarterly Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 70
Trainers/coaches are trained in using fidelity instruments Formative outcome data collected quarterly, summative data collected annually Table 10: Obj. 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to develop quality academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and communication interventions in their schools.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on 1.5.1: Supporting teachers to develop academic IEP goals 1.5.2: Supporting implementation of SIMS 1.5.3: Supporting implementation of individualized communication interventions. SC (lead), BT, KJ , MAM, CDS 1, PIC 1 Q3-4 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 1.5.4: Administrators part of coaching visits SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Objective 1.5: Milestones Administrator training materials developed Administrators trained to support ongoing PD on IEP academic goals, SIM, communication interventions, and family engagement strategies.
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 71
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff. Table 11: Obj. 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD & to define the expectations & commitment of those receiving PD. Goal 2 Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 2.1.1: Identify and validate PD competencies needed through the practice profile process. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q1-3 2.1.2: P & F schools selected as SPDG LEAs BT (lead), LS, MAM, MR, CDS 2 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 2.1.3: Create LEA MOA, with clearly defined expectations and degree of commitment needed. BT (lead), LS Q3 2.1.4: Create LEA survey assessing knowledge and use of behavioral IEP goals, pro-social interventions, and Tier 3 behavioral supports. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q2-3 2.1.5: Analyze LEA survey data to develop action plan for each LEA. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 72
Objective 2.1: Milestones Competencies for PD providers identified LEAs recruited Needs assessments conducted Action plans developed Table 12: Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and other community members to support students needing social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 2.2.1: Use needs assessment data to inform training curriculum BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 2.2.2: Training curriculum is reviewed by content experts BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q3 2.2.3: PD staff are trained BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 2.2.4: PD Provider PD Plans are developed BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 2.2.5: Online modules developed for IEP development BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q1-3 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 73
Training conducted in: 2.2.6: Behavioral IEP goals. 2.2.7: The DE Social Skills Project. 2.2.8: Tier 3 behavioral interventions. 2.2.9: Evidence-based parent engagement strategies. LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3, PIC 1 Q3-4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 2.2.10: LEA PD Plans are developed LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Objective 2.2: Milestones Training plan developed Training materials developed All trainers are trained on specific interventions Behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions.& parent training provided on schedule Table 13: Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 2.3.1: State coaches identified and trained LS (lead), BT, CDS 2 Q2-3 2.3.2: Identification of LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 74
2.3.3: Training of LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 2.3.4: Coaching plans developed LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 2.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols LS (lead), BT, CDS 2 Q2-4 2.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 2.3.7: Develop and support PLC LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Objective 2.3: Milestones State coaches identified and trained LEA coaches trained and identified Coaching plans developed Monthly coaching meetings occur
Table 14: Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 2.4.1 & 2.4.2: Review & adopt implementation & intervention fidelity instruments for training and coaching on IEP behavioral goals, DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions, & family engagement strategies. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, PIC 1, EEC Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 75
2.4.3: Review and adopt other implementation or intervention fidelity instruments as required BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, EEC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 2.4.4: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity instruments LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, EEC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 2.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching evaluation forms (using pre/post items) BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, PIC 1, EEC Q2-3 2.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership Team. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, EEC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 2.4.7: Collect outcome data (SPP 4, 5, and 8) BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, PIC 1, EEC Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Objective 2.4: Milestones Implementation & intervention fidelity instruments developed Training evaluation forms developed Data management system developed Fidelity data submitted to project evaluators quarterly Trainers/coaches are trained in using fidelity instruments Formative outcome data collected quarterly, summative data collected annually
Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 76
Table 15: Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to implement the social skills and Tier 3 interventions in their schools.
Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5 Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support teachers in the development of 2.5.1: Behavioral IEP goals. 2.5.2: The DE Social Skills Project. 2.5.3: Tier 3 behavioral interventions. 2.5.4: Evidence-based parent engagement strategies. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, MAM, PIC 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 2.5.5: Formalize PD into online modules and make available on DOE website. BT (lead), LS, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q1-3 Objective 2.5: Milestones Administrator training materials developed Administrators trained to support ongoing PD in the development of behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions, and evidence-based parent engagement strategies. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 77
QUALITY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATION This section outlines the processes to ensure that that the proposed goals and objectives have been achieved and that the planned activities are completed in a timely and quality manner. We will contract with EEC, along with partners from PIRE to serve as our external evaluators once funded. Between proposed evaluation firms, they have evaluated ten SPDGs in five states over the last ten years. They are active in the SPDG evaluators community of practice and bring extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key stakeholders. This evaluation plan is similar to work conducted with other states by project evaluators. This allows for testing and development of instruments and findings across state, promoting greater reliability and validity of results. (i): The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. We developed a project logic model (see Appendix A) to ensure there were clear and logical links between goals, objectives, and outcomes. The logic model was also used to guide the development of a draft evaluation plan. The draft evaluation plan is presented over the next few pages, through a series of evaluation tables depicting data sources, and methods of analyses for each objective and activity. This will allow us to determine to what degree our goals and objectives have been met. The process for collecting, analyzing and reporting evaluation data will be consistent across objectives. Project evaluators and project management will work together so that the correct data are collected and there is consensus with how the data will be collected, analyzed, and reported. It will be the responsibility of the evaluators to collect, analyze, and report the data. When Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 78
possible, this will be done in collaboration with other project partners. Results will be shared with project management on an ongoing basis to guide decision making as described later in this section. Below, we list either the established tools we will use, or the process for identifying or creating data collection instruments. IEP Training We will adapt DEs Compliance Monitoring Protocol using Courtade and Browders (2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core Standards to develop a new protocol focused on quality and effectiveness of standards-based IEPs during the planning year. Strategic Instruction Model Instruments We will use implementation and intervention fidelity tools developed the University of Kansas to assess the implementation and impact of SIMS in Delaware. Communication We will use an intervention fidelity protocol developed by researchers at the University of Kentucky, based on Rowlands (2004) communication matrix. Tier 3 Behavioral Interventions We will develop a tool based on the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET: Anderson Del, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson, 2008) and the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT: Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd & Spaulding, 2009). The ISSET is a research-quality measure designed to assess the implementation status of secondary (targeted) and tertiary (intensive) systems within a school. The ISSET is conducted by an external evaluator. The BAT is a self-assessment measure of the implementation status of Tiers 2 (secondary, targeted) and 3 (tertiary, intensive) behavior support systems within their school. The BAT is completed by school PBS teams with their PBS coach. The BAT is based on factors drawn from the ISSET. Suspension and expulsion data will also be collected from DDOE. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 79
Social Skills Project The project has used the DE School Climate Survey (DSCS) to measure various aspects of school climate including social development. The survey was developed by staff from the DE-PBS Project under the leadership of the project's faculty partner from the School of Education. The DSCS includes Student, Teacher/Staff, and Home formats which allows for comparisons of results across informants. Each survey consists of subscales measuring important dimensions of school climate. Each of the subscales included on the survey is grounded in research and theory as to its importance in academic achievement and social and emotional development. In Year 1, a tailored evaluation tool will be developed based on the social development portion of the DSCS and other research-based social skills intervention tools. Content Validity Analyses This process will be used to assess the quality, relevance, and research basis of new materials developed by the DE SPDG. Local and national content experts, local LEA and school personnel, families, and other stakeholders will be used to assess the content validity of SPDG products. Professional Development Log (PD Log) Used by state and regional PD providers to track the delivery PD activities on an ongoing basis. Training Evaluations All training evaluations will contain a set of standard items assessing the quality, relevance, and utility of training, as well as logistical issues. Each type of training will have unique pre/post questions and items inquiring of the degree to which training objectives were met. Participating Personnel Survey (PPS) Used annually to gather feedback from project partners, as well as school and LEA personnel, who participate in SPDG PD. It is likely over the course of the project, we will need to develop additional surveys, Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 80
