I: NEED FOR PROJECT
A. BACKGROUND
Alabama is primarily a rural state; however, with its urban areas, the population contrasts create a challenge for implementing a single approach to professional development (PD). With a population of approximately 4.8 million people, the contrasts in population are evident in its density. Thirteen of the 67 counties in Alabama (19.4 percent) have a population under 15,000 people, yet, there are 14 urbanized areas, each with a population over 100,000 people (U. S.
Census, 2010). The larger size of the state combined with its rural and urban needs presents challenges when working with districts. The rural counties complicate the provision of technical assistance (TA) due to the paucity of available fiscal and personnel resources for schools. The urbanized areas often have the personnel available; however, other cultural and socioeconomic factors can impede the attainment of educational outcomes.
The demographics of Alabama’s population can generally be characterized as diverse, less educated, and poor compared to U. S. averages. According to the Kids Count (2011) index of the overall child well-being indicators, Alabama ranks 45th in the nation. Additionally, the state ranked 42nd in terms of economic indicators (Kids Count, 2011). The percentage of African
Americans in Alabama is 26.5 percent, more than double the national average. According to the
U. S. Census Bureau (2011), 4.9 percent of residents of Alabama speak a primary language other than English. The most common language, other than English, is Spanish.
Only 81.4 percent of Alabamians 25 years and older have graduated from high school.
Furthermore, only 21.7 percent of Alabamians have completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher, however nationally, the percent is 27.9 percent. In addition, 6.3 percent of the population (25 years and older) has not completed Grade nine (U.S. Census, 2012).
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 1 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The median household income in Alabama is almost $10,000 less than the national average ($42,081 in Alabama vs. $51,914 nationally). As of June 2012, the state unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, although that rate is as high as 18.8 percent in Wilcox County.
Furthermore, approximately 24.6 percent of children in Alabama live in a household below the poverty threshold. This percentage varies dramatically by county, from 9.9 percent to 52.7 percent (Kids Count, 2009).
There are currently 134 school districts in Alabama, serving approximately 741,057 students. As of October 2011, the state serves approximately 80,149 students with disabilities (SWD) which is equal to 10.82 percent. In fall 2010, 55.78 percent of Alabama students were enrolled in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program (Alabama Report Card, 2011).
The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), led by the State Superintendent of Education, is comprised of 11 divisions overseeing education professionals in 1,499 schools.
The ALSDE oversees 134 LEAs and 11 Regional In-service Centers provide educational services to educators. One of the 11 ALSDE divisions, the Office of Learning Support, contains the Special Education Services (SES) Section, the office that oversees the services for SWD. An organizational chart for the ALSDE can be found in Appendix A.
The proposed State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) Project Closing the Gap
(Project CTG): Improving Literacy and Mathematics Outcomes for Students with Disabilities was developed based on State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) indicator data, the Alabama State Board of Education’s (SBE’s) strategic plan, the reorganization and adoption of Dr. Jim Knight’s partnership and coaching approach by the ALSDE, and an examination of the prior SPDG’s activities and outcomes. The proposed project will work with
ALSDE partners to provide high quality professional development (PD) focusing on response to
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 2 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
intervention, creating effective inclusive environments, and improving post-school outcomes for
SWD. Through its SPDG, Alabama seeks to close the gap between students with and students without disabilities and improve both graduation rates and positive post-school outcomes.
SPP INDICATORS & OTHER ALSDE STUDENT DATA
In preparation for developing Project CTG, the SES staff examined the SPP indicator data to drive the SPDG goals. While Alabama met and exceeded most of its SPP/APR targets for the 2010-2011 school year, many areas still need improvement. In its data drill-down, the
SES found key areas of need in graduation, achievement, parent involvement, college and career readiness, and the gap between SWD and students without disabilities (SWOD).
Graduation Rates
Figure 1 demonstrates the graduation rate trends for SWD compared to all students over the three prior academic years. The state’s target on the SPP is also indicated.
Figure 1: Graduation Rate Percentages for SWD and All Students (APR Indicator 1)
100 90 80 70 60 SWD 50 All Students 40 SWD target 30 20 10 0 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
As the graph depicts, the graduation rates for SWD have increased from 36.9 percent in
2008-2009 to 62.9 percent in 2010-2011, likely due to the increased emphasis on reading and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 3 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
math initiatives as well as the state’s focus on increasing graduation rates. Even with these dramatic gains, only 62.1 percent of SWD graduate from high school. Furthermore, there continues to be a 9.1 percent gap between all students and SWD, and both the SWD and all students are well below the 90 percent graduation rate target set by the state. Project CTG will work toward reducing this gap by improving instruction (Goal 2) and increasing knowledge about secondary transition and post-school outcomes (Goal 3).
Student Achievement on the State Assessment
Alabama’s least restrictive environment (LRE) data are very strong and far exceed its state targets. In 2010-2011, 84.17 percent of SWD were served in the regular classroom 80 percent of the time or more. While most SWD are served in the inclusive classroom, the academic achievement data on the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test+ (ARMT+), the
Alabama state assessment, show that more focus is needed on improving achievement in the inclusive classroom. Both the achievement results and the gap between SWD and SWOD demonstrate the need to focus on reading, math, and effective instruction.
Figure 2: Percent Proficient in Reading and Math for SWD (APR Indicator 3c)
50
45
40 Reading 35 Math
30
25 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 4 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The SPP/APR data show gains in both reading and math for SWD over the past three years. These results also indicate, however, that only 43 percent and 46 percent of SWD are scoring proficient on the ARMT+ in math and reading, respectively. The goal for Alabama is to have all students proficient by 2014 (ALSDE, 2010), which is more than double the current percentages in reading and math for SWD.
The ALSDE’s review of the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for the prior three years demonstrates the gap in performance on the state assessment. Alabama calculates a proficiency index for AYP, which are presented in Figure 3. The proficiency method collapses grade levels and combines the percentage of students that are proficient for a school. A proficiency index score of “0” indicates the subgroup met AYP.
Figure 3: AYP Reading Proficiency Index Scores of SWD and All Students
20
15
10
5 Students with 0 disabilities All students -5
-10
-15
-20 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Figure 3 demonstrates the reading achievement proficiency index for all students and
SWD over the prior three years. These results show a decrease in the performance of the subgroups and the significant gap between all students and the SWD subgroup. With a goal of
“0,” the SWD subgroup is the lowest performing subgroup in the state. In 2010-2011, other than
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 5 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
English Language Learners (ELL) students, who had an index score of -0.38, all of the other subgroups were higher than “0” and met AYP for reading.
Figure 4 demonstrates similar results for the math achievement on AYP. Both SWD and all students showed a negative trend in their proficiency index scores over the prior three years, and the large gap between the groups. In 2010-2011, all other subgroups had a proficiency index greater than “0” and met AYP for math. These data support the need to address reading and math content and instruction for SWD.
Figure 4: AYP Math Proficiency Index Scores of SWD and All Students
25 20 15
10 Students with 5 disabilities 0 All students -5 -10 -15 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
The final key data related to student achievement is the reading proficiency scores compared across grade level (Alabama Report Card, 2009, 2010, 2011). Table 1 shows the change in percent proficient from Grades three through eight for both SWD and SWOD, as well as the difference between the two groups. Reading proficiency among SWOD has remained relatively constant with a 10 percent decline between Grade three Grade eight. Reading proficiency among SWD has been consistently 40-50 percent lower than SWOD. The SWD and
SWOD gap in proficiency rates has generally increased between Grades three through eight.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 6 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Therefore, proficiency scores decrease at a greater rate among SWD than SWOD as they advance in school. The results show a need to address reading instruction among adolescents.
