serc.coserc.co/Ed Benefit program eval/SERC program eval 4 da… · Web viewsTATE eDUCATION rESOURCE cENTER. A Program Evaluation of SERC’s Individual Education Program (IEP)

DRAFT 8/16/09

STATE EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

A Program Evaluation of SERC’s Individual Education Program (IEP) Professional

Development SeriesDesigning Standards-Based IEPs for

Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum

Draft Date: 8/16/2009

This program evaluation was conducted on SERC’s 2008-2009 professional development series entitled, “Designing Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum.” Four districts sent selected representatives to this four-day training. Three of the teams consented to participate in this program evaluation. The evaluation examined the immediate responses of participants regarding the training content and design using the participant evaluations. Three interviews were conducted after the professional development experience to determine how the participants felt about the experience and to determine how they used the information. Product reviews were conducted on sample IEP goals and objectives. Teams provided sample written prior to the training and samples written after the training. The pre-post analysis of these samples was conducted to examine the change that occurred in the writing of goals and objectives. participants felt about the experience and to determine how they used the information. Product reviews were conducted on sample IEP goals and objectives. Teams provided sample written prior to the training and samples written after the training. The pre-post analysis of these samples was conducted to examine the change that occurred in the writing of goals and objectives.

1

DRAFT 8/16/09

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................4

Purpose...................................................................................................................................................4

Evaluation Questions...............................................................................................................................4

Professional Development Content and Design..........................................................................................5

Background..........................................................................................................................................5

Linking to Student Outcomes..............................................................................................................5

The Content Components of the Professional Development..............................................................6

Participant Learner Objectives...........................................................................................................10

METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................11

Participants............................................................................................................................................12

Procedures............................................................................................................................................12

Data Collection..................................................................................................................................12

Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................13

RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................16

Participant Evaluations..........................................................................................................................16

Overall Analysis.................................................................................................................................16

New Learning.....................................................................................................................................21

Organization of Materials..................................................................................................................21

Using a Case Study.............................................................................................................................22

Effectiveness of Presenters................................................................................................................24

Specific Content and Tools................................................................................................................25

Reported Application of Content.......................................................................................................30

Interviews..............................................................................................................................................33

Beneficial Aspects..............................................................................................................................33

Potential Changes..............................................................................................................................36

New Learning.....................................................................................................................................37

Potential Changes in Practice............................................................................................................38

Quality of IEP Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................39

Analysis of General Education...........................................................................................................39

2

DRAFT 8/16/09

Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................................40

Participant Reactions.........................................................................................................................40

Impact of Professional Development.................................................................................................40

CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................40

Lessons Learned....................................................................................................................................40

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................40

Potential Future Study...........................................................................................................................40

RESOURCES................................................................................................................................................40

3

DRAFT 8/16/09

INTRODUCTION

Connecticut’s State Education Resource Center (SERC) has created a professional development

series entitled Designing Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education

Curriculum, which targets changes in thinking and practices associated with IEP development and

implementation. This program evaluation has been conducted by SERC to examine how participants

react and use the content shared in this professional development experience.

Purpose

Since SERC receives its primary funding from the Connecticut State Department of Education

(CSDE), it has a responsibility to provide information regarding the impact and progress of the

programming it provides. It is difficult to determine any causal relationships between professional

development and impact on student outcomes due to the many complex and interconnected

relationships among variables within a school. Therefore, the nature of any program evaluation is to

collect a body of evidence that can be sufficiently used to make informed decisions regarding the impact

of the professional development (Guskey, 2002). The purpose of this program evaluation is to examine

the reaction of participants regarding the content and design of the professional development and to

determine the impact of SERC’s professional development on the quality of IEP goals and objectives.

Evaluation Questions

This evaluation will examine SERC’s professional development training series by exploring two

overarching questions.

1. What are the reactions of participants to the design and delivery of SERC’s

professional development?

a. What do participants value as beneficial about the training?

b. What recommendations for changes do participants have for the future design of

the professional development?

2. What impact did the professional development have on the practice of writing IEP

goals and objectives?

a. What new learning did participants obtain through the professional development

experience?

4

DRAFT 8/16/09

b. Was there a change in the quality of IEP goals and objectives written by the teams of

participants who attended SERC’s professional development?

Professional Development Content and Design

Background

There are many procedural requirements required under IDEA in the development of IEPs. As a

result completion of IEPs can seen by families and educators as checking off a list of items rather that

the development of instructional design for improving student performance. (U.S. Department of

Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002). The Commission on Excellence in Special

Education (2002) report emphasizes the need to shift IEPs from procedure compliance to an

instructional plan for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special

Education Programs, 2002). SERC’s design for professional development regarding the development of

IEPs focused on shifting the paradigm from a legal “paperwork” perspective to IEPs being an

instructional tool to provide high quality general education to students with disabilities.

Linking to Student Outcomes

Effective professional development links directly to student outcomes (Guskey, 2000). SERC has

linked this professional development to specific goals defined by the P.J., ET AL. V State of Connecticut,

Board of Education, ET AL. (1993) and the Connecticut State Performance Plan (SPP). The following are

the selected goals from the P.J. ET Al Settlement Agreement and the SPP that are targeted in this

professional development series.

Goals from the P.J. ET AL Settlement Agreement

Goal # 1 An increase in the percentage of students with mental retardation or intellectual disability who are placed in regular classes, as measured by the federal definition (i.e., 80 percent or more of the school day with nondisabled students)

Goal# 3 An increase in the mean and median percentage of the school day that students with mental retardation or intellectual disability spend with nondisabled students

Goal # 4 An increase in the percentage of students with mental retardation or intellectual disability who attend the school they would attend if not disabled (i.e., “home school”)

5

DRAFT 8/16/09

Goals from CT’s SPP

Indicator# 3 Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments

C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards

Indicator# 5 Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day;

The Content Components of the Professional Development

“Consider children with disabilities as general education children first.” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002, p. 9)

Decision-Making Values that Promote LRE

The literal translation of LRE discussed the notion that students with disabilities should be

educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Examining LRE using

only this simple phrase fails to embody the full intention of the law. The full statement on the LRE

provision in IDEA, 2004 highlights a critical step in the decisions made regarding the placement of

children with disabilities. The law requires that the removal of children with disabilities from general

education “occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in

regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (U.S.

Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2006a). This statement implies a few

critical concepts in regards to LRE. First that general education is the first placement option that should

be considered for all children. Second that special education supports and services can be provided

within the general education setting as part of the first placement option. Third that there is rationale

provided as to why a removal from general education is necessary that uses hard evidence that child

with disabilities cannot be or is not successful in the general education setting.

