Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. SPDG Program Lead Audrey Desjarlais SIGNetwork Lead October 25, 2011

 Welcome & Introductions (JC)  Project Sharing (JC)  Opportunities to Learn and Share (AD)  PLC Topics  Information Dissemination/Listservs (AD)  Website Resources (AD)  Technology Initiative (AD)  SPDG Requirements (JC)  Resources (JC)  Project Management (JC)  Logic Models & Performance Measures (JC)  Evaluation Plans (JC)

 SPDG Project Officers  SPDG Project Directors and other personnel  Project Sharing

 Monthly Webinars – “Directors’ Calls”  Evaluator Community of Practice  Resource Library  “Regional Meetings”  Project Director’s Conference  PLC’s

Affinity Group - Low Incidence Behavior/School Climate Coaching Leadership Development, IHE Collaboration, Capacity Building and Restructuring Evaluation Family Engagement Grant Management Implementation Conversations Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tiered Models of Intervention Scaling Up & Comprehensive & Systemic Professional Development Approaches Secondary Education Transition (includes Adolescent Literacy) Technology

1. Go to: Type in the password: sig 3. Complete all the registration fields. 4. Select the topical PLC groups you are interested in joining. Within 1-2 days of completing the form, you will receive a confirmation from Leslie Crysler that your account has been approved and you can login to the wikis.

- Listservs: Directors, Evaluators, General Community (Sigserve) - PLC Membership lists - Week and Day prior reminders

“Tell me and I'll forget. Show me, and I may not remember. Involve me, and I'll understand.” ~Native American Saying

New Events Calendar is Live – Details on all our PD events – PLC sessions, Implementation Conversations, Directors’ Webinars, Evaluators’ Events, Reporting Guidance and Bidders’ Webinars!

Resource Library is LIVE! Includes links, materials, resources, and information from SPDG grantees and National OSEP funded TA&D Centers.

We need your feedback!

 49 Respondents  76% state grantee response rate (35 of 46 funded state grantees)  Included evaluators, directors, and coordinators  Representation: 25 – state departments, 4 – IHEs, 6 - independent contractors, 5 - unknown

 Develop online training modules  Evaluate activities and programs (includes conduct needs assessment)  Setup online habitats for collaboration/communication  Provide TA, consultation, coaching, and mentoring  Manage data (including collection, analysis, reporting)  Knowledge Management - disseminate news/info

 Learning Management Systems  Web conferencing  Online meetings spaces  Podcasts  Collaborative Document Editing  Learning Modules  Multiuser Virtual Learning Environment (Second Life)  Online surveys  Project Management  Rapid e-learning modules  Wikis

 Resource/information repositories  Video conferencing  Media sharing sites  Mobile device technologies  Blogs  Social Networking  Vidcast  Threaded discussions  Vlogs  Video  Text-based live chat

To assist the SPDG Program and SPDG projects in integrating emerging technologies to: › provide training, coaching, and professional development and technical assistance in a more efficient and cost-effective way. › collect, manage, and display data more easily to make scientifically based decisions. › collaborate and communicate more effectively efficiently support the use of innovations in the LEAs. › ensure access to rural areas and students with disabilities. › disseminate news and information in timely ways and in accessible formats

 Host and facilitate the Technology PLC  Host just-in-time application training  Utilize or present information about technology applications on scheduled professional development events  Utilize website collaborative tools  Disseminate annual survey (May 2012 and 2013) to assess progress

 By June 2012, 50% SPDG project Directors, Coordinators, Evaluators will have received training in technology through the SPDG Program.  By June 2013, 75% of SPDG project Directors, Coordinators, Evaluators will have received training in a technology through the SPDG program.  By September 2012, 30% tested, adopted, or implemented an emerging technology presented on one of the technology PD events.  By September 2013, 50% tested, adopted, or implemented an emerging technology presented on one of the technology PD events.  By September 2011, the Tech Focus Workgroup will have used feedback from the new technology users to improve the SIGNetwork’s use of technology.