Table 1: ARMT+ Reading Achievement of SWD and SWOD in Grades 3–8
Year Grade 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
08-09 SWD 46.7 46.85 41.05 45.31 33.07 25.1
SWOD 90.04 90.88 89.56 90.60 86.73 80.50
Difference 43.3% 44.0% 48.5% 45.3% 53.7% 55.4%
09-10 SWD 49.98 46.40 42.74 43.18 37.40 22.07
SWOD 90.58 91.05 90.23 90.85 87.84 79.26
Difference 40.6% 44.7% 47.6% 47.7% 50.4% 57.2%
10-11 SWD 41.09 50.54 48.65 48.76 40.8 30.53
SWOD 90.70 92.03 92.86 92.35 89.62 81.73
Difference 49.6% 41.5% 44.2% 43.6% 48.8% 51.2%
Parent Involvement
Figure 5 demonstrates the parent involvement results for SPP Indicator 8 over the past three years. These data show that while the reported rate of parent involvement was almost 85 percent in 2008-2009, the rate has dropped almost 10 percent by 2010-2011. Furthermore, the rate of parent involvement in 2010-2011 was significantly lower than the target rate of 89 percent. Project CTG will work with both the PTI and districts to develop strategies for facilitating parent involvement, particularly for secondary transition and post-school supports.
Figure 5: Percent of Parents Reporting Parent Involvement From 2005-2010
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 7 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
100 95 90 85 80 75 Data 70 Target 65 60 55 50 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Post-School Outcomes
The results for the final SPP/APR measure, post-school outcomes, can be found in
Table 2. These data show that while the 2010-2011 target for Indicator 14a was met, only 14 percent of SWD were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving school. The state did not meet its target for Indicator 14b, and fewer than 43 percent of SWD were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed. Project CTG’s Goal 3 will include PD and resources for educators, parents, and community stakeholders to facilitate positive post-school outcomes.
Table 2: Post-School Outcomes Data (Indicator 14) from 2009-2011
2009-2010 2010-2011
Target Percent Target Percent
Enrolled Higher Ed (Indicator 14a) N/A 13.77 13.9 14.12
Enrolled Higher Ed/Competitively
Employed (Indicator 14 b) N/A 45.41 45.6 42.78
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 8 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Through analyses of the SPP indicators and other ALSDE data, the ALSDE has shown a need for further PD to address educational outcomes. These needs are based on: (1) Graduation rates and the gap between SWD and all students; (2) Reading and Math proficiency data and the gap between SWD and SWOD; (3) The reduction in Reading performance from Grades three through eight; (4) Parental involvement rates; and (5) Poor post-school outcomes for SWD.
INTEGRATION INTO ALABAMA’S CURRENT INITIATIVES
In addition to the SPP/APR data and other ALSDE data, the ALSDE staff examined four opportunities for Project CTG to integrate into the overall ALSDE vision: (1) The new Alabama
SBE’s strategic plan; (2) The reorganization of the ALSDE’s divisions and approach to services;
(3) The ALSDE’s adoption of the Big Four approach to partnerships and coaching (Knight,
2008); and (4) The evaluation of the prior SPDG’s activities and results.
The SBE recently developed a Plan 2020 with the vision: “Every child will graduate and every graduate is prepared for college/work/adulthood in the 21st century.” The strategic plan contains four objectives for learners: (1) All students perform at or above proficiency and show continuous improvement (achievement/growth); (2) All students succeed (gap closure);
(3) Every student graduates from high school (grad rate); and (4) Every student graduates from high school prepared (college and career readiness)” (Plan 2020, 2012). These four goals and the Plan’s strategies guide the activities, policies, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act
State Plans of the ALSDE.
Concurrent to the development of the Plan 2020, Dr. Thomas R. Bice, State
Superintendent of Education, began a significant transformation of the ALSDE and its divisions.
Prior to the transformation, when districts needed assistance for performance issues, each office worked separately with districts to address concerns. Under the transformation, cross-teams
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 9 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
comprised of consultants from different offices (e.g., Special Education, Assessment,
Curriculum, Compliance Monitoring) work together to address the performance issues of the district in need. This shift has required offices to collaborate on services within districts.
In November 2011, ALSDE conducted an Institute with consultants from Kansas
University-Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) to facilitate discussions about Knight’s work (2008; 2009) with the Big Four model. This model emphasizes the need to integrate content, instruction, assessment, and classroom management to create effective environments for students. During the PD, staff from different ALSDE offices discussed how they were providing coaching to districts, however, the coaching was conducted in isolation from other offices.
Furthermore, ALSDE staff had been focusing on content coaching rather than instructional coaching. The Institute began the shift within the Department to collaborate on coaching and emphasize Knight’s Big Four model when working with districts. This shift, in conjunction with the Superintendent’s reorganization, has changed the way ALSDE assists districts.
The final factor that has shaped the development of the SPDG proposal is an examination of the prior SPDG activities and results. The 2007 SPDG had several foci, although a major component was improving reading and math instruction using a commercial curriculum. While the curriculum integrated positive strategies and provided materials and resources for teachers, it did not change overall instructional strategies. Furthermore, there were several smaller initiatives as part of the 2007 SPDG that had positive results, however scalability was an issue.
The SPDG had not created a plan for scaling-up successful initiatives.
The 2007 SPDG targeted programmatic change; the proposed SPDG will target organizational change. Arising from the work of the prior SPDG, in 2011, the SES began piloting the Adolescent Literacy Projects (ALP). This new approach to improving reading
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 10 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
instruction included collaborating with the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), a general education program out of the Office of Student Learning. ARI and SES staff worked together to offer PD on tiered instruction in reading with PD on Creating Effective Inclusive Environments
(CEIE). Based on the Big Four model (Knight, 2008), Project ALP sought to change content, instructional strategies, assessment, and behavior practices in the inclusive classroom.
SUMMARY OF NEEDS
As previously described, Alabama faces population and demographic factors that present challenges to delivering quality PD. While progress has been made on student achievement and outcomes, SWD continue to perform below the state’s targets on assessment and graduate at a lower rate than SWOD. For those that do graduate, post-school outcomes are often poor. The
SBE recognizes the need to close the gap and prepare all students for post-school success.
The proposed SPDG, Project Closing the Gap (Project CTG), was developed based on the four key factors of the SBE’s strategic plan, the reorganization and adoption of the Big Four model by the ALSDE, and an examination of the prior SPDG’s activities and outcomes.
Additionally, Project CTG will continue its partnership with ARI and the success of Project
ALP, as well as partner with the general education program Alabama Math, Science, and
Technology Initiative (AMSTI) and Prevention and Support Services. Through its collaboration,
Project CTG will work in concert with the reorganization of the ALSDE.
The proposed Project CTG will work with ALSDE partners, the PTI group, IHEs, LEAs, and other partners to ensure that educators teaching in the general education classroom are receiving high quality PD to meet the needs of all students. Through its SPDG, Alabama seeks to expand evidenced-based practices that will result in improved outcomes for SWD and their families. Project CTG will accomplish this through three goals: (1) Collaborating with ARI and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 11 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
AMSTI to develop a PD system based on implementation science principles; (2) Offer PD to in- service and pre-service teachers on reading and math instruction as well as creating an effective inclusive environment; and (3) Provide information and resources to parents, districts, and stakeholders that will promote positive post-school outcomes. The Significance section presents the research, Project ALP pilot data, and the rationale behind these three goals.
II: SIGNIFICANCE
The purpose of the proposed project is three-fold: (1) To use the implementation science model for developing professional development (Fixsen & Blasé, 2005); (2) Scaling-up the
RTI/the Big Four model developed from the 2007 SPDG; and (3) Apply evidenced-based PD on transition and preparing for post-school outcomes. These three goals integrate into the current
ALSDE and SBE’s initiatives. Since these entities will be working toward common goals, this alignment will foster support, efficiency, and sustainability.
Project CTG has begun the process of creating a collaborative model for delivering PD with ARI and AMSTI. This section includes a description of how a pilot of the model has worked in a sample of Alabama schools, using evidence-based research and strategies.
A. BUILDING ON ALABAMA INITIATIVES
The three goals build upon the ALSDE’s work on its prior SPDG in terms of its focus on reading, math, behavior, and graduation outcomes, although the approaches to the activities are different. Using the principles of implementation science and the research conducted by State
Implementations and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP), Alabama will focus on organizational change to ensure widespread and systemic changes in practices. Project CTG will change key elements from the 2007 SPDG to address the organizational structures needed for
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 12 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
effective PD, training and coaching on instruction, and thereby increase efficiency and sustainability for future PD activities. These elements include:
Partnering with the ALSDE’s ARI, AMSTI, and Prevention and Support to offer integrated
evidence-based PD and support on reading, math, and behavior to districts and schools.