There two foundations of thinking which can promote the proper decision-making process on

LRE for children with disabilities: the concept of least dangerous assumptions developed by Donnellan

(1984) and only as specialized as necessary developed by Giangreco (2001). Least dangerous

assumptions are assumptions that believe that all students can be a fully contributing member of a

larger community therefore that assumption will lead to greater opportunities for students to

6

DRAFT 8/16/09

participate in the larger community. This assumption will lead teams to examine ways to create

opportunities for interactions between children with disabilities. Only as specialized as necessary is a

value that assumes supports already exist in general education and those supports should be used

before moving beyond general education to provide additional supports and services. The amount and

intensity of these supports are based on the level of need. (Giangreco, 2001) SERC’s professional

development uses these two concepts as the underlying principles for decision-making regarding the

placement of a child with disabilities.

“IEPs preserve basic civil rights and promote achievement.” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002, p. 17)

Decision-Making Values that Provide Access to General Education Curriculum

The definition of special education is stated in IDEA 2004 as “specially designed instruction, at

no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability (U.S. Department of Education:

Office of Special Education Programs, 2006).” Specially designed instruction is defined in the Federal

Regulation as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content,

methodology, or delivery of instruction: to address the unique needs of the child that result from the

child's disability; and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet

the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children” (U.S.

Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2006a). These definitions imply that

the intent of the IEP is to be an instructional plan for students with disabilities. The more leading

definition is the one listed in the Federal Regulation which directly connects the child to the general

education curriculum. Therefore any decisions for a child with a disability should result in the child

gaining access to general education rather than the removal of general education. This concept is

critical in the development of SERC’s professional development and is embedded across the various

tools and content of the training.

Educational Benefit

Hendrick Hudson Dist. BD. OF ED. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) has outlined a two pronged

test to assess FAPE for an IEP: the procedural compliance; and the substantive prong, which focuses the

IEP on the educational benefit that child can receive from the IEP. (Bates, 1996; Drouin, 2004) The

procedural requirements are defined by IDEA 2004 in section 614 (d). However; the assessment of the

7

DRAFT 8/16/09

educational benefit derived from an IEP is difficult to do given the individual variances and contexts of

IEPs.

The California Department Education has developed a process by which it can monitor the

educational benefit within an IEP. The Educational Benefit Review Process is a process that allows

educators to reflect on the quality aspects of an IEP. The Educational Benefit Review Process takes

approximately 2 to 3 hours to complete. Districts or schools select a three year cycle of annual reviews

to examine individually and comprehensively. There is a four step process by which articulates that

examination.

STEP 1 Chart what is recorded in each IEP about the student’s strengths, needs, goals and objectives, accommodations and modifications, services/placement, and progress for the annual reviews in a three-year cycle;

STEP 2 Analyze the relationship and alignment among the student’s identified needs, goals, and services and how they result in progress for each annual review;

STEP Compare progress from year 1 to year 2 and year 2 to year 3 to determine if subsequent changes to goals and services were made based on the results; and

STEP 4 Determine if there are any patterns in the IEP and decide if the IEP was reasonably planned to result in educational benefit (Youtsey, 2006)

SERC’s professional development expanded on this content in two ways. First SERC created

charts that the teams will use to record the information. These charts were specifically designed to

mirror the CT’s IEP form. Second SERC added an additional step which allowed teams to reflect on the

quality of their IEPs beyond the scope of the Educational Benefit Review Process. This step asks teams

several questions related to the items such as the kinds of assessments used in analyzing the student’s

current level of functioning and the quality of the IEP goals and objectives. The Educational Benefit

Review Process is used in the first day of the training. Most of the day is spent on working through the

process and the remaining portion of the day is spent analyzing the results from the reflection and

assisting teams in isolating the areas they should focus on during the remaining days of the professional

development. Thus the Educational Benefit Review Process serves as a basic needs assessment for the

professional development.

Gap Analysis

Analyzing a student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance is the

first step in the development of an IEP. The purpose of that analysis is to understand what specific

8

DRAFT 8/16/09

supports and services a student may need to have access, participation and progress in the general

education curriculum. This analysis should begin with understanding the expectations for ALL students

within the context of general education. These include the learning and environmental conditions that

used to provide instruction for students. Moll (2003) has created a guide that can be used to assess an

individual student’s needs and performance directly aligned with the performance expectations in the

general education curriculum and the instructional conditions within the general education classroom

setting. This method of gap analysis includes an examination of the unique needs of a student that

impact the student’s ability to progress in general education curriculum. The second day of the

professional development is focused on teaching this process.

Levels of Support

Based on IDEA and the work of Donnellan and Giangreco, SERC’s professional development states that

general education curriculum is the starting point of all supports and services. The first examination

begins how supports that exist in general education can be used to meet the needs of an individual

student with a disability. If general education in of itself does not contain the sufficient supports, the

additional supports can be provided. These additional supports operate on a continuum beginning with

accommodations before moving to modification (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000; Stetson, 2002). Additional

instruction or supplemental instruction is also needed to support areas that may be missing skills and

concepts within a student’s repertoire. SERC’s professional development outlines the continuum of

supports as the following:

General education

Supplemental instruction

Accommodations

Modifications

During the morning of the third day of the professional development, SERC defines each of these terms

and uses a tool developed by SERC, referred to as the “Word Bank” to walk teams through the decision-

making process in selecting the appropriate level of supports of a given student.

IEP Goals and Objectives

IEP Goals and objectives outline the specific skills, concepts and strategies that will be learned

over the course of a year. IEP goals and objectives should be written in observable and measurable

9

DRAFT 8/16/09

terms and embed general education curriculum within the context of what is required to address the

specific student needs. SERC’s professional development uses the “Word Bank” to support the writing

of IEP goals and objectives. The first part of the word bank outlines the general education curriculum,

including benchmarks and the specific elements that are present in the typical instruction of a given

general education standard. The second part of the word bank defines the levels of support that could

be used to support a student’s learning needs within the context of general education instruction and

curriculum. When completed this tool provides a bank of words that represent both general education

and special education. It is the intention of this tool that team select words from this bank to write

specific IEP goals and objectives. The afternoon of the third day in the professional development series

is focused on using the word bank to write goals and objectives.

Types of Support and Placement

A critical concept for this section of the professional development is the concept that special

education is a service and not a place. This means special education services can be provided within a

general education classroom. Co-teaching, peer supports, and paraprofessionals all can be provided

within general education classrooms (Stetson, 2002). The decisions that are made by a team in terms of

services and placement are directly derived from the IEP goals and objectives. On the fourth day of the

professional development series, a tool is taught that allows teams to examine these decisions based on

the IEP goals and objectives. Teams examine the specific goals and objectives relative to the typical

general education schedule. Each IEP goal and objective is examined for how and when it can be

addressed in the various general education settings, sometimes even including lunch and specials

(Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005; Stetson, 2002).