interviews, and focus group protocols to gather quantitative and qualitative data specific. All instruments and procedures will be developed, tested, and implemented in accordance with standard evaluation protocols (Fowler, 2002; Dillman, 1999; Krueger & Casey, 2000). Instruments will be developed in a collaborative manner so that the evaluators take advantage of the content expertise of project staff. As the audience for our evaluation activities will vary, we will utilize a variety of survey methods, including face-to-face, mail, and web-based surveys. Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs. Table 16: Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic & communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD. Selection Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 1.1.1: Identify competencies needed via practice profile process. Completed practice profile & competencies Document review 1.1.2: Priority and Focus schools selected as SPDG LEAs List of schools Document review 1.1.3: Participating LEAs sign commitment letter Signed commitment letters Document review 1.1.4: Review of Priority and Focus school IEPs IEP summary document Qualitative analysis using IEP tool 1.1.5: DCAS and DCAS-Alt1 review in Priority & Focus schools Spreadsheet of LEA assessment data Frequency/regression analysis of assessment Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 81
data 1.1.6: Review existing curriculum Curriculum review summary Document review 1.1.7: Teacher/Administrator/ Staff/Parent needs assessment survey conducted Survey results Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of needs assessment data 1.1.8: Communication needs assessment Needs assessment data Frequency analysis of communication data 1.1.9: Action plan developed Copies of action plans Review of action plans by Management Team
Table 17: Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, and other community members to support students academic and communication needs. Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 1.2.1: Training plan developed Copy of training plan Review of training plan by Management Team SPDG trainers receive the following training to be qualified trainers: 1.2.2: IEP training from IEP experts 1.2.3: SIM training from KU staff 1.2.4: Communication training from UK staff Training materials & agendas Evaluation data Review of training materials, agendas, & evaluation data Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 82
1.2.5: Training materials finalized, local context considered Training materials Review rubric Expert review to ensure content validity Training conducted in Priority & Focus schools on: 1.2.6: IEP training 1.2.7: SIM training 1.2.8: Communication training 1.2.9: Parent/family training PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments 1.2.10: Training data reviewed to improve future training. Evaluation Reports Meeting minutes Review of reports and summary of data reviews
Table 18: Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver) Coaching Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 1.3.1: State coaches identified 1.3.2: LEA coaches identified Recruitment materials Selection criteria Coaches resumes Qualitative review of materials Review with MT 1.3.3: Training of state & LEA coaches Training materials & agendas Evaluation data Review of training materials, agendas, & evaluation data 1.3.4: Coaching plans developed Copy of coaching plans Monthly/quarterly Review of coaching plans by Management Team Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 83
coaching plan updates 1.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols Completed practice profile Completed protocol Summary of meeting notes related to fidelity protocol 1.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches, with review of multiple data sources Meeting minutes Fidelity data Outcome data PD Log PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of minutes; coaching, outcome, & PPS data; & PD Log 1.3.7: Develop and support PLC PLC agendas/notes PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of minutes & PPS data
Table 19: Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment Driver) Performance Assessment Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 1.4.1: Review, adopt, & use implementation fidelity instruments for training & coaching on IEP academic goals, SIM, communication, & family engagement strategies. 1.4.2: Review, adopt, and use List of adopted fidelity instruments Completed practice profiles for new instruments Expert review of completed practice profiles & implementation instruments Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 84
intervention fidelity instruments for assessing the degree of implementation of IEP academic goals, SIM, communication, & family engagement 1.4.3: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity instruments. PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments 1.4.4: Develop data management system for tracking implementation and intervention fidelity, and other process data. Data management system plans/needs Final system Review of documentation by Management Team 1.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching evaluation forms (using pre/post items) Training & coaching curriculum Review of forms by Management Team 1.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership Team. Evaluation reports Copy of LT meeting minutes Review of reports and minutes 1.4.7: Collect annual outcome data Annual Evaluation Report Review of report and data by Management Team & Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 85
SPP Indicator data: 3, 5, 8, and 13 OSEP Project Officer 1.4.8: Conduct and report on annual school impact survey Completed survey Survey data Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of survey data 1.4.9: Student formative/summative data review Formative reading & math scores DCAS reading & math scores Communication Matrix & LCI data Triangulation of descriptive, frequency, & correlational data for each data source ANOVA for longitudinal analyses
Table 20: Objective 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to develop quality academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and communication interventions in their schools. Organizational/Leadership Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support teachers in: 1.5.1: The development of academic IEP goals. 1.5.2: Implementation of SIM 1.5.3: Implementation of PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 86
communication interventions 1.5.4: Administrators part of coaching visits PD Log Coaching meeting summaries Review of PD Log and coaching summaries.
