1. OSEP Project Director’s Conference July, 2010 Presenters: Collaboration model: Kathleen Bradley, Therese Hogan, Debra Loomis and Srimani Chakravarthi (Associated Colleges of Illinois) Consortium model: William Sharpton (University of New Orleans) and Diane Ryndak (University of Florida Contact: schakravarthi@stfrancis.edu, wsharpto@uno.edu, dryndak@ufl.eduschakravarthi@stfrancis.eduwsharpto@uno.edudryndak@ufl.edu

2.  What are different ways to transform teacher preparation curriculum using a collaborative approach?  How do different layers of collaboration impact teacher preparation?  How do you overcome some of the hurdles faced during collaboration?

3. The Associated Colleges of Illinois (ACI) facilitated the 325T grant among 5 of its member colleges in Illinois which established a collaborative partnership:  University of St. Francis, Joliet, IL.  Lewis University, Romeoville, IL.  Dominican University, River Forest, IL.  Aurora University, Aurora, IL.  Eureka College, Eureka, IL.

4. Collaboration between ACI member colleges (16 colleges and universities) Collaboration between TSPED partner colleges (5 colleges and universities which share the 325T grant) Collaboration within Arts, Sciences and other departments within each Member College or university Collaboration within each College of Education; between general and special education faculty. Collaboration between the College of Education and the partner school districts.

5. 1. Collaboration between ACI member colleges (16 colleges and universities) 2. Collaboration between TSPED partner colleges (5 colleges and universities which share the 325T grant) 3. Collaboration within Arts, Sciences and other departments within each Member College or university. 4. Collaboration within each College of Education; between general and special education faculty. 5. Collaboration between the College of Education and the partner school districts.

6.  Providing high-need school internship and experiences  In-service training and workshops offered by college and school district  Adjunct faculty from district  Support for research and development

7.  Co-mingling of methods courses  Faculty co-teaching language arts classes  Development of a common UDL lesson plan  Faculty from Elementary Ed and Special Ed trained in Strategic Instruction Model (University of Kansas)  Implementation of the co-teaching model of student teaching

8.  Co-teaching with Math, Science & Humanities faculty  Workshops for candidates by Science faculty and programs in partner schools  Wellness programs in schools with College of Nursing and Athletic Departments  Consultation with Psychology faculty in assisting partner district in the use of validated screening instruments

9.  Regular meetings to share and collaborate  Online Wiki to share grant efforts and resources  Professional Development sessions offered by each partner  Collaborative development of teacher candidate evaluation tool

10.  Guest speakers and workshops  Conference presentations and dissemination  Current knowledge and practice in field  Quality academic sharing and engagement  Opportunity for meaningful conversations

11. Overview of Consortium Model William Sharpton

12.  OSEP funding – “K” competition focused on special education – significant disabilities  Targets – initial certification via alternate model or add-on certification and/or master’s degree  Louisiana DOE funded development of low incidence consortium to expand services to statewide model using distance education

13.  Academic year – Courses offered in traditional schedule using synchronous web-based video conferencing  Summer – on-site short term courses at university  Cohort groups – biweekly meetings held with peer mentors to support field work

14.  Content  Synchronous in class presentations  Asynchronous materials via Blackboard  Field Work  Performance based model aligned with national and state competencies  Format uses adult learning format to support continued improvement focus  Candidate Assessment  Aligned with NCATE expectations  Includes both course and program assessments  Each candidate develops a portfolio that is reviewed from multiple perspectives (university, school, peer, family)

15.  Marketing/recruitment  Field has shifted from linear model of teacher preparation to concurrent model (recruitment – preparation – placement – retention)  Technology support  Requires high level of expertise and funding  Must be covered from other sources (university, state)  Staffing  Small numbers of faculty in low incidence disabilities makes it hard to staff all courses if a single university model is used  University regulations  Negotiated tuition rates  Faculty load calculation  Shared student credit hours (SCH)  Content  Research in field of low incidence disabilities is losing ground in terms of funding  Difficult for individual faculty to develop programs aligned with research based practices  Few national resources available to develop/disseminate research based practices for students with low incidence disabilities

16.  Expand consortium to include other states (e.g., Miss, Ark)  Work with faculty at national level to develop course content  Seek faculty/program partners to expand coursework offerings and allow us to “teach to our strengths”  Shift repository concept to a national level  Identify/adopt structures that support consortium model