Progress Monitoring

An essential part of any IEP is the actual monitoring of student progress on the IEP goals and

objectives. Monitoring student progress can be used to review the quality of the implementation of an

IEP and support revisions that may need to be made. The afternoon of the fourth day of the

professional development is dedicated to outlining the major components of progress monitoring and

teaching teams how to graph and record the progress of a student.

Participant Learner Objectives

Participants will:

10

DRAFT 8/16/09

1. Analyze the gap between the expected performance of ALL students and an individual student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance in general education curriculum to design IEP goals that increase the student’s access, participation, and progress in general education curriculum and settings (Moll, 2003).

2. Use decision-making values that are the “least dangerous assumptions” (Donnellan, 1984) and provide instructional and behavioral supports that are “only as specialized as necessary” (Giangreco, 2001) to enable students access to learning the skills and concepts needed to be successful participants in adult environments and settings.

3. Determine the specially designed instruction that alters general education setting demands or curriculum standards to meet the individual needs of a student.

4. Develop high quality IEP goals and objectives aligned with general education curriculum to increase access, participation, and progress in general education curriculum, classrooms and activities.

5. Use high quality assessment procedures to monitor the student’s progress in relationship to the general education curriculum and setting demands and the student’s progress on IEP goals and objectives.

6. Use decision-making values that are the “least dangerous assumptions” (Donnellan, 1984) and provide services that are “only as specialized as necessary” (Giangreco, 2001) to provide all students with access to the least restrictive environment (LRE).

METHODOLOGY

This program evaluation has selected Guskey (2000, 2002) as a model. There are five levels of

evaluation that is defined by Guskey:

Level 1 Participant reaction to the professional development experience

Level 2 Participant learning of content

Level 3 Organizational support and change for application of learning

Level 4 The use of the knowledge and skills

Level 5 The evaluation of student outcomes

This evaluation explores the participant reactions to the professional development (level 1), the

specific new learning acquired by the participants (level 2), and the change in how IEP goals and

objectives are written (level 4). Due to the short term nature of this professional development

11

DRAFT 8/16/09

opportunity, this evaluation will not explore the change in organizational structures (level 3) nor the

impact on student outcomes (level 5).

The Level1 evaluation will use participant evaluations completed by each participant

immediately after each day of the professional development experience. The Level 2 evaluation will use

both the participant evaluations and interviews conducted with a representative from each team. The

Level 4 evaluation will examine the change in IEP goals and objectives using sets of sample IEP goals and

objectives created by participants prior to the training and after the training.

Participants

The participants in this study are the administrators, general education teachers, and special

education teachers who attended SERC’s the 2008-2009 professional development series for Designing

Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum. These

participants registered for the training as teams of four to five representing either a district or a school.

There were 21 participants that attended the training over the course of the four days. The breakdown

of participants by positions is as follows: (4) four general education teachers, (13) thirteen special

education teachers, (2) two principals and (2) two special education directors. The four teams

represented four small suburban to rural school districts. One district is DRG B, one is DRG F, and two

districts are DRG E.

SERC provided an overview of the study to the main contacts of each team that registered for

the training and used a consent form as part of their program evaluation process. Each participant that

attended the professional development was asked to sign a consent form and the superintendent of

each district was asked to sign verifying that he is aware of his staff’s participation in the study. Consent

from SERC’s study was voluntary and participants were provided with the opportunity to rescind their

consent and withdraw from the study at any point. Three of the four teams that participated in the

professional development series agreed to participate in SERC’s study.

Procedures

Data Collection

The participant evaluation was used to asses participant reactions to the training. There were a

series of questions attached to a Likert-type response and three open-ended questions. This study

examined the participants’ reactions to the content, tools, materials, the presenters, and the method for

learning.

12

DRAFT 8/16/09

To further gather information regarding participant reaction and to participant learning,

interviews were conducted within two to three months after the last day of the professional

development. Interviews were held after participants had an opportunity to apply the skills in the

development of new IEPs. Each district was asked to select a member of the team that participated in

the training to be interviewed. Four participants representing the three districts were interviewed.

Each district was interviewed separately. The questions for the interview were generated to examine

the reactions of the participants regarding the training, the new learning the participants felt that

received, and to determine how they participants used the new learning in their practice since the close

of the training.

In addition, the study examines the changes in the quality of writing IEP goals and objectives.

Each team was asked to provide fifteen sample IEP goals with their corresponding objectives that were

written by the participants prior to attending SERC’s professional development and to provide an

additional fifteen IEP goals and objectives written after attending SERC’s professional development. The

samples included reading goals (5), math goals (5), and behavior goals (5). The districts were asked to

provide samples representative of the kind of IEP goals and objectives typically written by the

participants. No student identifiable information or demographics were provided to SERC, including the

disability category. Only the IEP goals and corresponding objectives were submitted for review and no

other components from the IEP were collected.

Data Analysis

Participant Evaluations

Responses for each question from the participant evaluation were recorded. The responses to

each of the Likert-type ratings were analyzed by question. Questions will be grouped into five areas:

overall impression of learning; the organization of the materials; the effectiveness of using a case study;

the effectiveness of the presenters; and the effectiveness of specific content and tools. An overall use of

descriptive statistics will be used to provide the mean, median, and range of responses to each question

on the evaluation and total scores of the evaluation. These statistics will be sorted by each day and each

district. Responses from open-ended questions were analyzed for themes using a basic qualitative

analysis.

Participant evaluations are conducted as part of the close of any professional development.

They are voluntary and anonymous. In this professional development series, the evaluations were

13

DRAFT 8/16/09

collected by team. The evaluations are not identifiable by individual, but they since they were collected

by team, they are identifiable by district. Because collecting participant evaluations are a natural data

collection process of a professional development, in cases when the data is generalized to the full group,

participant evaluation data from all four districts was included. In cases where the data is specially

connected to a district, although still anonymous, the data was analyzed just for the three teams that

chose to participate.

Participant Evaluations: Rated Questions

The questions were analyzed by day, by question, and by team. The evaluations had a total of

six questions that participants were asked to provide a Likert-type rating from 1 to 4. Four of the

questions remain standard across all four days. Two of the questions changed each day and were

specifically connected to the day’s content. Basic descriptive statics were conducted to provide mean,

mode, and the range for each score.

Participant Evaluations: Open-Ended Questions

The participant responses from open-ended questions were analyzed by question by day for

overall themes. Themes were placed into a table by question. Actual quotes from the participant

evaluations were placed in each cell according to the theme.

Interviews

Interviews were transcribed into written format. They were then analyzed for themes for each

question and across questions. The themes from the interviews were compared to the themes

generated from the participant responses. The interviews were analyzed first by question and the as a

whole for common themes among the three sets of interviews. The themes were grouped under four

questions:

• What aspects of the professional development experience did the participants consider beneficial?