December 2, 2:00-3:00pm ET Topic: Effective Information Dissemination approaches Presenter: Elaine Mulligan, Director, National Dissemination Center January 26, 2:00-3:00pm ET Topic: Resource/Information Repositories: Cloud Computing - Social Bookmarking. Googlle docs, Evernote, Presenter: Shirley Farrell, Alabama March 22, 2:00-3:00pm ET Topic: Online Coaching Presenter: Dr. Pam Howard or Dr. Marcia Rock, Alabama May 24, 2:00-3:00pm ET Tentative Topic -- Rapid E-learning Module program Cari Murphy, Idaho

 Must contract with a PTI or a CPRC  Must contract with an IHE & an LEA  Must spend 90% of your budget on professional development  Your main purpose must be to serve individuals with disabilities  Must attend the OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting  Must give $4,000 to Signetwork

 Must contract or subgrant with a PTI or a CPRC › Mandatory  Recommended that › Use good contracting practices › Communicate regularly and ensure all understand expectations › Track progress with implementation and outcome data – working together toward at least 1 of your SPDG’s objectives › When applying for a new SPDG, meet with your PTI/CPRC (or both) to discuss the work you might do together

 It provides us with an avenue for receiving parent input; disseminating information, resources and training to parents; and increasing parent involvement in their child's education.  We value the insights our Parent Center provides and use their feedback to adjust practices so that parents are more engaged in their children's education. They provide a perspective we wouldn't otherwise have. They, also, are a tremendous asset to the project through their development of parent materials and professional development. The professional development they provide for parents is the bridge between parents and the work within the project.

 One of the greatest strengths is the desire, of both organizations, to provide family members with high quality, meaningful professional development to strengthen their ability to advocate, not only for their own children, but for all children. The collaboration is built on mutual respect and the shared vision of building meaningful family involvement in the schools and districts in our state.

 The relationship in the past has been strained, but through our conversations with the new SPDG proposal, we have turned a corner and I am hopeful we can have a true partnership going forward.  Our PTI is well connected with families across the state, they work well with our office and are willing to participate to help improve achievement for SWD. The PTI has recently been more involved and has brought in a national parent engagement expert. We are working to build from this Epstein work and bring those components of parent engagement into our SDPG work.

 Didn't fund them at the same level as other partners so PTI is not able to be at the table for all conversations. Overcoming entrenched idea by school districts that family engagement is an add on after they have perfected their process - okay to involve families in development  Regarding collaboration, there are not many challenges as our PTI is very responsive and collaborative. It's getting the work done and the systems in place that sometimes delay other activities to occur or move forward.

 Keeping collaborative efforts aligned with the multiplicity of educational initiatives in the state; occasional conflict on perspectives of how grant funds and activities are to be carried out and perceptions of how the other PTI activity is aligned with grant objectives.  We need to schedule more time for face to face collaboration, and plan to do so in the future.  Matching grant needs with expertise in the PTI/CPRC

 SIGnetwork- perhaps build some networking/PD sessions that the SPDG and PTIs are required to attend/participate in together.  The requirement of the SPDG for the SEA to partner with the PTI is a topic that needs to be addressed. The feeling that I have gotten when it is raised is that regardless of the PTI's position, it is the SEA's responsibility to make the relationship work….  Continue to share ideas about examples of collaborative efforts.

 Clarify role of PTI. Emphasize cooperation, communication, collaboration with both SEA and LEAs. Deemphasize advocacy/adversarial role.  Perhaps some joint webinars regarding what other SPDG projects are doing around parent and family collaboration would be helpful.

 No-cost extensions  Personnel changes  Continuation Reports  Carrying out the activities in your application

 What organizations support your work? › ›  Federal Resources › Ed.gov › Idea.ed.gov

 ED Grants Management Training and Resources Website grants.ed.gov/training/index.htmhttp://e- grants.ed.gov/training/index.htm › This training provides instruction and resources for Project Directors of ED discretionary grants. The purpose of this training is to provide an overview of the major responsibilities grantees have when undertaking a project funded by ED.  ED, Office of Chief Financial Officer Website. grants/grants.html › Resources and online guides to support the administration and performance of ED grants.

