1. U.S. Department of Education, H325A120003
Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities by Improving Teachers’ Opportunities to Learn
U.S. Department of Education, H325A120003

2. Disclaimer
The contents of this webinar were developed under a cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, H325A  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.

3. CEEDAR Center Leadership Partners Mary Brownell, Director
Paul Sindelar and Erica McCray, Co-Directors
Meg Kamman, Project Coordinator
American Institutes for Research
University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning
Council of Chief State School Officers
Major organizations
New Teacher Center, Goodlad Institute for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington
Senior advisors
I want to introduce some of the key people that are involved in the Center. AIR and KU. We also are working with the key professional organizations. New Teacher Center and Goodlad Institute for Educational Renewal. In fact, Lynn Holdheide and Amy Elledge, our colleagues from AIR are joining us and may be helping to answer questions in the chat box.
Project Officers: Dr. Bonnie Jones and Dr. David Guardino

4. Objectives Describe CEEDAR approach to reform
Describe why partnerships are important to the change process
Discuss how two statewide partnerships (GA and OH) are providing the foundation for complex teacher and leader education change

5. End of presentation
What are two ideas you learned today that you would like to explore further in your state?

6. CEEDAR’s Mission
To create aligned professional learning systems that provide teachers and leaders effective opportunities to learn how to improve and support core and specialized instruction in inclusive settings that enable students with disabilities to achieve college and career ready standards
Our mission is to help states improve learning opportunities for teachers and leaders. If we are going to do this, we have to focus on the broader systems that will be carrying out the change.
This is a tall order because it usually involves multiple organizations, SEA, preparation providers, local districts, professional standards boards, and ultimately university governing boards.

7. Effective Systems Change
Clarity about changes needed
Policy structure that supports desired change
Influencers within and across institutions
Implementation supports
Evaluation mechanism
CEEDAR is a project about systems change. It is premised on the belief that effective systems change depends on these five things. I will talk about each of these before turning it over to Debbie and Sue to discuss further.
Fixsen, Blasé, Metz, Van Dyke (2013)

8. Effective Systems Change (part 2)
Clarity about changes needed.
These should be based on needs of the state and on analysis of the needs of students with disabilities and the teachers and leaders working with them.
Can your beginning AND experienced teachers provide effective instructional support in general and special education? How do you know? Can they collaborate to do this? How do you know? Can leaders support their efforts to work and learn together? Are they learning what they need in preparation to provide these supports?

9. Effective Systems Change (part 3)
Policy structure that supports desired change
Policies that support desired changes is foundational.
Do the policies encourage general and special education teachers and building leaders to have the sorts of knowledge and skills they need for providing students with disabilities appropriate support in inclusive schools?
Policies can provide a direction for change, BUT . . .

10. Effective Systems Change (part 4)
Influencers within and across institutions
Policies can provide a direction for change, but persons implementing the change must be convinced that the change is necessary and have the resources to carry it out,
so as you approach the change process, you need to think about who the influencers will be that will carry the reform forward. Sometimes, these are not the most central actors.
Harris, she talks about collective capacity building. Fullan talks about picking the right drivers for whole system reform (for bullet 3)
Fullan, speaks about large scale reform
Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx & Soloway (2000); Fixsen, Blasé, Metz, Van Dyke (2013)

11. Effective Systems Change (part 5)
Quality implementation of research-based strategies
We need clarity about changes, supportive policies, influencers and effective implementation supports if we are to achieve desired changes.
In many cases, programs fail to achieve their intended outcomes when implementation supports are insufficient and pushback on the change is strong; whereas program impact is much higher when there are more effective implementation supports and a receptiveness to the change (Durlak & Dupre, 2008).  

12. Effective Systems Change (part 6)
Tiered assistance
Individual
Intra- agency
Interagency
to acquire knowledge and skills for achieving the desired changes to preparation, you need to think about implementation at each of these levels – and the influencers you need at level one and two.
What supports and partnerships are needed at each of these levels. Professional standards boards, departments of education, preparation providers, and school districts must agree on what they want new teachers to know.
Within preparation programs, there must be some common goals and agreement about strategies to use if we are going to create more inclusive preparation for general education, special education and leaders.
Individuals in the system need the knowledge, skills and support to enact the change.

13. Effective Systems Change
Mechanism for evaluation and refinement
These evaluation systems are embedded across the system and aligned to the needs of state, preparation programs, and individual teachers and leaders (see Fullan, 2001, p. 21; Weick, 1976)
On page 21, He named development and professional agencies: assessment accountability units and strenghtening of institutions for training educational personnels. Point being, these agencies cut across state departments, universities, regional and various entities and this is exactly what CEEDAR is doing or CEEDAR's leverage.