Creating District and Building Leadership Teams and Shadow Coaches to support the PD,
offer follow-up assistance to schools, and provide leadership after grant funding.
Providing not just content coaching, but instructional coaching to educators.
Focusing heavily on technology; including online coaching, this will increase efficiency and
reduce costs after the grant period.
Collaborating with the PTI, Auburn University, and the SPDG Advisory Group to focus on
secondary transition and post-secondary enrollment at IHEs.
PILOTING PROJECT CTG
Approximately four years into the prior SPDG, the ALSDE recognized the need to change its approach to the PD for reading and math instruction. Partnering with the ARI in the Office of
Teaching and Learning, the SPDG team piloted a new program, Project ALP in Mobile County.
This program addressed the organizational structures needed for effective PD including creating
Building and District Leadership Teams; training and coaching on reading and effective instruction; and a system that could be scaled-up by building internal capacity at the district level. This pilot program served as the framework for Project CTG. While the full implementation for the pilot will continue in Project CTG, the ALSDE has found:
Statistically significant increases in reading assessment scores in Grades 4 and 6 after four
months of the intervention.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 13 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Increases in universal screening scores after two quarters at Brazier Elementary School (an
average of 183 to 301 points).
Gains in the percentage of SWD proficient among Grades 4 and 5 at Dixon Elementary
School (78 percent of SWD scored increased performance on the Standardize Testing and
Reporting (STAR) assessment tool).
Gains in the percentage of SWD proficient among Grades 6-8 at Grand Bay Middle School
(66 percent of SWD increased performance on the STAR assessment tool).
The proposed SPDG PD model will take the same basic model of Project ALP and expand the PD to math and behavior. The PD will also be expanded to pre-service students, which will prepare these future teachers to implement academic Response to Intervention (RtI), the Safe and Civil School behavior approach, and evidenced-based instruction upon graduation.
B. RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Implementation Science
The foundation for the PD model proposed by Project CTG is rooted in the research on effective implementation (e.g., Dughman et al., 2011; Michigan Implementation Network, 2010;
Fixsen et al., 2005; Fixsen & Blase, 2008; Duda et al., 2011). The Michigan Implementation
Network (MIN) has successfully demonstrated how implementation science can be applied to education programs (e.g., MIN, 2011, MIN 2010a, MIN 2010b). Through their research, MIN has found three fundamental features for effective implementation practices:
(1) Innovation Fluency: The team’s knowledge and understanding about the practice.
(2) Improvement Cycles: The degree to which the team focuses on a continuous improvement.
(3) Implementation Practices: The team’s attention to how the practice is implemented.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 14 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The Project CTG PD model and activities are aligned with Innovation Fluency, which has four components: (1) Research to support the practices being implemented; (2) Selection of the practice and whether it meets the needs of the district; (3) Whether the practice can be replicated and implemented on a larger scale; and 4) The key, non-negotiable features of the practice.
These four processes are built into the project’s local-level TA through data drill-downs; meeting with districts to determine needs; creating District and Building Level Implementation Teams and identifying District Shadow Coaches; and collaborating with ARI, AMSTI, Prevention and
Support, and IHEs to ensure the PD content is evidenced-based.
The MIN key feature of Improvement Cycles, based on the research by Fixsen and Blase
(2007), is comprised of two aspects: (1) A Plan-Do-Study-Act (P-D-S-A) cycle; and (2) Policy
Enable Practice (PEP) and Practice Informed Policy (PIP). While P-D-S-A emphasizes quick, focused changes and continuous improvement, PEP and PIP focus on removing barriers to enact systems change over the long-term. All three goals of Project CTG reflect these cycles of change. Each objective has built in review and assesses activities, which will allow for mid-course corrections and opportunities to recommend changes in policies, practices, and operations.
In addition, Goal 1, the collaborative development of a PD model for reading and math at the ALSDE, will work in concert with the piloting and initial implementation found in Goal 2.
Staff will assess readiness of district staff to change practices and plan activities based on current practices and data-driven needs. Based on the work of SISEP (e.g., Dughman et al., 2011; Duda,
Sims, Fixsen & Blasé, 2012), Project CTG will work through the stages of implementation in
Goals 1 and 2. These goals will work in tandem to inform practice and to inform policy.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 15 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Lastly, the Project CTG PD model relates to the MIN model (2011) feature of
Implementation Practices. This feature can be broken down into three elements: (1) The usability of the practice; (2) Focus, intentionality, and change in practice; and (3) The factors that drive practice forward. These Implementation Practices tie into the Blase et al. (2009) research on implementation drivers.
Project CTG integrates the concepts of the implementation drivers and the Big Four model into its PD model (Fixsen & Blase, 2009; Knight, 2009). Figure six demonstrates the integration of the two models and how they will intersect in Alabama.
Figure 6: The Relationship Among the Implementation Drivers and the Big Four
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 16 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The model focuses on three major elements for building capacity and a coherent model of
PD that will exist beyond SPDG funding:
(1) Project CTG, in partnership with ARI and AMSTI, will address each of the drivers in Goals 1
and 2 when exploring, installing, and implementing PD (Fixsen & Blasé, 2008);
(2) Project CTG recognizes the importance of ensuring that the leadership and organizational
structures are in place for PD and will therefore partner with LEAs, PTI, IHEs, and
community agencies to provide support for schools and teachers;
(3) Project CTG will focus on comprehensive PD by providing content, assessment, instruction,
and behavior/community supports for educators in the inclusive classroom (Knight, 2007)
since over 85% of Alabama SWD spend over 80% of their time in an inclusive classroom.
Content
The PD content in Project CTG is grounded in evidenced-based research. In addition to research on implementation science and the stages of implementation, (e.g., Duda et al., 2012;
Fixsen & Blasé, 2009), the ALSDE will deliver PD on the evidenced-based practices of:
Academic RtI—reading and math. (e.g., Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Vaughn & Fuchs,
2003; Slavin et al., 1991)
Safe and Civil Schools—behavior model. (e.g., Sprick, 2009; Cross, 2008; Fayette County
Public Schools, 2007; Rodriguez, 2009)
Transition iN Training (TNT) modules—secondary transition and post-school outcomes.
(Auburn University TNT modules, 2012)
The Big Four—instructional coaching approach (Knight, 2008; Knight 2009).
In addition, the pedagogical strategies of online coaching (Rock, Gregg, Gable, & Zigmond,
2009) and adult education will be used to deliver the PD content.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 17 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The principles of the Big Four (Knight, 2009), classroom management/behavior; content; assessment; and instruction, will focus on CEIE for SWD. Project CTG staff will provide coaching on behavior (Safe and Civil Schools), content (RtI, transition), assessment (focused monitoring tools), and instruction. Follow-up instructional coaching has been found to be a critical component to the success of a PD program (Knight & Cornett, 2008). Specific PD for educators on CEIE is described in the Project Design.
Strategies for Delivering Professional Development
The development of the Project CTG PD model was also heavily influenced by the research on adult learning and online coaching. Research on adult learning, particularly as it relates to PD, describes the importance of effective adult learning to impact student outcomes
(Guskey & Yoon, 2009). The training, TA, and coaching approach within Project CTG are supported by Dunst and Trivette’s research (2009) on the Participatory Adult Learning Strategy
(PALS) approach to adult learning.
Figure 7: Characteristics of the PALS for a Learning Opportunity*
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 18 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
* Figure 7 from Dunst & Trivette (2009)
Project CTG will offer PD on two levels: (1) To the TA and coaching providers at the state level; and (2) To districts at a local-level. Figure 7 demonstrates the PALS model (Dunst &
Trivette, 2009), which will be the foundation for the project’s approach to PD activities.
First, Dunst and Trivette (2009) found learners in the Introduction stage do not have to have comprehensive foundational knowledge to be able to practice and evaluate their knowledge and practices. Project CTG staff will work with the District and Building Level Leadership
Teams as well as the District Shadow Coach to confirm that district staff have at least the minimum prerequisite knowledge to process the training.
Second, Dunst and Trivette (2009) stressed the importance of multiple learning opportunities in the Application stage. All of Project CTG’s PD strategies are based on a multifaceted approach to training, coaching, and TA. PD will not be offered in isolation, but rather through multiple opportunities for training and follow-up coaching. By reinforcing PD concepts through these multiple opportunities for learning, district staff will have a deeper and more thorough understanding of their practices.