• What aspects of the professional development should be examined for future examination in the design of the professional development?

• What did the participants learn from the professional development experience?

• How did the participants change their practice as a result of the professional development experience?

14

DRAFT 8/16/09

Quality of IEP Goals and Objectives

With the focus of the training emphasizing general education curriculum, a word count was

conducted on each IEP goal and its corresponding objectives. The word count was sorted into two

categories: words that represent general education curriculum and setting demands and words that

represent specially designed instruction. The Connecticut Curriculum Frameworks for each of the

subject areas was used for the general education word count and the Connecticut IEP Manual was used

for the special education word count. The two categories were analyzed in terms of a ratio. All of the

data collected on the IEP goals and objectives were analyzed as a whole group, by team and by subject.

Analysis of General Education

IEP goals and objectives were analyzed for the connections with general education curriculum.

The CT Curriculum Frameworks for reading and math were used to conduct a word analysis of the IEP

goals and objectives. Words from the IEP goals and objectives were compared to words located in the

frameworks as either part of the content standards, which are the over arching standards for all

students in CT, or part of the grade level expectations, which are specific articulations of how the

standards look at each grade level from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Each word in the IEP goal and

objective was counted as a single word. Hyphenated words were taken apart and counted as separated

words in an effort to balance the often inconsistent use of hyphens in both the IEPs and the CT

Frameworks. Words such as articles, conjunctions, prepositions, and the subject or student and the

initial verb phrases used to connect the subject (the student) to the goal or objective, such as “will be

able to” or “will improve” were not counted. These words were presumed as irrelevant to the

connections of general education content. Any variation of the word such as a plural or a verb tense

were counted as synonymous. For example, “syllable” and “syllables” as well as “decode” and decoded”

were counted as the same word despite the word changes for plural nouns or past tense in the verbs.

Words used in the IEP goals and objectives must have the same meaning as the words used in the CT

Frameworks to count. For example, if an IEP objective asked for a student to write their personal

“name,” then the use of the word “name” had to have the same meaning in the CT Frameworks to

count.

Analysis of Special Education

IEP goals and objectives were analyzed for the connections with special education or specially

designed instruction. The CT IEP Manual was used to conduct a word analysis of the IEP goals and

15

DRAFT 8/16/09

objectives. Words from the IEP goals and objectives were compared to words located in the IEP Manual

as part of the program accommodations or modifications, which are the types of adaptations that can

be made to support student’s participation and progress in general education. The CT IEP Manual lists

commonly used program accommodations and modifications, although it should be noted that this list is

not exhaustive. Each word in the IEP goal and objective was counted as a single word. The same

principles regarding how to count words, such as hyphenated words, articles, prepositions, verb tenses

and plurals, that were used to count words in the general education analysis, also applied for count

words in the special education analysis.

RESULTS

Participant Evaluations

Overall Analysis

The four standard questions that were provided across the four days were designed to examine

the overall content of the four days and the professional development delivery, which included the use

of a case study, the construction of materials, and the clarity of instructions by the presenters. Two of

the open-ended questions were designed to determine what participants thought were the most

beneficial and the least beneficial portions of the training. Responses were coded and then grouped

into themes by question and by day. Any theme that emerged for a single question for more than one

day was provided as part of the overall analysis of the four days.

Participant evaluations were collected at the end of each day. Participants voluntarily chose to

complete the evaluation and therefore the number of evaluations does not necessarily reflect the full

attendance in the training. The evaluations were left on the table where teams had sat and therefore

the evaluations were collected in such a way that they were able to be identified by teams. The

participant evaluations were coded by district. Since there was not a way to determine which individual

completed the evaluations, none of the data was analyzed by individuals. Data that was analyzed in as a

full group included all participant evaluations. In the case of data analysis which required an

examination by team, only the participant evaluations from the three districts that consented to

participate in the study.

16

DRAFT 8/16/09

Table #1: Number of participant evaluations collected by day for full group and by team

Number of Evaluations

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Total

Full group 18 18 16 14 66

District A 4 5 4 3 16

District B 5 5 4 3 17

District C 5 4 4 3 16

* District D is not reflected in the count for any team analysis

Table #2: Overall mean, mode, and range of total scores of all six questions per day

Per Day Total Scores

Day 1

Educational Benefit Review Process

Day 2

Gap Analysis

Day 3

Levels of Support and Goals/Objectives

Day 4

Types of Support and Progress Monitoring

Total for All Four Days

Mean 3.524 3.685 3.547 3.735 3.618

Mode 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Min 2 3 2 2 2

Table #3: Overall mean, mode, and range of total scores for each of four standard questions across all four days

Per Question Total Scores

Today's content furthered my understanding about IEP

The materials used today were well organized to support the

The case study approach was effective in applying today's

The steps were modeled and thoroughly explained by the

17

DRAFT 8/16/09

development learning learning presenters

Mean 3.62121212 3.651515 3.669231 3.621212

Mode 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4

Min 3 2 2 2

Table #4: Overall mean, mode, and range of total scores of all six questions across all four days per district

Per District Total Scores District A District B District C

Mean 3.713541667 3.732673267 3.875

Mode 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 2.5 3 2

Table #5: Themes of most beneficial across four days

Theme Quotes from Participants

Using a case study • “Working with our student data”• “The case study approach”• “Reviewing our own work”

Time to Talk as Teams • “Having the time to collaborate and talk about this”• “Being able to collaborate with my colleagues on IEPs; analyzing the

information; brainstorming on what we could do to improve the process”

• “Collaboration with our team as well as listening to others”

Support from Presenters “Assistance from [presenters]”

18

DRAFT 8/16/09

“[Presenter] explains things so clearly” “Examples, one-on-one time with [presenters]”

Using Standards “Looking @ the standards” “Breaking down the standard to write goals and objectives”

Themes of most beneficial from single days

Day 1

General Education Teacher Participation in Training

• “As a regular education teacher, the only part in the process of writing an IEP I was ever involved in was attending the PPT, so I have learned more about writing an IEP”

• “Having a regular education teacher perspective”

Day 2

General References of Tools

“The ‘tools’ given to use in developing IEP” “The graphic organizers”

Reflection

“Identifying missing info on IEP and contradictions” “Using different points of view to critique the IEP”

Table #6: Themes from least beneficial across four days


Lack of Clarity “We didn't find out where to go from here. How can we strengthen our IEPs. How do we fix our weakness?”

“I would have liked to have more input from the instructors” “It wasn't that the discussion about the accommodations wasn't

productive; it was that I'm still trying to figure how it would work out logistically”

Critiques of Specific Tools “Gap analysis form”

19

DRAFT 8/16/09

“Struggled with using the word bank, so then it became a chore rather than a user friendly tool”

Pacing too Fast “Needed more time to absorb what was presented” “Need more time on excel -but useful”

Themes of Least Beneficial from Single Days

Day 1

Missing Team Membership in Training

“Missing members of PPT” “I wish our special ed. Director was here. He works K-12 and he really needs this training.”