14. State Leadership Teams
CEEDAR uses state leadership teams and IHE teams to ensure that the influencers of reform are at the table. Must be empowered to make strategic decisions in policy and practice

15. TA Tools Innovation Configurations
Course Enhancement Modules on Evidence-Based Instruction
Reports
(e.g., Practice-based preparation)
We will translate the evidence into tools that IHEs, States and LEAs can use collaboratively
Ics that help IHEs analyze the content of their curriculum and the ways in which they are teaching and supporting teacher and leaders’ acquisition of that content and evidence-based practices to enact that content.
The Course Enhancement Modules are designed to provide a road map for how teacher educators might model using evidence-based practices for teaching the sort of content that will enable SWDs to achieve college and career ready standards.
A similar module or set of modules will be created for leaders.
CEEDAR is providing some resources for consultants who can provide time limited PD to assist with specific issues, such as educator preparation evaluation, helping leader educators to teach candidates about effective multi-tiered instruction
State leadership team which is the vehicle for aligning policies and improving educator preparation practice.
Access to PD for State Teams
Policy tools

16. Georgia and CEEDAR: A Collaborative Partnership

17. CEEDAR- GA project
The CEEDAR-GA Project is a partnership between the Georgia Department of Education, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission, educator preparation programs, and local education agencies collaborating to develop teachers and leaders who can improve Georgia’s future by graduating ALL students who are ready to learn, ready to live and ready to lead. .

18. CEEDAR-GA Project (cont.)
The CEEDAR/Georgia partnership leverages the power of existing initiatives to address goals in teacher and leader preparation reform, certification, and educator preparation evaluation

21. Georgia Contacts Debbie Gay dgay@doe.k12.ga.us Karen Wyler

22. ohio and CEEDAR: A Collaborative Partnership

23. The Compact serves as an advisory body regarding issues related to the preparation of qualified providers for students with disabilities and other at-risk learners
History and development of the compact .
Goals:
improving the system of preparation and ongoing support for professionals who work with children and youth receiving special education services
Identifies gaps and potential strategies for addressing such gaps in personnel preparation and development
Sets parameters for and supports research and demonstration projects around critical issues and priorities
Assists OEC in increasing, where appropriate, the supply of qualified providers
Monitors and takes steps to maintain an ongoing positive working relationship with all approved personnel preparation programs in Ohio, serving as a bridge between OEC and higher education faculty and, at the same time, soliciting feedback from faculty on critical issues, and advising OEC on issues that impact teacher and administrator preparation.
Inclusive preparation programs

24. The focus - promote shared understanding and implementation of effective practices that contribute to improved results for all children and youth in Ohio. While primarily focused on strategies that build the capacity of the P-16 system to improve outcomes for children and youth with disabilities and other marginalized groups of learners, the Compact promotes collective conversation among representatives from higher education, districts and their schools, regional technical assistance provider agencies, state agencies, and professional associations around problems of practice that affect the pre-service preparation and ongoing professional development of teachers, principals, superintendents, and related services providers.
Promotes shared understanding and implementation of effective practices that contribute to improved results for all children and youth

25. Leveraging National Support and Resources
CEEDAR
Facilitation of Steering Committee – Development of “Blueprint” – Design & Implementation
Models for dual licensure
Support to 3 Innovative Grant IHEs
National Supports:
Teacher Preparation programs

26. Ohio Dean’s Compact for Exceptional Children
ODE and ODHE
Professional Associations: Teachers, Administrators, Ex Officio
IHE Deans, Chairs, and Faculty
Membership
CEEDAR Leadership Team

27. Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children
Incentive Grants
Low Incidence
Conference
Policy C O M I T E S

28. Teaching and Supporting All Ohio Learners
Incentive Grants
Merged and Blended Program Development
School Administrator Preparation - Redesign
Simultaneous Renewal
Navigating the collaboration, planning, reorganization and options …
Merged and blended program development – 14 awards
School Administrator Prep redesign – 3
Simultaneous Renewal - 2

29. Moving Forward … Implementation of dual licensure preparation programs
A higher education consortium for preparation of teachers of students who are blind or low vision
Proposal for changes to Ohio’s Teacher Licensure

30. Ohio Contacts Sue Zake sue.zake@education.ohio.gov Deborah Telfer

31. Questions What interested you most about the GA and OH work?
What are two ideas you learned today that you would like to explore further in your state?
What part of our TA effort would be most useful for assisting reforms in your states, particularly as they relate to your State Systemic Improvement Plan?