Interview Responses: Job Satisfaction ASD 3 Cohort 1 (16 Participants) 12 (76%) either highly satisfied or satisfied 4 (24%) reported mixed feelings/concerns ASD 3 Cohort 2 (18 Participants) 12 (67%) either highly satisfied or satisfied 6 (33%) satisfied, but have concerns with school administration or school system

Interview Themes: Impact on Current Employment More prepared Increased knowledge and resources Increased knowledge of specific strategies and practices More respected by peers and employers Higher levels of confidence Better able to support others More general opportunities for leadership

Classroom Observations - UCF One hour classroom observation with 10 minute post interview Inter-observer for 50% of observations (Mean IOA = 80%) Participants Pilot Study Project ASD 2 Graduates (16) Project ASD 3 Graduates Cohort 1 (16) Project ASD 3 Graduates Cohort 2 (24) Pre-K through High School Across Activities

Observation Assessment for Teachers Providing Services to Students with ASD (OAASD) Consists of 34 quality indicators rated on a scale of 0 (absent) to 2 (present and being actively used) Originated with a Pepsa (Partnership for Effective Programs for Students with Autism) project Subsequently revised and adopted by Card Centers throughout Florida and endorsed by the FLDOE Administrator’s Guide to Educational Programming for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and narrated PowerPoint tutorial provided to support administrators in using the instrument.

Quality Indicator Ratings (n=24) Factor Percent 0 Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating Mean Score SD Environmental Arrangement 5.9 20.3 73.8 1.68 0.6 Scheduling, Activities, and Intensity 6.8 17.8 75.4 1.69 Instruction and Interaction 0.9 23.8 75.3 1.75 0.5 Core Curriculum Areas 7.1 10.8 82.0 Mean Across Indicators 5.0 18.0 77.0 1.72

Goal Evaluation - UCF IEP Evaluation Rubric 10 components of the IEP are evaluated and scored as 0 for unacceptable, a 1 for development, and a 2 for exemplary Goal Tracking Data Collection Rubric Two samples of data collected for two IEP goals, each selected from a different educational domain, are evaluated and scored as 0 for unacceptable, a 1 for development, and a 2 for exemplary

District Evaluation System Survey Results To what extent do you believe that: Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree The teacher evaluation system in my district is appropriate and relevant for assessing special education teachers. (n=81) 1 (1%) 8 (10%) 9 (11%) 28 (35%) 35 (43%) The teacher evaluation system at my district is helpful for improving my practice as a teacher (n=82) 12 (15%) 16 (20%) 28 (34%) 25 (30%) My score on the teacher evaluation is an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of my teaching. (n=77) 26 (34%) 16 (21%) 15 (19%) 12 (16%) Mean 4.0% 19.7% 17.3% 29.3% 29.7%v

Thank You SDSU - OSEP Personnel Preparation Grants H325A030078 2003-2008 – Hall H325K080108 2008-2012 – Hall & Turan H325K100224 2010-2014 – Kraemer & Hall H325K120162 2012-2017 – Hall & Turan UCF - OSEP Personnel Preparation Grants

Disclaimer The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Discussion Questions What measures are most meaningful for the field? How do we address the need for valid, reliable instruments? How do we acquire the resources to support comprehensive graduate follow-up studies? How can we ensure follow-up study participants are representative of our graduates?