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff.
Table 21: Objective 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD. Selection Driver Data Sources Analysis/Method 2.1.1: Identify and validate PD competencies needed through the practice profile process. Completed practice profile & competencies Document review 2.1.2: Develop and issue RFP soliciting LEA involvement. List of desired practices, time frames, & other requirements. Selection Criteria Review of materials and final RFP by Management Team 2.1.3: Create LEA MOA, with clearly defined expectations and degree of commitment needed. List of desired practices, time frames, & other requirements Review of materials and final RFP by Management Team Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 87
Review of survey by Management Team 2.1.5: Analyze LEA survey data to develop PD plan for each LEA. Survey data Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of survey data Table 22: Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and other community members to support students needing social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports. Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 2.2.1: Use needs assessment data to inform training curriculum Needs assessment data Review of needs data 2.2.2: Training curriculum is reviewed by content experts Training materials Review rubric Expert review to ensure content validity 2.2.3: PD staff are trained by: IEP Experts CDS staff Training materials & agendas Evaluation data Review of training materials, agendas, & evaluation data 2.2.4: PD Provider PD Plans are Copy of PD Plans PD Plans are reviewed by Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 88
developed Management Team 2.2.5: Online modules developed for IEP development Module development materials Completed modules Expert review to ensure content validity Training conducted in: 2.2.6: Behavioral IEP goals 2.2.7: DE Social Skills Project 2.2.8: Tier 3 behavioral interventions 2.2.9: Evidence-based parent engagement strategies PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments 2.2.10: LEA PD Plans are developed Copy of PD Plans PD Plans are reviewed by Management Team
Table 23: Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports. Coaching Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 2.3.1: State coaches identified 2.3.2: LEA coaches identified Recruitment materials Selection criteria Coaches resumes Qualitative review of materials Review with MT 2.3.3: Training of state and LEA coaches PD Log Training evaluations Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 89
Pre/post training data PPS PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments 2.3.4: Coaching plans developed Copy of coaching plans Monthly/quarterly coaching plan updates Review of coaching plans by Management Team 2.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols Completed practice profile Completed protocol Summary of meeting notes related to fidelity protocol 2.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches, with review of multiple data sources Meeting minutes Fidelity data Outcome data PD Log PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of minutes; coaching, outcome, & PPS data; & PD Log 2.3.7: Develop and support PLC PLC agendas/notes PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of minutes & PPS data
Table 24: Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. Performance Assessment Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 2.4.1: Review & adopt implementation List of adopted Expert review of Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 90
fidelity instruments for training and coaching on IEP behavioral goals, DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions, and family engagement strategies. 2.4.2: Review & adopt intervention fidelity instruments for assessing the degree of implementation of IEP behavioral goals, DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions, & family engagement strategies 2.4.3: Review and adopt other implementation or intervention fidelity instruments as required fidelity instruments Completed practice profiles for new instruments completed practice profiles & implementation instruments 2.4.4: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity instruments PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments 2.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching evaluation forms Training & coaching curriculum Review of forms by Management Team Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 91
2.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership Team. Evaluation reports Copy of LT meeting minutes Review of reports and minutes 2.4.7: Collect on annual outcome data Annual Eval Report SPP Indicator data: 3, 5, 8, and 13 Suspension/ODR data Review of report and data by Management Team & OSEP Project Officer