Construction of Materials

“The questions in step 3/4 were redundant”

Day 3

Use of Examples

“Examples seem to be geared more to elementary level”

Repetition from another PD

“The overlap from the focused monitoring at [hotel]”

Day 4

Review of Skills Already Known

“Graphing - already know how to do excel” “I feel like the IEP stuff was repetitive for me”

20

DRAFT 8/16/09

New Learning

“Today's content furthered my understanding about IEP development”

The first question on each day’s participant evaluation was designed to assess the overall

learning the participants felt they received.

Table #7: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for question #1 per day

Scores for Question #1 per Day

Day 1


Day 2

Gap Analysis

Day 3


Day 4



Mean 3.666666667 3.444444444 3.5 3.25 3.621212121

Mode 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Min 3 3 3 3 3

Table #8: Overall mean, mode, and range of total scores for question #1 across all four days per district


Mean 3.75 3.588235294 3.875

Mode 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 3 3 3

Organization of Materials

“The materials used today were well organized to support the learning ”

21

DRAFT 8/16/09

The fourth question on each day’s participant evaluation was designed to assess the overall organization and user-friendly quality of the materials used in the training.


Scores for Question #4

Day 1


Day 2

Gap Analysis

Day 3


Day 4



Mean 3.555555556 3.444444444 3.625 3.625 3.651515152

Mode 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Min 2 3 3 3 2



Mean 3.8125 3.764705882 3.8125

Mode 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 3 3 3

A participant quote

“The questions in step 3/4 were redundant”

Using a Case Study

“The case study approach was effective in applying today's learning ”

22

DRAFT 8/16/09

The fifth question on each day’s participant evaluation was designed to assess how participants viewed using a case study approach to their learning. Over the course of the four days, six participants listed using a case study as the most beneficial part of the day. These statements appeared in three of the four days.



Day 1


Day 2

Gap Analysis

Day 3


Day 4



Mean 3.666666667 3.444444444 3.5 3.714285714 3.669230769

Mode 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Min 2 3 2.5 3 2



Mean 3.71875 3.823529412 3.9375

Mode 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 2.5 3 3

Participant Quotes

“What was the most beneficial part of the day?”

• “Working with our student data”

23

DRAFT 8/16/09

• “The case study approach”• “Reviewing our own work”• “Using IEPs”• “Using district IEP to review process”• “Case studies”

Effectiveness of Presenters

“The steps were modeled and thoroughly explained by the presenters ”

The sixth question on each day’s participant evaluation was designed to assess how well the presenters provided modeling and explained the different activities and content. There were several themes that emerged from participant evaluations that related to the presenters.



Day 1


Day 2

Gap Analysis

Day 3


Day 4



Mean 3.305555556 3.444444444 3.625 3.75 3.621212121

Mode 4 4 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4 4 4

Min 2 3 2.5 3 2



Mean 3.6875 3.823529412 3.9375

Mode 4 4 4

Max 4 4 4

24

DRAFT 8/16/09

Min 2.5 3 3

Table #15: Themes regarding effectiveness across the four days



Support from Presenters “Assistance from [presenters]” “[Presenter] explains things so clearly” “Examples, one-on-one time with [presenters]”

Table #16: Themes for improvement across the four days

What was the least beneficial?


Lack of Clarity “We didn't find out where to go from here. How can we strengthen our IEPs. How do we fix our weakness?”

“I would have liked to have more input from the instructors” “It wasn't that the discussion about the accommodations wasn't

productive; it was that I'm still trying to figure how it would work out logistically”

Pacing too Fast “Needed more time to absorb what was presented” “Need more time on excel -but useful”

Use of Examples “Examples seem to be geared more to elementary level”

Specific Content and Tools


The Educational Benefit Review Process occurred on the first day of the professional development series. This is a structured reflective process design to help participants reflect on the quality of their IEP development.

25

DRAFT 8/16/09

Table #17: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 and #3 for Day 1: Educational Benefit Review Process

Scores for Questions

Regarding Educational Benefit Review Process

The Educational Benefit Review Process promoted collaborative reflection on the quality of an IEP

The Educational Benefit Review Process assisted in defining specific action steps that can be taken to change practice

Total for #2 & 3


Mean 3.611111111 3.3125 3.470588235

Mode 4 3 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 3 2 2

Participant quotes

• “It exposed many weaknesses”• “Looking at all of the aspect of the IEP over a 3 year period”• “Exploring IEP's and breaking them down. This will help to implement into my IEP writing”• “Dissecting the IEP gave a clearer understanding of what was missing”

Gap Analysis

There was tool designed to help participants determine the specific gaps between the student’s specific needs and the demands of the general education curriculum. There was one question provided in Day 2 to assess the participant reaction of this tool. There was one reference in the open-ended questions that provide some insight into how the tool was perceived.

Table #18: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 on Day 2: Gap Analysis

Scores for the Question Question #3 Day 2: The Gap Analysis promoted a collaborative process to define individual strengths and gaps from a general education perspective

Mean 3.333333333

Mode 4

26

DRAFT 8/16/09

Max 4

Min 3

A participant quote

“What was the least beneficial?” “Gap analysis form”

Word Bank

The Word Bank is a tool designed to help participants use general education curriculum to write IEP goals and objectives. The instruction on this tool occurred on the second and third days of the professional development series. Responses from the open-ended questions on the participant evaluations provided mixed reviews on the use of the Word Bank.

Table #19: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 for Day 2 and #3 for Day 3: Word Bank

Scores for Questions

Regarding the Word Bank

The Word Bank promoted a collaborative process to establish general education standards and benchmarks

The Word Bank promoted a collaborative process to write standards-based IEP goals and objectives

Total for Questions

#2 for Day 2 & #3 for Day 3

The Word Bank

Mean 3.555555556 3.3125 3.61764706

Mode 4 3 4

Max 4 4 4

Min 3 2 2

Table #20: Themes regarding the Word Bank across the four days



Using the Word Bank “The word bank worksheet”

27

DRAFT 8/16/09

“Completing of the word bank”

Unwrapping Standards “Unwrapping the standards”

A participant quote

“Struggled with using the word bank, so then it became a chore rather than a user friendly tool”

Impact and Feasibility Continuums

Two specific tools were designed to help participants evaluate the potential quality of a selected strategy, accommodation, or modification. These tools help them examine the potential impact on learning and the feasibility of integrating the strategy, accommodation, or modification within the general education context. There was one question provided in Day 3 to assess the participant reaction of these tools.

