1. CEEDAR 2.0: Where we’ve been and where we’re going
ERICA
Documents provided: CEEDAR 1.0 Review; CEEDAR 2.0 Overview, Q&A document
BEGINNING POLLING QUESTION: We’re excited you’re here. We’d like to know a little about our audience.
What best reflects your primary professional role:
SEA, Professional Standards/Credentialing
Educator Preparation
LEA/School District Personnel
Professional Organization
CEEDAR Center Team
CEEDAR 2.0: Where we’ve been and where we’re going
Wednesday, March 21, 2018

2. Today’s Objectives Provide an overview of the CEEDAR Center
Share accomplishments and lessons learned through CEEDAR 1.0 ( )
Highlight state accomplishments with CEEDAR Center’s technical assistance (TA)
Describe the range of TA services available to states in CEEDAR 2.0
ERICA

3. Core Leadership Team Mary Brownell (UF), Executive Director
Lynn Holdheide (AIR), Director of Strategy & Operations
Erica McCray (UF), Co-Director of Communications & Collaboration
Meg Kamman (UF), Co-Director of TA Strategy & Technology
Lindsey Hayes (AIR), Quality Manager
Shari Ostovar (UF) Project Coordinator
Kaylan Connally (CCSSO), Education Policy & Practice Liaison
Saroja Warner (CCSSO), Education Policy & Practice Liaison
ERICA

4. Our mission statement
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 readiness standards
ERICA

5. CEEDAR 1.0’s Reach *Targeted TA provided to 5 additional states ERICA
The number of program completers is sort of deceiving information. How will we discuss that point?–Potential touch of 70,000+ completers
*Targeted TA provided to 5 additional states

6. CEEDAR 1.0’s Process & Successes
Preparing and supporting teacher and leader candidates to support students with disabilities through:
Deepened collaboration
Alignment in policy and reform efforts
Shared commitment and ownership across special AND general education
ERICA
Shared vision and common goals across SEAs, EPPs, and districts
Strategic plan alignment (e.g. ESSA consolidated plans, State Systemic Improvement Plans, State Equity plans, SPDGs)
CCSSO MTSS and Inclusive Leadership policy documents

7. CEEDAR 1.0 Impact & Outcomes
Developed:
16 Innovation Configurations
8 Course Enhancement Modules
Learning to Teach: Practice- Based Preparation in Teacher Education with the GTL Center
High Leverage Practices for SWDs with CEC
Facilitation guidance to inform the decision-making process in practice & policy reform
ERICA

8. National Partnerships: Development & Dissemination
The Council for Exceptional Children and the Teacher Education Division of CEC co-led an effort with CEEDAR to produce High Leverage Practices in Special Education
The Council of Chief State School Officers and CEEDAR co-developed: Promises to Keep: Transforming Educator Preparation to Better Serve a Diverse Range of Learners and PSEL 2015 and Promoting Principal Leadership for the Success of Students with Disabilities and The National Collaborative on Inclusive Principal Leadership
ERICA
CEC and TED will continue to collaborate to disseminate HLP information and videos, including having CEEDAR support a discussion forum within the TED community.
CCSSO will continue efforts initiated in CEEDAR 1.0 to convene a National Collaborative on Inclusive Principal Leadership designed to promote collaboration and consistency in the
preparation of leaders. This effort will be strategically connected to the larger leadership preparation work supported by the Wallace Foundation.
AACTE will support a NIC focused on special education. This community will support educator preparation faculty leaders to identify exemplars in educator preparation related to special education and inclusion. In collaboration with CEEDAR 1.0 stakeholders, AACTE has supported the creation of a TAG focused in inclusive educator preparation reform.
The Association of Colleges for Teacher Education has collaborated on providing support to Deans to prepare teachers and leaders for special education

9. National Partnerships: Development & Dissemination
The Center on Great Teachers & Leaders and CEEDAR co-developed the Learning to Teach: Practice-Based Preparation in Teacher Education special issues brief and companion rubric
Tom Bellamy, Director of the Goodlad Institute for Educational Renewal (University of Washington, Bothell), developed timely report, Responding to the Need for New Local Special Education Administrators: A Case Study
ERICA
MID-POINT POLLING QUESTION: What types of CEEDAR products & services have you accessed?
Tools like the Innovation Configurations, Course Enhancement Modules, Learning to Teach Guide, or the Promises to Keep Policy Document
Virtual offerings like this webinar
CEEDAR Center facilitated meeting
Professional conference presentations

10. Lessons learned
Commitment and engagement of key players is critical to building and maintaining momentum
Understanding state readiness and appetite for reform takes time and input from various sources
Our TA approach needs to be flexible and responsive to each state context and team
It is important to collect data and track progress consistent with implementation/improvement science
LINDSEY
We could see how helpful it was to spend time working with our state leadership team members to make sure that the people with decision making authority at the SEA and IHE level were at the table. Also, to make sure that the right educator preparation faculty had buy in for the reform.
We learned that it was important to work with our various SLT members to understand better how ready their team is to undertake certain aspects of the CEEDAR reform, and collaboratively work together to develop areas that will allow the reforms to unfold. For instance, identifying if the right people are at the table; identifying if the programs that are most ripe to revise their work are at the table.
If a state had already undertaken licensure, for example, they may not be ready to revisit it for a while.
We were attending to implementation and improvement science before, but we were not as intentional as we wanted to be. Now, we are helping SLT analyze their systems to see what areas may need to be strengthened for their reforms to be sustained and scaled up.