 G5: › G5 gives Project Directors the ability to submit administrative changes to their grants. The following changes are available: DUNS/SSN, address, key personnel, Project Director name and address, dates (no-cost time extensions), certifying representative, and others.  For answers to G5 questions: wEAW_hS_YbSkVjjVCuyqtoq2GC- nBGIKCB- P3K3p23nHeQAufjfHVX- Ozn8Z4gzO0stuvdSBVIGprFXITahFqxhE5nOZCdkXlG5d uDt5muwwJHS2OJNL58fXWc V8JYiyXJUMujVhuA6FepT- Pf1AI1kz3CzyGoclVkrwBzewtjA!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt 3QS9ZQnB3LzZfNUkxVVEzS1N VRjdKRDBJQUowVjc4ODEwMDc!/

 EDGAR – Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) › Federal guidelines that provide rules regarding grant management. › Example sections include: Change in key personnel (see EDGAR § and 80.30); Part 75 of EDGAR, and specifically permit grantees to: extend grants automatically at the end of a project period for a period of up to one year, make transfers of funds among budget categories without prior approval, except for a limited number of specified cases, and carry funds over from one budget period to the next.  OMB Circular A tml This circular only applies to educational institutions and offers cost principles for educational institutions. This Circular establishes principles for determining costs applicable to grants, contracts, and other agreements with educational institutions

To view the SPDG Regional Meeting Materials go to:

 Models of and Evaluating Professional Development › Date: January 12, 3:00-4 :30pm ET › Speakers: Julie Morrison, Alan Wood, & Li Walter (SPDG evaluators)  SPDG REGIONAL MEETINGS › Topic: Evidence-based Professional Development

 Innovation Fluency › Date: March 24, 3:00-4:30pm ET › Speaker: Karen Blase, SISEP  Professional Development for Administrators › Date: April 19, 3:00-4:30pm ET › Speakers:Elaine Mulligan, NIUSI Leadscape › Rich Barbacane, National Association of Elementary School Principals  Using Technology for Professional Development › Date:May 18, 2:00-3:30pm ET › Speaker: Chris Dede, Ph.D., Learning Technologies at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education

Go to the Home Page to link each webinar segment:

Evidence-Based Intervention Practices  Insert your SPDG initiative here Evidence-Based Implementation Practices  Professional Development  Staff Competence: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment Drivers  Adult learning methods/principles  Evaluation 39 Two Types of Evidence-Based Practices

40 H OW ?

 Training must be … › Timely › Theory grounded (adult learning) › Skill-based  Information from Training feeds back to Selection and feeds forward to Coaching SelectionTraining Coaching (Blase, VanDyke, & Fixsen, 2010) 41

 Design a Coaching Service Delivery Plan  Develop accountability structures for Coaching – Coach the Coach!  Identify on-going professional development for coaches Coaching Performance Assessment Training (Blase, VanDyke, & Fixsen, 2010) 42

 Must be a transparent process  Use of multiple data sources  Fidelity of implementation should be assessed at the local, regional, and state levels  Tied to positive recognition  Information from this driver feeds back to Selection, Training, and Coaching and feeds forward to the Organization Drivers 43

 Assess fidelity of implementation at all levels and respond accordingly  Identify outcome measures that are … › Intermediate and longer-term › Socially valid › Technically adequate: reliable and valid › Relevant data that is feasible to gather, useful for decision making, widely shared and reported frequently 44

 The Program Guide articulates a comprehensive set of practices for all stakeholders. 45 Implementation PracticesIntervention Practices Initial Training Team-based Site-level Practice and Implementation Implementation Rubric facilitates self-eval Ongoing Coaching Booster Trainings Implementation Rubric reflection on next steps The 5 Steps of ERIA Data-informed Decision-making Screening and Assessment Progress Monitoring Tiered Interventions and Learning Supports Enhanced Literacy Instruction

 Take the Logic Modeling and Performance Measure Training › The Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) at Indiana University has created two Voice-over PowerPoint presentations for OSEP: (1) How to create and use logic models, and (2) How to create high quality objectives and performance measures. For training on modules, see - e

 Performance Measurement 1: Projects use evidence-based professional development practices to support the attainment of identified competencies.  Performance Measurement 2: Participants in SPDG professional development demonstrate improvement in implementation of SPDG-supported practices over time.

 Performance Measurement 3: Projects use SPDG professional development funds to provide follow-up activities designed to sustain the use of SPDG- supported practices. (Efficiency Measure)  Performance Measurement 4: Highly qualified special education teachers that have participated in SPDG supported special education teacher retention activities remain as special education teachers two years after their initial participation in these activities.

 Will not be using the new program measures: › 2007 grantees  Everyone else will have 1 year for practice › This continuation report will be a pilot  OSEP will learn from this round of reports and make changes as appropriate  Your feedback will be appreciated