Table #21: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 on Day 3: Impact and Feasibility Continuums

Scores for the Question Question #2 Day 3: The Impact and Feasibility Continuums promoted a collaborative process that evaluates the quality of specially designed instruction

Mean 3.3125

Mode 3

Max 4

Min 2.5

Infused Matrix

There is tool in the field designed to help participants examine the relationship between a student’s IEP goals and the student’s schedule. This tool assists participants in determine places in the general education settings where instruction on the IEP goals can take appropriately take place. There was one question provided in Day 4 to assess the participant reaction of this tool.

28

DRAFT 8/16/09

Table #22: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 on Day 4: Infuse Matrix

Scores for Question Question #2 Day 4: The infused matrix promoted a collaborative process to determine the appropriate placement and services for students

Mean 3.375

Mode 4

Max 4

Min 2

Participant quotes


“Tools (charts) that were comprehensive ways to look at days schedule for me and general education teachers”

“Days schedule for me and general education teachers”

Progress Monitoring

Participants were provided a hands-on opportunity to practice the aspects of progress monitoring. Teams were provided a lap top and guidance on how to use Excel to chart student progress. There was one question provided in Day 4 to assess the participant reaction of this opportunity.

Table #23: Overall mean, mode, and range of scores for questions #2 on Day 4: Progress Monitoring

Scores for Question Question #3 Day 4: The information and practice with monitoring student progress was useful

Mean 3.625

Mode 4

Max 4

Min 3

29

DRAFT 8/16/09

Participant quotes


“Progress monitoring, charting and graphs” “Data manipulation in excel” “Excel demo, using assessments to monitor and evaluate student progress” “Learning how to chart data and discussing the data and the stories; use of matrix to paint a

picture of student’s day assists to see where support is needed”

What was the least beneficial?

“Graphing - already know how to do excel”

Reported Application of Content

There was one open-ended question on the participant evaluation designed to determine how the participants might use the content or tools in their practice. There some specific themes that emerged from those responses. Any theme that emerged for a single question for more than one day was provided as part of the overall analysis of the four days.

As a result of today, what specific changes will you make in your practice?

Table #4: Themes from how participants anticipate use of content and tools across four days


Using Current and Specific Data in Present Level of Performance

“Make sure to collect specific, measurable data.” “Adding more current information into the present level section

(current DRA's vs. same 3 yr scores)” “More specific language for strengths and concerns” “Making sure there is current information/data in the IEP; using data

other than norm reference”

Creating Measurable Goals and Objectives

“Need for more specific baseline data when writing performance criteria for goals/objectives”

“Making sure objectives are measurable” “Consider using ‘tools’ for development with goals and objectives” “Scaffolding of objectives” “Checking dead goals/objectives” “Being more specific with goals and objectives; Examining

environments for specific accommodations and modifications and being specific”

30

DRAFT 8/16/09

Using Progress Monitoring Data

“Create meaningful progress monitoring; - progress on goals and objectives”

“I will examine my data collection practices and incorporate excel into my reporting”

“Examining the data of students to share more effectively during PPTs with parents”

“I feel I will be more prepared for SRBI [CT’s Model for RtI] and monitoring with graphing”

Being More Specific “More specific information in future IEP's i.e. - assessment tools used, progress monitoring etc.”

“Moving forward addressing components in my IEP's very specifically”

“Be much more cognizant of details that are necessary (documentation)”

Ensuring Alignment within the IEP

“Specific present levels, concerns, impact on curriculum, goals/objectives, service/placement, program - all need to mater up.”

“Make sure everything/area is addressed as you go across” “Writing goals and objectives for continuity between strengths,

concerns”

Connecting with General Education Curriculum

“Begin to add my special education modification to the written curriculum”

“Work with Department to develop appropriate ‘benchmarks’ for achievement”

“I will focus more on grade level standards” “Working with special education teachers to make sure that IEP

goal/objectives that are based on student need, not grade level expectations”

General Changes in IEP Development

“Using common language” “Gradually improve our IEP writing process” “Being more aware of how I write goals and objectives and the

performance level!” “Documentation” “Lots-action plan to be determined”

Writing More Specific Impact Statements

“Develop clear impact statements” “More specific in writing impact statements”

31

DRAFT 8/16/09

Themes from Single Days

Day Theme Quotes from Participants

2

Working with Colleagues “Continue to work with staff back at district to improve the IEP writing/PPT process”

“Work more collaboratively w/ special education teacher to write IEP's.”

General Education Teacher Participation

“As a classroom teacher this workshop can make me more involved in the IEP process”

3

Clearer Philosophy “Remember all kids are general education and work from there”

Using the Word Bank “Sitting together and create new goals and objectives using the word bank - (other tools as well for 2) of our students.”

Connecting with Section 504 Plans

“Speak to guidance counselor about rewording accommodations in 504 plans”

4

Using the Infused matrix “I'll make a chart with IEP goals and objective and the day’s classes”

“Teacher sheet with goal/objective from excel, breaks it down nicely”

Effective Use of Paraprofessionals

“Initiate (hopefully) the process for PD for paras” “Examining my students making better use of

paraprofessional to support me or students differently”

32

DRAFT 8/16/09

Interviews

Three interviews were conducted; one for each district. District’s A and C were conducted with a

single representative from the team that participated in the training. District B had two representatives

from the team that participated in the training. All of the interviews were conducted within two to

three months after the last day of the training. The interviews were transcribed and responses were

coded. The first question of the interview was designed to determine why districts chose to come to the

professional development. Two of the districts reported that they noticed many of their IEPs had a lack

of individualization and that goals and objectives were often repeated across several students. One

district reported that the IEP goals were vague and too broad to be helpful. One district was selected by

the Connecticut State Department of Education for a Focus Monitoring visit the previous year. That

district was selected due data suggesting disproportionate suspension practices for students with

disabilities. This district noted that they selected this professional development as one way to address

their Focus Monitoring Plan.

The interviews were analyzed first by question, and then as a whole for common themes among the

three sets of interviews. There were four major ideas that directed the questions used in the interviews:

what worked; what should change; what did participants learn; and what practices changed. After the

interviews were coded, the emerging themes were grouped under four overarching questions written to

capture the four major ideas:

What aspects of the professional development experience did the participants consider beneficial?

What aspects of the professional development should be examined for future examination in the design of the professional development?

What did the participants learn from the professional development experience? How did the participants change their practice as a result of the professional development

experience?

Beneficial Aspects

What aspects of the professional development experience did the participants consider beneficial?

Theme #1: The training provides an opportunity for reflection.

“The most beneficial thing is just to look at ourselves and tell you the truth {it} is the hard thing to do and look at ourselves as to how we are meeting the needs of our individual students.”

33

DRAFT 8/16/09

“It was good opportunity to reevaluate what we were doing.”

Theme #2: Participants felt that the Educational Benefit Review Process as an effective learning

opportunity.