Table 25: Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to implement the social skills and Tier 3 interventions in their schools. Organizational/Leadership Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support teachers in: 2.5.1: Supporting teachers to develop behavioral IEP goals. 2.5.2: Supporting implementation of the DE Social Skills Project 2.5.3: Supporting implementation of Tier 3 behavioral interventions. 2.5.4: Supporting evidence-based parent engagement strategies PD Log Training evaluations Pre/post training data PPS Frequency/descriptive/ qualitative analysis of training PD Log, & PPS data ANOVA for pre/post assessments Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 92
2.5.5: Formalize PD into online modules and make available on project website. Module development materials Completed modules Expert review to ensure content validity
(ii): The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies. We have proposed multiple measures for assessing the effectiveness of project implementation strategies. These instruments, with the same implementation process, will be used in all states evaluated by EEC and PIRE, allowing for a greater sample to test, refine, and validate instruments. These include instruments developed by SISEP to (1) assess stages of implementation and (2) evaluate the degree to which the implementation drivers are in use (see Appendix A. These established instruments will be used in conjunction with project specific implementation (PD) and intervention (evidence-based practice) fidelity measures, identified in the project logic models __ and the evaluation tables on pages 16 25 of this section to determine the effectiveness of DE SPDG PD. Existing fidelity instruments will be used when available (see previous discussion about project data collection tools). Otherwise, we will use the practice profile method for developing and testing fidelity instruments for demonstrating the effectiveness of project implementation activities. We will use SISEPs stage-based assessments of implementation instruments to determine the stage of implementation for each initiative. Depending on the stage, it is likely different implementation drivers will be emphasized and need to be measured. The SISEP state-based instruments provide the necessary data to inform management decisions related to implementation. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 93
Supporting the assessment of implementation stages, we will use the SISEP implementation drivers instruments (see Appendix A) to gauge the implementation of the specific staff competency, organizational, and leadership drivers for the DE SPDG. Utilizing the PIP/PEP cycle, data from these instruments will be reviewed quarterly by the DE SPDG Management Team to inform ongoing SPDG policy. Decisions made as a result of the policy review will be shared with all project partners. (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. We will report on the SPDG Program/GPRA performance measures (PM) on an annual basis. Data from these indicators will be used to inform federal officials, as well as DDOE staff, and project management. We will not report on PM 4 as we do not have a formal teacher recruitment/retention goal. Performance Measure 1: Much of the reporting for PM 1 relates to documentation of evidence- based professional development, such as LEA commitment forms, training process agendas and pre/post assessments, coaching materials and protocols, etc. Data related to growth in teachers knowledge and skills, as well as fidelity of implementation data collected via training and Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 94
coaching protocols will be provided. A mixed set of qualitative and quantitative data will be provided to assess the quality of PD. Our expectation is by Year 2, we will score a minimum of a 3 on the 4 point scale used in the SPDG PM 1 Rubric, indicating consistent use of evidence- based professional development practices. Performance Measure 2: PM 2 focuses on the fidelity of intervention of desired practices. As much of the PD will be determined and provided based on LEA need, it is difficult to state specific instruments. For LEAs, participating in SIMS, we will use their established fidelity instruments. The Tier 3 behavioral interventions have available a self-report in the BAT and/or an independent ISSET review. In cases where we do need to develop fidelity protocols, we will use the practice profile process to identify the critical components of each practice. For each critical component, we will identify the gold standard for implementation, acceptable variations in the practice, and ineffective practices and undesirable practices. As many of our fidelity measures will be self-report, we will build in an observation component for 20% of the LEAs/schools for which we report fidelity data. The observations will be conducted by SPDG regional coaches and LT members. Performance Measure 3: To report on the cost/benefit performance measure, we will track the use of sustained PD activities through an online tracking log, known as the PD Log. This has been used in successive SPDGs (and in other states our evaluators work in) to collect data on the type, amount, and audience of PD. Through this database, we can determine the percentage of staff time spent on sustained PD activities, such as coaching. Travel and other costs will be tracked to determine other costs impacting this performance measure. Upon funding, we will define our project-level performance indicators in a collaborative manner with the specific contents experts. However, we have presented a number of potential Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 95