With Participatory Adult Learning Strategy (PALS), the instructors provide guided learning grounded in the learner’s experiences and knowledge (Dunst & Trivette, 2009). Project
CTG adopts this approach with its District and Shadow Coaches. These coaches will work with district staff to gain a contextual perspective for the district. As district staff is implementing the content and instructional approaches, District and Shadow coaches will perform fidelity measures to share with the ALSDE as well as with district staff. They will continue to work with
LEA staff after the first year of coaching, which will allow district staff to reflect on their
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 19 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
practices and discuss questions and strategies (PALS Mastery). This metacognitive skill will be an important aspect for future district self-assessment, and ultimately, for systemic change.
Project CTG also be using online coaching to provide in-the-moment PD through technology (Rock et al., 2009). This strategy, also referred to as the bug-in-the-ear coaching, was developed at the University of Alabama. Combining Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) with a webcam, a teacher will activate the webcam, allowing a coach to view her classroom instruction. Using a Bluetooth bug, the teacher will hear suggestions from the coach while providing instruction. In addition, this same strategy will be used during non-instructional time.
This evidenced-based strategy (Grier & Halcomb, 2008; Rock, Zigmund, Gregg & Gable, 2011) was used during the last two years of the 2007 Grant and has been found to be effective in providing efficient, effective, and timely coaching to teachers.
The ALSDE is proposing a scale-up of the PD model that developed from the 2007
SPDG. Systemic change will be accomplished by tailoring and adapting the model to meet the needs of additional districts. Since the ALSDE is creating a delivery model, the model will be used for future assistance to districts. Moreover, the piloting of the model has already resulted in positive changes in several test schools, and a model with a broader scope that is serving more districts, is expected to have an even greater impact. Project CTG has aligned all aspects of its
Project Design with evidenced-based practices, including its PD model with implementation science; its content in RtI, Safe and Civil School, TNT, and the Big Four; and its approach to PD with adult education and online coaching research.
III: QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN
A. INTEGRATION INTO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 20 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The ALSDE has recognized the need for proactive and sustained PD to ready its students for college, career, and adulthood. Prior to the State Improvement Grant/SPDG grants, the
ALSDE focused PD interventions monitoring and assistance to particular districts in need. With the 2006 Alabama SPDG, the ALSDE began focusing more on reading and math interventions for SWD; however, PD was typically broad and programs were functioning in silos. The
ALSDE recognized that while the content of the PD was evidenced-based, the mechanisms for delivering the content were not yielding the desired large-scale results. Moreover, the new State
Superintendent of Education’s vision of transforming the Department created the impetus for a major change for a new PD structure (See Needs section).
As part of the ALSDE’s continuing redesign, cross-division teams will work collaboratively to provide support to LEAs with performance concerns. Furthermore, the
ALSDE is emphasizing Dr. Knight’s research on the Big Four model to support LEAs with instructional coaching. Both of these factors complement the Alabama SBE’s strategic plan,
Plan 2020, which emphasizes: (1) Achievement/growth); (2) Closing the gap; (3) Improving graduation rates; and (4) Ensuring college and career readiness (Plan 2020, 2012).
Table 3: Integration of Project CTG into Statewide Initiatives
SPDG Goals AL SBE ALSDE Big Four
Plan 2020 Collaboration Emphasis
Goal 1: Collaborate to develop PD system X X
Goal 2: Offer PD on academic RtI & CEIE X X X
Goal 3: Offer PD on post-school preparation X X
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 21 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
As Table 3 shows, Project CTG is fully integrated into a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning outcomes for students. The ALSDE anticipates that by creating a proactive PD system and by implementing a systematic approach to PD, districts will be able to exceed their educational goals for SWD and SWOD will have better post-school outcomes.
Appendix A includes a project logic model, and demonstrates the relationships among the inputs, activities, partners, and outcomes. The logic model illustrates how the activities and outcomes of Project CTG correspond with the ALSDE’s overarching goals and activities.
B. PROPOSED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTIVITIES
Project CTG’s design is based on three goals:
Goal 1: Create a system for expanding general education programs and initiatives in
Alabama to include specific special education content and instructional knowledge for
educators and families that will support student learning outcomes.
Goal 2: Implement the coordinated PD system that will increase the capacity of educators
and families to understand and utilize a multi-tiered system of support for SWD, which will
lead to improved student performance and graduation outcomes.
Goal 3: Offer PD for educators, families, and stakeholders on the needs of students with
disabilities and the support and services that are needed for successful adult transition, which
will lead to improved student graduation rates and post-school outcomes.
To achieve these goals, ALSDE will implement a variety of strategic activities at the state, district, and building levels that will ultimately lead to improved outcomes for children with disabilities and their families. ALSDE will work with AMSTI, ARI, Prevention and
Support, and other divisions within the department to meet these goals. Additionally, Project
CTG will partner with the PTI; Auburn University (AU) and University of South Alabama
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 22 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
(USA); national consultants in coaching, coaching technology, RtI, and Universal Design for
Learning (UDL); Mobile and Baldwin County Schools; and other stakeholders to ensure that the grant has the content expertise, leadership, and organizational structures in place for success.
The ALSDE modeled its PD for districts after the implementation research (e.g.,
Dughman et al., 2011; Michigan Implementation Network, 2010; Fixsen et al., 2005; Fixsen &
Blase, 2008; Duda et al., 2011). Furthermore, the content of the PD is based in RtI (Kretlow &
Bartholomew, 2010), the Big Four model (Knight, 2009), and Sprick’s Safe and Civil Schools
(Sprick, 2009). Additionally, the approach to PD, within training, coaching, and other learning opportunities for personnel, is based on the Dunst and Trivette (2009) research on adult learning.
Specific details of how the research overlaps with Project CTG are discussed in the Significance section.
Goal 1: Collaborating to Develop a Professional Development System
The first goal of Project CTG, to create a system for expanding general education programs and initiatives in Alabama to include specific special education content and instructional knowledge for educators and families that will support student learning outcomes, will be achieved through two objectives.
Objective 1.1: Building a Foundation for Developing a Professional Development System.
The first objective focuses on collaboration, examining current PD processes, and reviewing data to develop a common PD system among AMSTI, ARI, and the SPDG. The foundational collaborative activities will occur among ALSDE staff, and primarily during the first year of the grant.
Objective 1.1: Collaboratively examine the initiatives, oversight, and professional development delivery models in general and special education that will result in increased collaboration
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 23 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
among general and special education units at the state level.
Activity 1.1.1: Staff from ARI, AMSTI and the SPDG will meet to discuss expectations and desired outcomes. (Y1 Q2*)
Activity 1.1.2: Create a cross-walk of PD offerings to identify duplications and gaps. (Y1 Q2-3)
Activity 1.1.3: Conduct GIS mapping to determine which districts and schools are receiving what types of reading and math professional development. (Y1-5 Q3)
Activity 1.1.4: Review district SPP/APR data to determine reading and math needs. (Y1-5 Q3)
Activity 1.1.5: Assess barriers and resources available to implementing PD. (Y1-5 Q3)
Activity 1.1.6: Review the leadership and structural organizations for delivering PD and make recommendations as needed. (Y1 Q3-4)
* Quarter 1= 7/1-9/30, Quarter 2= 10/1-12/31, Quarter 3= 1/1-3/31, Quarter 4= 4/1-6/30
SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI staff began collaborating in 2011; however, upon funding, the staff will meet to develop a plan with expectations and roles, outcomes, and timelines. One of the first activities the team will do is to create a cross-walk of services to districts. ARI’s activities are already statewide, however this cross-walk will demonstrate in detail which types of services are provided in detail, and will incorporate SISEPs Stages of Implementation
Checklist (2009) found in Appendix A. This level of analysis, together with GIS mapping of PD services, will show the team the level of implementation within schools as well as future needs.
After examining existing services, the team will conduct a drill-down on the district and building level SPP/APR data. These data will be compared with the Level of Implementation results; if districts have received training but their performance has not improved, the team will look at the implementation drivers to make modifications in their approaches to PD (Dughman et
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 24 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
al., 2011). The data drill-down, evaluate, modify, and re-implement cycle will be a review protocol used throughout the SPDG to ensure data are driving the service delivery.