11. The foundation for ceEdar 2.0
LINDSEY
So we used what we learned to try and develop a better foundation and conceptual framework for changes we wanted to make in 2.0
The foundation for ceEdar 2.0

12. MARY
Our conceptual framework for CEEDAR is based on implementation and improvement science. As such, we have six research-based principles that guide the work.
Educators want to engage in reform efforts when there is some evidence that they will result in good outcomes. When we change our educator preparation programs, we should have some reason to believe that teachers and leaders will engage in behaviors that will make them more effective.
Leaders and their support are essential to change.
If too many change efforts are underway and they are not cohesive in terms of aligning with critical goals that everyone understands, the players in the system become confused and suffer reform fatigue
To implement new standards for practice and change what you are doing requires effective opportunities to learn
How people communicate about and collaborate around the reform promotes commitment to it. Friends who are excited about a new product or service tell their friends, and that is why they try it
Greatness hinges on the ability to look inward and carefully critique and analyze practice and then make changes
And, here we have our lovely CEEDAR tree. Our guiding principal of research plays an important role in the nutrients that feed the TA process. The nutrients are the evidence-based practices, the professional standards that help teachers and leaders learn to implement those evidence-based practices, the research that guides how to effective educate teachers and leaders.
We use our collaborative TA process to transport the nutrients into the system while working with states to develop process for inquiring into what they are doing in a systematic way and using what they learn to make changes, our sixth guiding principle. States also need to be able to contextualize the research, which may involve creating their own products and guidance documents to ensure the research is implemented. These TA proceses combined with innovation and inquiry should lead to improved policy and implementation of policy, improved programs which afford teacher and leader candidates with better practice opportunities. Of course these things are not linear, one informs the other. By improving the aspects of the educator preparation system, we should have better teachers and leaders who can improve student outcomes.

13. CEEDAR Goals
Goal 1: Improve SEA (In collaboration with IHEs and LEAs that operate teacher and leader preparation programs) capacity to review and strengthen certification/ licensure standards and requirements. Goal 2: Improve SEA capacity to adopt and implement rigorous program approval standards Goal 3: Increase IHE capacity to embed practices and frameworks that are supported by evidence and aligned to state requirements into preparation programs Goal 4: Increase SEA and IHE capacity to use multiple data sources to inform continuous program improvement Goal 5: Increase SEA capacity to align and implement statewide plans to include certification/ licensure and program reform to improve outcomes for students with disabilities
LINDSEY
The conceptual framework we have developed on CEEDAR should help all of us work collaboratively to achieve five key goals. It is the collaborative nature of the SLT and the commitment at the SEA, IHE, and LEA levels that will allow all of us to meet these goals.

14. Ceedar 2.0: winning aspiration
Every student with a disability has an equitable opportunity to achieve.
LINDSEY

15. State Team Collaboration
Menu of TA Services
Content and Facilitation
State Team Collaboration
MEG
Access to Resources
Cross-State Learning Groups

16. Access to Resources Universally-available tools on website
Public webinars
National network of TA centers
MEG

17. State Team Collaboration
Virtual meetings
In-person meetings
State-specific space on online platform
MEG

18. Content and Facilitation
CEEDAR staff facilitators
CEEDAR staff content experts
Implementation specialists
Network of national experts
MEG

19. Cross-State Learning Groups
Affinity Groups
Topical Action Groups
Collaboratories
Introduction or exploration of topics of interest related to CEEDAR’s mission and state needs
Deeper dive into selected topics related to blueprint or sustainability and scale-up goals.
Select groups engaged as Networked Improvement Communities with an inquiry focus on common topics of interest/problems of practice
MEG

20. New to CEEDAR 2.0
Regularly scheduled ongoing needs assessments to determine appropriate services
Product development based on dissemination of exemplars and state needs
Cross-state learning groups
MEG
Should you say that about three times a year we will stop and take stock of where we are and identify if services are appropriate. I think you are referring to the incubator, right?

21. Our Goal: Differentiated & Tailored Technical Assistance
Virtual support
In-person support
Individualized attention to state teams
Cross-state learning opportunities
LINDSEY
Why do we have this as a balancing act? How do we intend to talk about this? In the context of reduced resources. Or, will we say, since we have established collaboration across states through various meetings , we want to leverage these collaborations around common themes more than we were able to in the past. I think we need to be careful in what we communicate on this slide.
Leveraging our national network
Internal staff expertise

22. Interested in partnering?
Multi-level, inter-disciplinary teams
State Departments with partnering universities and districts
Special education, general education, educational leadership
Systemic focus areas
Certification/licensure
Educator preparation reform (teacher and leader)
Preparation program evaluation, approval, & review
Alignment
Equity and access
Educator workforce
Preparation for diverse learners
LINDSEY
I think we should be careful to manage expectations here. I know we are talking about this in terms of services, but wondering if we should provide some overview of providing preparation support to get ready to engage in reform; supports to create and implement a shared vision, goals, objectives and activities, and learning collaborative and facilitation support to enable existing teams prepare for sustainability and scale-up.

23. Questions
LINDSEY
We a can

24. DISCLAIMER
This content was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H325A Bonnie Jones and David Guardino serve as the project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.