indicators for each project objective below. Objectives are structured the same for each goal, so we will be able to aggregate data across initiatives and report for the entire project. To be most useful, indicators address short-term and intermediate outcomes. Objective 1 (Selection Driver): (1) All PD providers have been trained on the specific interventions they will facilitate in participating LEAs. (2) The expected number of LEAs have been recruited for each initiative, each year. Objectives 2 (Training Driver): (1) Annually, 75% of DE SPDG workshops will result in statistically significant increases from pre to post in participants knowledge and skills. (2) On the annual Participating Personnel Survey (PPS), 75% of PD participants will report that the PD they received had a large to very large impact on their knowledge and skills related to IEP development, SIMS, Communication training, the DE Social Skills Project, and/or Tier 3 behavioral interventions. Objective 3 (Coaching Driver): Six months after training, participants will implement the desired intervention/practice with 80% fidelity, as measured by a SPDG coach on the SPDG coaching/implementation fidelity protocol. Objective 4 (Performance Assessment Driver): 75% of participating schools score 80% or higher on specific initiative intervention fidelity protocols, after two years of full implementation of the intervention. Objective 5 (Facilitative Administrative Supports Driver): On the annual PPS, 75% of administrators in participating LEAS will report that the PD they received had a large to very large impact on their knowledge and skills of supporting and sustaining the implementation of IEP development, SIMS, Communication training, the DE Social Skills Project and/or Tier 3 behavioral interventions. Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 96
(iv): The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. While tracking and monitoring activity completion is an important component of evaluation, we feel that evaluation data are best used as decision-making tools to guide us in implementing these exciting new initiatives. We intend to use a learning orientation approach to evaluation (McLaughlin, 2001) focusing on (1) what factors in our initiatives are influencing emerging outcomes and in what ways, (2) what factors in our initiatives are influencing final outcomes and in what ways, (3) what factors in the context or implementation environment of our initiatives may have influenced success positively or negatively, and (4) what unintended effects are occurring or have occurred? In conjunction with a learning approach to evaluation, we believe it is important for project evaluators to be an active part of project management (Perry, Thomas, DuBois, & McGowan, 2006). While in contrast to the more traditional view that evaluators must remain distant and purely objective, the field is now beginning to realize the importance of an inclusive model for evaluation. We expect to capitalize on the expertise of our evaluators by (1) learning more about how to use and incorporate data into our work and (2) informing our policy decisions with the best quality data available (Grob, 2006). In order to benefit from a learning orientation approach to evaluation, however, it is essential to have high quality data that are available in a timely manner. Bernhardt (1998) stressed that comprehensive school-wide improvement activities are dependent on data that address the interactions among and between stakeholders, stakeholder perceptions, the actual intervention, and the results. Guskey (2000) stressed the importance of measuring the impact of professional development on student learning. These processes and impacts are illustrated in the DE SPDG Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant 97
logic model. The model is designed to demonstrate the causal linkages between project objectives, the organizations and individuals working together to achieve this goal, and the short- term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes associated with each initiative. Our intent is to ensure that policy enables practice and practice informs policy. To do this, the external evaluator will submit quarterly reports to project management, documenting the amount and type of PD provided, as well as incorporating any available ongoing performance feedback. These reports will be based on feedback from formal PD opportunities; surveys/interviews with teachers, administrators, families, IHE faculty, DDOE personnel; and informal data collection opportunities. The quarterly reports will be aggregated to form the basis of the SPDG APR. Annual reports will summarize the formative data from throughout the year and provide annual summative and cumulative data.