The final set of activities in Objective 1.1 examines the structures, barriers, resources and processes currently in place. The SPDG team, ARI, and AMSTI will look at prior evaluation data to determine what barriers and resources are in place that may hinder or facilitate effective implementation of PD with fidelity. These identified barriers and resources will be incorporated into Objective 1.2. The team will also look at the organizational drivers including the facilitative administration and systems intervention to ensure that the staff can engage in Policy Enabled
Practice-Practice Informed Policy (PEP-PIP) cycles (MiBLISI, 2010). Based on their findings using evaluation data, the team will adjust PD practices and roles, as needed, to minimize barriers and maximize resources.
Objective 1.2: Developing a Professional Development System.
The second objective focuses on the development of a common set of PD processes among AMSTI, ARI, and the SPDG. The collaborative activities will occur among ALSDE staff and SERRC, and will primarily occur during the first and second years of the grant.
Objective 1.2: Develop a comprehensive system for delivering integrated special and general education professional development for educators based on the implementation science drivers.
Activity 1.2.1: Define roles and responsibilities for each leadership level. (Y1 Q3)
Activity 1.2.2: Review barriers (Objective 1.1) and develop a plan to reduce barriers.(Y1-5 Q4)
Activity 1.2.3: Promote buy-in from schools, districts, regions, and ALSDE departments. (Y1-5)
Activity 1.2.4: Develop district and building communication, data, and reporting plans. (Y2 Q1)
Activity 1.2.5: Organize forms and assessments for participating districts. (Y2 Q1)
Activity 1.2.6: Determine processes for expanded site selection and scaling-up. (Y2 Q1-2)
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 25 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Activity 1.2.7: Obtain and review feedback on training and coaching in pilot district. (Y2 Q1-4)
Activity 1.2.8: Create a decision-tree for using technology or in-person coaching strategies. (Y2)
Activity 1.2.9: Draft guide to procedures and best practices for implementing PD. (Y2 Q3-4)
Activity 1.2.10: Review evaluation and fidelity data on a cyclical basis. (Y1-5 Q2,4)
Activity 1.2.11: Revise procedures and best practices for PD based on data. (Y1-5 Q2,4)
The collaborators will use the implementation science drivers and the steps for implementing innovations (Dughman et al., 2011) to develop a system for delivering reading and math PD across general and special education. The ALSDE will work with the Southeast
Regional Resource Center (SERRC) to facilitate the key meetings among the groups.
Aligned with the Leadership drivers, the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team will review the roles and responsibilities of the ALSDE, Regional Inservice Centers, District Leadership Teams, and Building Leadership Teams. As indicated in SISEP’s work (Dughman et al., 2011), having the leadership teams in place is a key component to overseeing implementation of innovations.
If the leadership structures are not in place, the SPDG staff will assist districts or buildings to implement these structures. For example, Mobile County currently has District and
Building Leadership Teams for the schools participating in the SPDG. If other schools in Mobile
County were added to the SPDG, the SPDG staff would work with the building principals to ensure that the teams were in place and understand their purpose. The team will also work with the PTI and stakeholders to identify their roles in the leadership structures.
Related to the Organizational drivers, the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team will work to eliminate barriers to PD implementation and develop strategies to promote buy-in for new innovations. The team will review the identified barriers generated in Objective 1.1 and create strategies to mitigate these barriers. For example, some rural districts have limited personnel for
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 26 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
serving as internal coaches. The team will look at strategies for addressing this issue, such as using online coaching and other technology strategies to combine coaches across districts.
Additionally, the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team will review strategies to promote buy-in from districts, schools, and parents. The team will work with the PTI to address parent buy-in as well as gather input from superintendents, principals, and teachers on the SPDG Advisory Group to develop strategies.
As Goodman (2011) described as “Capacity” drivers, the team will ensure that the data and reporting systems, communication and reporting plans, forms, and assessments are established. Using the communication plan within the ALSDE as a reference, the team will create communication, data, and reporting plans for the regions, districts, and buildings. The
SPDG Advisory Group will assist with these plans to ensure that educators give input into their development. Many of the forms and assessments are already established, such as SISEP’s
Exploration Checklist, Stages of Implementation Checklist, and data logs; however, these forms will be reviewed, and additional forms, including those used for fidelity checks, will be created.
Activities 1.2.6-1.2.8 addresses the Competency drivers. The SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team, with assistance from the SPDG Advisory Group, will create a process for adding additional sites and scaling-up the RtI/CEIE PD in districts. While the SPDG has schools eagerly wanting to participate in Project CTG, the team will devise a rubric that will balance need, readiness for implementation, and interest. This rubric will be used in Objective 2.1.
For Activity 1.2.7, the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team will review the evaluation data from its pilot sites in Mobile and Baldwin Counties. These data will help modify the strategies the team will use when scaling-up PD into other schools and districts.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 27 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The team will review the coaching strategies and create a decision tree for deciding how to provide follow-up instructional coaching in ARI and AMSTI sites. The SPDG will utilize technology-based coaching through online coaching (Rock, 2009); however in-person coaching will also be used. The decision tree will help the District Leadership Teams decide which coaching strategies to employ.
Using the information from the first eight activities under Objective 1.2, the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI team will draft a guide with procedures and best practices for implementing PD.
While the guide will primarily address instructional coaching, reading, and math, the guide will serve as a template for other PD delivery within the SES Office. The guide will include information such as site selection, training curriculum, the coaching decision tree model, best practices in coaching, suggested leadership structures, communication, data and reporting plans, assessments and forms, and fidelity tools. Based on the feedback of future sites, the guide will be reviewed and revised on an annual basis.
Goal 2: Collaborating to Offer Professional Development for Local Educators
The second goal of Project CTG, to implement the coordinated professional development system that will increase the capacity of educators and families to understand and utilize a multi- tiered system of support for students with disabilities, which will lead to improved student performance and graduation outcomes, will be achieved through five objectives.
Objective 2.1: Professional Development Training for SPDG Partners
The first objective focuses on increasing the capacity and content knowledge of those individuals who will be providing the training, coaching, and leadership for the SPDG. This objective will occur in partnership with other ALSDE staff including ARI, AMSTI, and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 28 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Prevention and Support; PTI; trainers; and District Coaches. The PD for the SPDG partners will occur throughout the grant.
Objective 2.1: Provide PD to ALSDE staff, SPDG Coaches, and parent partners on academic RtI and creating effective inclusive environments that will allow them to provide research-based PD and TA to local-level educators.
Activity 2.1.1: Offer quarterly special topics PD for SPDG staff, ALSDE staff, parent partners,
ARI and AMSTI trainers, and district coaches. (Y1-5)
Activity 2.1.2: When relevant SPDG staff and coaches will participate in national, state, and regional professional development. (Y1-5)
Activity 2.1.3: Cross-train SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI staff on coaching and content. (Y1 Q2-3)
Activity 2.1.4: Partner with the PTI to provide training to SPDG partners. (Y1 Q3-4)
Activity 2.1.5: Partner with experts on online coaching to provide PD to SPDG partners. (Y1-2)
As part of the ALSDE’s emphasis on continuing PD and aligned with the Training driver, all SPDG staff, ARI, AMSTI, Prevention and Support; ARI and AMSTI coaches; District
Coaches; and parent partners will receive training, at least one day per quarter, in a content or instructional topic. This type of cross-training will: (1) increase knowledge and skills of the PD deliverers; (2) ensure a common message and approach to TA; (3) reduce gaps in services with staff attrition; and (4) promote collaboration with external agencies and partners. Examples of cross-training topics include coaching strategies, RtI, UDL, communicating with parents, online coaching, and culturally responsive education. The quarterly cross-training will be led by content experts including external consultants, PTI, SERRC, and ALSDE staff.
Along with the quarterly training opportunities, Project CTG staff and District Coaches will participate in national, state, and regional PD when relevant. Special education conferences
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 29 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
or collaborative trainings will be sources of PD to further staff and coaches’ ability to deliver quality TA and coaching to districts.