“I think that was most beneficial also was to take the IEPs and break them down to see how we’re having so many disconnects between 5th and 6th grade there’s no behavioral concerns addressed which we knew the student and knew there were major behavioral issues, so why aren’t these being addressed so it helped us to break it all down and you know realize the mistakes we’re making as a district”

“The most beneficial was that first day when we had to put up doing all that writing and we were thinking “what is this?” But after we had to connect all the lines to see the pattern that was an eye-opener because we could clearly see where the gaps were and what we needed to improve in.”

“I really think the educational benefit review is the most beneficial because you really pick a part…that was the day I feel we did the most reflection on practice.”

Theme #3: Unwrapping the standards can help participants clarify and focus the goals for learning.

“I think {it} was helpful when you pull apart the standard…when you’re doing nouns and verbs. We all liked that a lot because kind of made it clear what you should be focusing your goals and objectives on.”

Theme #4: The Infused Matrix helped participants examine supports and services.

“One of my favorite ones was where you implement services and we thought that makes so much sense, and it just such a good opportunity to re think the way we were considering the way we plan programs for kids.”

“We loved the grid about where services could happen because it makes you change the way you think about you know it doesn’t have to be in the learning center it doesn’t have to be in period three, that was great.”

Theme #5: The Word Bank provides direction for teams.

“We were actually going to bring the chart and throw it up on the wall and we were all psyched to do it because it was such a clear connection across. And I think the word bank is the same way you know it just brings you right across instead of searching through a million binders.”

Theme #6: Highlighting the concerns about the overuse of 80% as a performance expectation helped

participants think about how the measure student success.

34

DRAFT 8/16/09

“Because you do get caught up in the 80% thing, but you’re not really thinking about what your measuring or what you should be looking at so that piece was helpful in that respect.”

Theme #7: The use of a case study approach makes the learning authentic.

“You’re producing a products working cooperatively together and it’s a real products”

“I think it also makes the whole process more real because it’s one of our students it’s not a student I don’t know…They are our IEPS and…it makes us realize the mistakes we’re making whereas if it was somebody else’s or got a different districts or however it was done it would kind of be like, they are making the mistake it doesn’t mean we are.”

“I’ve been at workshops where they would hand out case-studies, and hand out test results and come up with an IEP and I found that to be more difficult because you don’t know the student there’s a lot of things that are not on paper.”

Theme #8: The attitude and style of the presenters create a positive atmosphere.

“You’re a very good presenter, you’re engaging and people tend to enjoy…we all had a good time.”

“I think when you’re doing something in a positive way, if you can leave with a positive taste in your mouth you have a more of a chance I guess of getting everybody on the same page and doing some consistent practices.”

Theme #9: Training that occurs over several days can assist in the learning rather than in one-shot.

“I think the fact that it wasn’t a one day shot because I’ve got a year’s worth of one day shot folders you know what I mean. I think the fact that it was over a few days because I think that’s what helped make it stick.”

Theme #10: Requiring participants to come in teams can assist in the learning process.

“I also think that it was very helpful that we went as team because if we didn’t and I had just gone myself I don’t think I wouldn’t have gotten as much out of it”

“We had a general education teacher from the HIGH SCHOOL. She did not know very much about IEPs. I mean I know she taught some special education students; some new students so I think the process for her was important. So somehow bringing in.” “It was huge for her. It was like a revelation.”

Theme #11: Pacing and providing participants the time to practice during the presentation assists in

the learning process.

35

DRAFT 8/16/09

“The pace that you went at was great because it gave us time to do what the assignment you had just given us; then talk about it and you know say ok so how would we do this for this type of student and we were bringing in all different scenarios so it definitely gave us time.”

Potential Changes

What aspects of the professional development should be examined for future examination in the design of the professional development?

Theme #1: The training does not make it clear how to apply the tools and processes to writing

behavioral goals.

“We have more problems when we had another student who had strictly behavioral issues that we found would be challenging to come up with goals and objectives it was harder for us to do that.”

“We focused strictly on the academic and {the} particular student we brought also had some behavioral issues, but we didn’t really address that with goals and objectives. So I think we’re still kind of confused, not confused, but we needed a little more direction on how to be more specific with certain behavioral and how that looks in the process.”

“We did try to use this with the student who had some behavioral and that was hard so we kind of put this form away and pulled out that other form.”

Theme #2: There is a high volume of content that is provided in the training.

“There’s got to be away to streamline it.”

“I was getting a little overwhelmed with all the different – the word banks and all those forms, and I was starting to get a little ‘okay this is great but, it’s too much.”

“You’re biggest improvement could be making it more days, which I know four days is already a lot, but you could do a whole class on this.”

“We didn’t get in depth. It’s still all related and good and there were enough handouts and explanations and information in the PowerPoint you can go back and figure out this is where this form fits in or this piece fits in, but I wouldn’t take anything out.”

“After every training, people would say, well how was it? And my first response would be well it was intense. Because you can’t just sit back during this, you really have to be with it, stay focused, which was our team’s issue. But then I always said it was so worth it.”

Theme #3: The training could benefit from additional in-district follow up.

36

DRAFT 8/16/09

“I love this follow up day. I feel like we could do this every two months on an ongoing basis because it’s such a continual kind of experience and having you come back and bounce things off you.”

Theme #4: Participants like to hear and see what other schools and districts are experiencing.

“I think it would have been helpful to see other districts and see what their gaps were, not to criticize another district, but just to kind of see, good they didn’t have that either, there was a gap there.”

“It also would have been nice to hear other people share, I mean they did share, we had a chance to share, but to kind of look at their charts and go oh yeah you have a circle there too and it’s not connecting.”

“Listening to the other districts talk about their experiences and what they went through and so much analysis on what we did, it was so good.”

New Learning

What did the participants learn from the professional development experience?

Theme #1: The impact statement can help drive the direction of IEP goals and objectives.

“The intention of an impact statement has made a huge impact on how we are looking at writing our goals and objectives now.”

“The impact statement is so important and it’s so easy to fall back to the old generalizations versus specific. Impacts are specific areas and I have to remind myself a lot not to keep doing that.”

“We’ve talked after I think it was our second meeting…and talked about the impact statement and the importance of the impact statement, how they should look and also if there is an impact statement there needs to be accommodations and modifications, there needs to be some sort of hours or behavior plan or something else in place to make it connect instead of just having an impact statement.”

Theme #2: Current and specific data is critical to IEP development.

“I would say my greatest learning from that training was actual present level of performance knowing that I can’t use data from two years ago.”

“We’re not putting enough data on that page which transfers solely to the goal and objective and drives the whole process.”

“With the current performance we have been guilty of keeping the same test scores for the past 2 or 3 years.”

37

DRAFT 8/16/09

Potential Changes in Practice

How did the participants change their practice as a result of the professional development experience?