Upon funding, the Project CTG, ARI, and AMSTI staff will offer cross-training to each other. Aligned with the research on the Big Four model, the three projects will focus on increasing the capacity of all PD deliverers on content in: (1) Reading and math; (2) Strategic instruction; (3) Assessment; and (4) Behavior and community building (Knight, 2007). The training will occur primarily during the first year but will continue throughout the grant.
The PTI will offer training to SPDG partners during the first year of the grant on how to communicate about tiered instruction to parents, how to engage parents in working with children at home on reading and math and understanding the impact of disability upon families.
Drs. Pamela Howard and Marcia Rock will also provide training to the staff on online coaching, also known as the “bug-in-the-ear” coaching support. The online coaching strategy, developed at the University of Alabama, will be an integral part of the coaching support for districts and teachers. Project CTG, ARI, and AMSTI staff will be trained in this technological strategy.
Objective 2.2: Local PD on Reading, Math, and Creating Effective Inclusive Environments.
The second objective focuses on providing reading, math, and CEIE training and follow-up instructional coaching for schools in a feeder pattern schools within two pilot districts.
Project CTG will collaborate with ARI, AMSTI, Prevention and Support, the PTI, Mobile
County Schools, Baldwin County Schools, and several expert consultants to implement this objective. The activities will occur the first three years of the grant.
Objective 2.2: Deliver local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for schools in pilot districts on academic RtI and CEIE that will result in increased knowledge and skills of individuals providing services to students with disabilities.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 30 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Activity 2.2.1: Meet with pilot sites to establish expectations and roles. (Y1 Q2)
Activity 2.2.2: Project CTG staff work with District and Building Leadership Teams to create a sustainable structure for supporting PD. (Y1-Y3)
Activity 2.2.3: In collaboration with ARI and AMSTI, provide additional training to general education and special education personnel in the pilot district. (Y1 Q3)
Activity 2.2.4: Provide follow-up instructional coaching to teachers in the classroom. (Y1-Y3)
Activity 2.2.5: Create online vignettes modeling best practices for reference. (Y1 Q2-4)
Activity 2.2.6: Conduct assessments and implementation fidelity checks. (Y3)
Activity 2.2.7: Review evaluation data and make necessary mid-course corrections. (Y2-3 Q4)
The SPDG will provide PD to schools in a feeder pattern: a high school, and the middle schools and elementary schools that feed into that high school. By working with feeder pattern schools, Project CTG can target schools in larger urban districts and work while building capacity at the district level to scale-up to other feeder patterns. In rural areas with only one feeder pattern, the PD will be district-wide. All of the districts are required to have a District
Leadership Team, and the SPDG will work primarily with this team to enact change.
As a continuation of Project ALP, Project CTG will continue piloting PD in reading, math, and CEIE in Mobile County Schools. Upon funding, Project CTG will add a feeder pattern in nearby Baldwin County Schools. The evaluation data from these pilot schools will be used to inform the development of the PD model (Goal 1) and make changes for scaling-up the project. Both of these pilot feeder schools have, or will receive training and coaching in both reading and math instruction, and both will receive instruction and coaching on CEIE.
Project CTG staff will meet with the pilot districts to review roles, expectations, terms of reference (TOR), and data requirements before providing training. The SPDG staff will work
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 31 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
primarily with the District and Building Level Leadership Teams to ensure that the leadership is in place to support the PD in the feeder pattern schools. Based on MIN’s (2011) overview of the
Leadership drivers for implementation, ALSDE staff, including Susan Williamson, Curtis Gage,
Theresa Farmer, and Nancy Johnson, will provide coaching to the Leadership Teams by helping the teams to:
Create a vision for the future state of the PD and the schools/classrooms.
Identify site-specific barriers and resources for implementing PD.
Manage the ongoing PD, completing reports, collecting data, and communicating with the
teachers, coaches, and ALSDE.
Build capacity based on ALSDE’s PD from expert consultants (Objective 2.1).
Share the framework of the implementation drivers and stages of implementation.
Use fidelity instruments and assessments.
Use PIP/PEP cycles to enhance effectiveness and sustainability of the PD.
While the ALSDE staff work with the Leadership teams, the District Coaches will be providing PD and coaching to general education and special education teachers in Grades 3-9 in the pilot feeder pattern schools. The Project CTG District Coaches, will work with ARI and
AMSTI trainers to deliver the PD. A typical structure of the PD in the feeder pattern schools is as follows:
(1) ARI and AMSTI trainers conduct training on using tiered instruction with reading and math,
and CEIE principles embedded in the training.
(2) Project CTG District Coaches work with the District and Building Leadership Teams to
identify follow-up TA needs, and receive direct requests from staff for follow-up.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 32 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
(3) District Coaches work with ALSDE staff as needed to infuse researched-based content and
develop PD approaches specific to the building staff’s needs.
(4) District Coaches provide job-embedded PD on CEIE in Grades three through nine, grouped
by school level. Project CTG’s PD is designed to work with teachers on how to modify
instruction, assessments, and behavior for all students in the inclusive classroom, which will
support the academic RtI instruction. The PD will be delivered on-site in order to minimize
time educators will be out of the classroom. More detail on the PD content is below.
(5) Following the Project CTG PD, District Coaches, a Shadow Coach (i.e., an internal coach
identified by the district that will work with the District Coach), and/or ALSDE staff will go
into the classrooms and model lessons, observe teachers, and suggest strategies for improving
instruction.
(6) Project CTG will work closely with Dr. Howard for follow-up online coaching, which will
allow the SPDG, ARI, and AMSTI Coaches the ability to use “bug-in-the-ear” technology to
guide teachers while they are teaching from an off-site location. This technology will be
more cost effective, allow for more time coaching, and be less intrusive than coaching in the
classroom setting.
(7) District Coaches will develop “Just in Time” vignettes. The District Coaches will model
short lessons on topics such as co-teaching, engaging students, or administering an
assessment. These vignettes will be accessible online, and teachers can quickly access these
vignettes from the classroom as a coaching reference.
(8) The District Coaches and Shadow Coaches together will conduct fidelity checks. By using
the Shadow Coach, districts are building internal capacity and establishing sustainability.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 33 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The content of the PD will be rooted in RtI (e.g., Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), Dr. Knight’s
Big Four model research (Knight, 2008; Knight, 2009), Randy Sprick’s Conversation Help
Activity Movement Participation Success (CHAMPS) research on behavior (eg., Sprick, 2009;
Rodriquez, 2009), UDL (Rose & Meyer, 2000), and parent collaboration and involvement
(Stewart, 2008). A list of sample training topics for piloting in Mobile Schools can be found in
Appendix A. In addition, Project CTG will use researched-based strategies for delivering the
PD, including online coaching (Rock et al., 2011) and adult learning (Dunst & Trivette, 2009).
Finally, many of the assessments and evaluation tools are from the research by SISEP or will be developed using the principles of implementation science.
In order to provide these research-based topics, the District Coaches will work with
ALSDE staff (Big Four model research and UDL), ARI and AMSTI (RtI), Prevention and
Support [Conversation Help Activity Movement Participation Success (CHAMPS)], and the PTI
(parent collaboration and involvement). ALSDE will facilitate content experts to consult with
District Coaches as needed (Objective 2.1).
The fidelity data, student-level data, teacher feedback, and Coaches’ and Project
Evaluator’s observation data will be shared with the SPDG team and Advisory Group. These data will help shape the PD model (Goal 1) and will be used for mid-course corrections.
Objective 2.3: Scaling-Up Local PD in Reading, Math, and CEIE
The third objective focuses on scaling-up PD on reading, math, and CEIE in two ways:
(1) Adding new feeder school patterns within Mobile County and Baldwin County Schools; and
(2) Adding new feeder school patterns in other districts. Project CTG will collaborate with ARI,
AMSTI, Prevention and Support, the PTI, Mobile and Baldwin County Schools, other LEAs, and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 34 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
several expert consultants to implement this objective. The activities will occur during Years 2-5 of the grant.
Objective 2.3: Scale-up local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for districts on reading, math, and behavior that will result in increased knowledge and skills of individuals providing services to students with disabilities.
Activity 2.3.1: Conduct readiness assessments in potential districts. (Y2 Q2)
Activity 2.3.2: Select additional districts based on selection rubric (Obj. 1.2). (Y2 Q3)
Activity 2.3.3: Meet with sites to establish expectations and roles. (Y2 Q4)
Activity 2.3.4: Project CTG staff work with District and Building Leadership Teams to create a sustainable structure for supporting PD. (Y1-Y3)
Activity 2.3.5: In collaboration with ARI and AMSTI, provide additional training to general education and special education teachers in the pilot district. (Y2-5)
Activity 2.3.6: Provide follow-up instructional coaching to teachers in the classroom. (Y3-Y5)
Activity 2.3.7: Conduct assessments and implementation fidelity checks. (Y3-Y5)
Activity 2.3.8: Review evaluation data and use to make program changes. (Y3 Q4, Y4 Q4)
The activities of Objective 2.3 will be similar to those in Objective 2.2; however the scale of the PD will be expanded into other feeder patterns within the pilot districts and new districts.
Several districts have already expressed an avid interest in participating, and it is expected that interest will increase among districts as they see further success in Mobile and other districts.
In order to select the new feeder patterns, Project CTG will conduct SISEP’s Readiness for Implementation Assessment (see Appendix A) in districts that have expressed interest and/or those with need as identified in Objective 1.1. The SPDG team will create a selection rubric as indicated in Objective 1.2, and the assessment data will be integrated into the rubric. Using the
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 35 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
rubric, the team will select two to four new feeder patterns for ARI and 1-2 new feeder patterns for AMSTI schools each year for scaling-up the project. The SPDG Director and ALSDE coaches will meet with the selected schools each year to discuss reporting, terms of references
(TOR), data requirements, and communication plans.
Project CTG staff will continue to work with the District and Building Leadership Teams.
By adding feeder patterns within the pilot school districts, the District will be practicing how to scale-up the PD, which will assist with sustainability. It is expected that the level of assistance from SPDG staff in the pilot district will be reduced in Years two and three, as the District and
Building Leadership Teams and the District Shadow Coaches assume the leadership and oversight of the project. During successive years of the Project, it is anticipated that other federal, state, and local funds and partnerships will augment SPDG funds to scale-up across the
11 Regional Centers. By the end of the grant, Project CTG expects to be scaled-up to at least one feeder-pattern district in all of the Regional Centers, and in some regions, even more LEAs.
With feeder patterns in new districts, the SPDG staff will implement the steps for PD outlined in Objective 2.2. Project CTG will communicate with each district to provide PD appropriate for the needs of the district. For example, if the District Leadership Team shares that a particular feeder pattern has a problem with behavior referrals and this problem can be documented, Project CTG may focus its CEIE PD on the CHAMPS behavior program. Rather than the ALSDE driving the type and approach to PD, the districts themselves are assuming increased responsibility for accountability.
Objective 2.4: Offering a Field Experience Program for Pre-Service Students
The fourth objective focuses on the development of a field experience program for pre- service students that will allow students to observe and receive resources from model teachers.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 36 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Project CTG will collaborate with the University of South Alabama, PTI, Dr. Howard, and
Mobile and Baldwin County Schools to implement this objective. The activities will occur throughout the grant.
Objective 2.4: Develop a field experience program for pre-service students to observe and work with model RtI/CEIE sites, which will result in pre-service students having the knowledge and skills to implement RtI/CEIE upon graduation.
Activity 2.4.1: USA staff will meet with model sites to obtain input from staff. (Y1 Q3-4)
Activity 2.4.2: Develop a field experience strand in model sites for pre-service students. (Y1)
Activity 2.4.3: Place pre-service students in model sites and complete assessments. (Y2-5)
Activity 2.4.4: Offer in-class training by ARI for pre-service students. (Y1-5)
Activity 2.4.5: Offer remote observation opportunities for pre-service students. (Y1-5)
Activity 2.4.6: Review evaluation data and make mid-course corrections as needed. (Y2-5)
Project CTG and the USA, located in Mobile County, will partner to offer a pre-service field experience program for students. The USA is currently the only IHE in the state where all
Education students graduate with dual-endorsements. Therefore, this program will affect both future general and special education teachers.
Approximately 85 percent of the USA education graduates are employed in either Mobile or Baldwin Counties (the two largest counties in the state), which are the two feeder schools for
Project CTG. The USA will meet with the feeder pattern schools to gather input from current staff regarding the program and establish timelines and roles with the schools.
The USA Teacher Placement Program has an established field experience program with protocols and assessments, and Project CTG will be using this established program as the foundation for its model. Drs. Ellis, Kent, and Baxter at USA will work with Mobile and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 37 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Baldwin County Schools to develop the model RtI and CEIE field placement program. In addition, they will coordinate with Dr. Howard and ALSDE staff to receive PD on online coaching and CEIE for USA Education faculty and staff.
As part of the field placement program, students will be placed in Project CTG sites during their required Observation and Participation and Student Teaching courses. These students will have the opportunity to observe exemplary co-teaching, which will prepare these students for post-graduation co-teaching experiences. Students that are placed in these model sites will be observed and assessed using USA’s field placement materials, and these results will be shared with Project CTG staff for evaluation.
In addition, pre-service students will receive PD within their courses at USA. First, the pilot districts, ALSDE, and PTI will share instructional resources with USA faculty to integrate into coursework. Second, ARI and the District Coaches will provide in-class PD on inclusion and collaborative teaching practices to pre-service teachers. Third, PTI will provide case studies for pre-service students regarding how to communicate with parents regarding RtI and CEIE.
Lastly, faculty trained on online coaching will utilize online coaching during courses to demonstrate how to use the “bug-in-the-ear” technology and to observe teachers at the model sites. Together, these in-class opportunities will build capacity and awareness among pre-service students so that CEIE principles will become the norm.
As evidenced by the prior success in Mobile County, the Goal 2 PD approach has been shown to be effective. Furthermore, by focusing on ensuring the implementation science drivers are met through building competencies at all levels, establishing the organizational structure needed to support the PD, and providing coaching to the building and district leaders, Project
CTG will create a sustainable approach to professional development.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 38 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Goal 3: Offering Professional Development in Post-Secondary Supports
The third goal of Project CTG, to offer professional development for educators, families, and stakeholders on the needs of students with disabilities and the support and services that are needed for successful adult transition, which will lead to improved student graduation rates and post-school outcomes, will be achieved through three objectives.
Objective 3.1: Gathering Data on Community Perceptions on Secondary Transition Supports
The first objective focuses on the development of a school, parent, and community stakeholder survey regarding the supports and resources available for secondary transition and post-secondary supports. Project CTG will work with the PTI, Auburn University (AU), and the
SPDG Advisory Group on this objective, which will occur throughout the grant.
Objective 3.1: Collect and review data regarding school and community climate regarding the perceptions of and opportunities for students with disabilities making successful adult transitions, which will inform ALSDE staff and Project stakeholders.
Activity 3.1.1: SPDG staff will work with the Advisory Board to develop a school, parent, and
IHE climate survey. (Y1 Q2-3)
Activity 3.1.2: Climate surveys will be conducted on a biannual basis, analyzed, and shared with
Project CTG partners, the Project CTG Advisory Board, and community stakeholders. (Y1, 3, 5)
Activity 3.1.3: Advisory Board subgroups will be formed based on survey results. (Y2 & Y4)
The ALSDE currently collaborates with Auburn Transition Leadership Institute (ATLI) at AU to conduct the Indicator 14 survey for the SPP/APR. Through Objective 3.1, Project CTG will supplement the Indicator 14 data with a survey for families, schools, and university
Disability Support Offices on secondary transition and post-secondary education needs for SWD.
The survey, developed by the ATLI, will consist of a parent version and a personnel/university
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 39 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
version. While the specific content will be developed post-funding, Project CTG will ask stakeholders about the availability, relevance, usefulness, and quality of: (1) Communication about secondary transition; (2) Communication about disability-specific transition needs;
(3) Information about transition supports; (4) Information about post-secondary educational opportunities; and (5) Information about post-secondary employment. The PTI will collaborate with ATLI to develop the parent portion of the survey, and the SPDG Advisory Group will provide input on both surveys.