Theme #1: There is a change in how participants view and write impact statements in the IEP.

“The intention of an impact statement has made a huge impact on how we are looking at writing our goals and objectives now.”

“I’ve been sharing this with my other team members at the middle school of how important it is to make sure that what’s in the impact statement is then transferred into goals objectives accommodations and modification so it’s really breaking them down and you know taking the pieces like we did on the first day and making sure they all align.”

Theme #2: Participants developed a change in how data is collected and used by all members of a PPT.

“The first couple times it was like “You have to be kidding me, I really have to look up this information?” but after the fourth or fifth time, [general education teachers] are like, “alright I’ll get it to you by tomorrow,” so they’ve been great and that part has been really helpful for me because I just you know under current level of performance and I’m just deleting all those test scores and adding in more current information.”

Theme #3: Participants are using the table which defines the three main features of an IEP goal.

“I use [shows sheet with table parts of the goal]. Yes I’ve been using that for every single student. I’ve been doing my goals and objectives to make sure I hit each part”

Theme #4: Participants are using grade level standards in developing IEP goals.

“We’re definitely using the standards more and looking at a grade-level standpoint whereas before I think we were focused so much more on the deficits.”

Theme #5: It takes time to use the tools and write IEPs.

“I’ve definitely taken more time…to base the IEP on the individual students, whereas before we were looking at our standards and getting the standards in there, but it was…every student going into 8 th grade had the same standards coming up so I would try to incorporate the same sort of goals; where now I’m looking at the student rather than the 8th grade curriculum so I’m making that change in my writing of the IEP.”

“The first one, it did take me hours to make sure I had it all there and to collect all my data but it’s really you know it’s slowly getting faster and I’ve got them in my brain.”

38

DRAFT 8/16/09

“I think in reality I have so many IEP’s due that I was just really trying to focus on the more specific goals and objectives.”

“Well it’s time consuming because we’re not pros at it.”

Theme #6: Implementing new skills can be complicated.

“I find myself streamlining stuff.”

“It sounds like it’s so crystal clear when we hear you say something, ‘okay it makes sense, I totally get this,’ but then when you go to do it the first couple times yourself it’s like clear as mud. It seems so crystal while I was there and now that I have to do it this doesn’t quite fit in to what we talked about and I’m not really sure what to do here, so I don’t know.”

Theme #7: Participants use the tools and see them more as mental models.

“I’ve written 3 IEPs using the tools.”

“I liked the fact we’re still using the tools we know where they are we pull them out we refer to them mentally.”

“How to get people to engrain it in their head, so it comes naturally.”

“We re-met as a team and started pulling out some forms and we were like okay here’s the form how can the service be covered.”

Theme #8: Participants are sharing the learning with colleagues.

“I have shared some of these tools with one of the other special education teacher because he’s been coming to me constantly; does this look ok so I’ve shared the tools with him and he’s been using them too I’ve made photo copies”

“I said well you know we’re supposed to collect the data and use the data to drive what we’re doing as baseline and as pre-post”

“I would just tell them that it would strengthen their IEP writing skills in general it will help streamline to focus on the student rather than just get the IEP done.”

Quality of IEP Goals and Objectives

Analysis of General Education

39

DRAFT 8/16/09

Summary of Findings

Participant Reactions

Impact of Professional Development

CONCLUSION

Lessons Learned

Recommendations

Potential Future Study

RESOURCES

Bates, M. W. (1996). The meaning of "educational benefit" following Rowley: a statistical analysis of case law. Brigham Young University Provo, UT

Bowen, S. K., & Rude, H. A. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges with educational reform. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 24-30.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., & Flowers, C. (2006). Assessment of progress in the general curriculum for students. Theory into Practice 45(3), 249-259.

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2008). Strategic School Profiles. Retrieved August 14, 2009. from http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/profiles/index.htm#go.

Connecticut State Department of Education: Bureau of Special Education. (2007). Synopsis of the settlement agreement. Retrieved March 25, 2008. from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/deps/PJ/SA_Synopsis.pdf.

Connecticut State Department of Education: Bureau of Special Education. (2008a). Connecticut Part B state performance plan. Retrieved March 25, 2008. from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/State_Perf_Plan.pdf.

Connecticut State Department of Education: Bureau of Special Education. (2008b). State performance plan brochure Retrieved March 25, 2007. from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/spp_flyer.pdf.

40

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/spp_flyer.pdf

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/State_Perf_Plan.pdf

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/deps/PJ/SA_Synopsis.pdf

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/profiles/index.htm#go

DRAFT 8/16/09

Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 38(2), 6-13.

Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9 (2), 141-150

Drouin, C. (2004). State and local processes for monitoring educational benefit. Paper presented at the Connecticut State Department of Education.

Floyd, D. M., & Bodur, Y. (2005). Using case study analysis and case writing to structure clinical experiences in a teacher education program. The Educational Forum, 70, 48-60.

Giangreco, M. F. (2001, 1/5/06). Guidelines for making decision about IEP services., from http://www.uvm.edu/~mgiangre/

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.

Herreid, C. F. (1997). What is a case? Journal of College Science Teaching 27, 92-94.

Herreid, C. F. (1997/1998). What makes a good case? Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 163-165.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 11(2), 125-130.

Lippitt, M. (2003). Leading complex change: Enterprise Management, LTD.

Lynch, E. C., & Beare, P. L. (1990). The quality of IEP objectives and their relevance to instruction for students with mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education 11(2 ), 48-55.

Moll, A. M. (2003). Differentiated instruction guide for inclusive teaching. New York: Dude Publishing.

National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring. (2004). Evaluation of California educational benefit review process: Summary of focused groups. New Orleans, LA: National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM).

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press, Inc.

41

http://www.uvm.edu/~mgiangre/

DRAFT 8/16/09

Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23 (2 ), 92-105

Stetson, F. (2002). Step by step training for inclusive schools. Paper presented at the State Education Resource Center, CT.

U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). A new era: revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved July 20, 2006. from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/images/Pres_Rep.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved September 7, 2007. from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home.

Youtsey, D. K. (2006). Writing measurable annual goals and objectives: Benchmarks related to California content standards. IEP Online Training Retrieved August 12, 2007, from http://www.calstat.org/iep/2_reading.shtml

Zinkil, S. S. (2004). Differential effects of assessment report type on special educators' recommendations regarding identification of goals and choice of intervention. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida

42

http://www.calstat.org/iep/2_reading.shtml

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/images/Pres_Rep.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/images/Pres_Rep.pdf

Documents

serc.coserc.co/Ed Benefit program eval/SERC program eval 4 da… · Web viewsTATE eDUCATION rESOURCE cENTER. A Program Evaluation of SERC’s Individual Education Program (IEP)