ATLI will administer the survey on a biannual basis, beginning at the end of the first year. Project CTG will work with the External Evaluator to analyze the data, and results will be shared with the ALSDE, SPDG partners, and the SPDG Advisory Group. Project CTG will use these data to: (1) Form subgroups within the SPDG Advisory Group to identify strategies for eliminating identified barriers and weaknesses; (2) Develop PD topics for personnel (Objective
3.2); and (3) Determine parent training topics (Objective 3.2).
Objective 3.2: Offering PD to Parents and Districts on Post-School Supports
The second objective focuses on offering PD on secondary transition and post-school supports for parents and educators throughout the state. Project CTG will collaborate with the
ATLI and the AL-PTI on this objective. The activities will occur throughout the grant.
Objective 3.2: Deliver statewide training opportunities and communities of practice for families, district staff, and community stakeholders that will result in increased knowledge, skills, and awareness about secondary transition and post-school supports.
Activity 3.2.1: Partner with the AU to promote TNT training for educators. (Y1-5)
Activity 3.2.2: ATLI will develop modules for personnel on post-secondary education. (Y2)
Activity 3.2.3: ALSDE Consultants with ATLI will provide follow-up TA and coaching to
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 40 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
personnel enrolled in modules and conduct fidelity assessments. (Y2-5)
Activity 3.2.4: The PTI will develop parent training curriculum related to topics identified in the
Obj. 3.1 survey. (Y1 Q4, Y2-5)
Activity 3.2.5: The PTI will conduct training/TA for families based on Obj. 3.1 needs. (Y2-5)
Activity 3.2.6: The PTI will conduct training/TA for SWD on IHE accommodations. (Y2-5)
Activity 3.2.7: The PTI will work with the Centers for Independent Living re. transition. (Y1-5)
Project CTG will partner with the ATLI at AU to provide PD to personnel on secondary transition and post-secondary enrollment. Currently, the ATLI offers modules to personnel regarding the transition process for SWD. The Training in Transition (TNT) series, designed for in-service teachers and administrators, offers evidenced-based PD on transition, transition planning, and transition standards. For a full list of the TNT modules, please see Appendix A.
Project CTG will promote the TNT modules on the SPDG website, in pilot school sites, and at
ALSDE conferences and meetings to encourage educators to enroll in the online module series.
In addition, ATLI will develop online modules similar to the TNT series, related to post- secondary enrollment. The modules will provide information to in-service teachers and administrators on encouraging students to apply; preparing for enrollment; working with IHEs; and getting accommodations in place at IHEs. The Objective 3.1 survey results will inform the specific content needed by educators. ATLI will be responsible for placing the modules on their website and students will enroll through the ATLI site. ALSDE SPDG Consultants will provide follow-up coaching and TA to those personnel that enroll in the ATLI post-secondary enrollment modules developed for the SPDG. Due to the geographic limitations, online coaching methods will be used when possible. The coaching and fidelity assessment strategies will be similar to
Objectives 2.2 and 2.3.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 41 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The PTI will work with the ALSDE to develop training sessions for families of SWD.
Using the data from the Objective 3.1 survey, the PTI will identify training topics and training curricula for parents. The PTI will conduct at least four training sessions per year for families and provide follow-up TA, information, and/or outreach by contacting attendees. Additionally, the PTI will conduct training sessions for high-school SWD and their families. These sessions will address how to advocate for post-secondary accommodations and how best to work with
Disability Support Offices at IHEs. All resources developed from the trainings will be shared on the Alabama SPDG Web site.
Lastly, the PTI has an established relationship with the Alabama Centers for Independent
Living. Through Project CTG, the PTI will provide collaborative training for both the Centers and families of SWD regarding how to prepare for living arrangements after graduation. These training sessions will also explain the services of the Centers for Independent Living to parents as well as the supports they offer for creating work opportunities after graduation.
Objective 3.3: Creating a Web-Based Resource Center on AL Post-Secondary Supports.
The third objective focuses on the identification and creation of materials related to transition and post-secondary supports, and the subsequent development of a Web site to centralize these resources. Project CTG will collaborate with PTI, and AU, to develop
Web-based resources. The Objective 3.3 activities will occur throughout the grant.
Objective 3.3: Create a centralized, web-based system of information and resources for educational agencies, families, consumers, and stakeholders that will increase awareness and knowledge about disability, secondary transition, and community supports.
Activity 3.3.1: Assemble existing resources and information for AL SDE Web site.
Activity 3.3.2: Collaborate with the PTI to: (1) create parent-friendly documents that will assist
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 42 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
with secondary transition; (2) AU for materials on post-secondary educational opportunities; and
(3) Alabama Independent Living Centers for materials on post-secondary supported work and living assistance. (Y1-2)
Activity 3.3.3: Maintain and add content to project Web site.
In order to ensure that families, districts, and community stakeholders have direct access to Project CTG materials and resources, the ALSDE will develop and maintain an easily-accessible Web site. The AL SPDG has an existing Web site, and the Objective 3.3 materials will be added to the Web site. During the first year, Project CTG staff, with input from the SPDG Advisory Group, will assemble materials and resources for the SPDG Web site. The
Web site is maintained in accordance with Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines to ensure accessibility.
Project CTG will collaborate with PTI and AU to develop materials related to assisting families with the secondary transition process, post-secondary educational opportunities, and post-secondary work assistance. These materials will be written for various audiences including transitioning students and their families, district staff assisting students with the transition process, disability supports at IHEs, and employers of individuals of disabilities. In addition to these collaborative documents, Project CTG will identify and add to the Web site post-secondary resources and links.
In subsequent years, Project CTG staff and stakeholders will review evaluation data regarding the Web site and make changes as needed. Additional documents will be added to the
Web site and will be maintained by the ALSDE.
C. THE INTEGRATION OF NEEDS WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 43 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Together, the goals, objectives, and activities will lead to increased awareness, knowledge, skills, and ultimately changes in practice that will better the educational outcomes for SWD. Table 4 illustrates how the elements described in the Needs section relate to the
Project CTG goals and objectives.
Table 4: A Crosswalk of Project Needs and Project Objectives
NEED OBJECTIVE
A mix of rural and urban areas in the Obj. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3. The Project’s PD framework state makes a single approach to PD will be designed to address the needs of both rural and challenging. urban districts. PD to LEAs will be customized based
on specific district needs.
Social-demographic factors in Alabama Obj. 1.1, 1.2. When developing the Project’s PD that challenge post-school success (e.g., framework, barriers will be analyzed. Project CTG and lower education, poverty, etc.). the Advisory Team will create strategies for
approaching PD based on these challenges.
SPP/APR Indicator data demonstrate a Obj. 2.1-2.4, 3.1-3.3. Project CTG aims to improve need to address graduation outcomes. graduation through RtI PD as well as training and PD
to parents and personnel on secondary transition.
SPP/APR Indicator data demonstrate a Obj. 2.1-2.4. Project CTG will offer PD on reading need to address reading and math and math tiered instruction for personnel in Grades 3- proficiency, particularly Grades 3-9. 9.
Parent involvement data are below the Obj. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. The Alabama PTI will work with
ALSDE’s target. Project CTG on all objectives, however the PTI will
work with parents around transition issues.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 44 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Low post-secondary enrollment among Obj. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. Project CTG will offer PD, training,
SWD. and information to personnel, families, and
stakeholders related to post-secondary enrollment.
Integrate with current ALSDE All Objectives. Project CTG will prepare SWD for initiatives (Plan 2020, reorganization, post-school success. This outcome is accomplished
The Big Four principles). through collaborative PD within the ALSDE.
Align model with evidenced-based All Objectives. Project CTG is grounded in the strategies. research on implementation science, adult learning,
RtI, Safe & Civil Schools, TNT, the Big Four.
IV: QUALITY OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
Staff within the Special Education Services (SES) Section under the ALSDE will lead the
Project CTG activities. Project CTG staff will be supported by several key contractors and consultants. Vitae for key staff and consultants can be found in Appendix B. A personnel loading chart and a responsibility chart by activity are located in the Management Plan.
Project CTG personnel are staffed and ready to start upon funding. If a future vacancy should occur, ALSDE will make every effort to hire individuals from traditionally underrepresented groups, including those with a disability. The ALSDE is an equal opportunity employer, and does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, color, or national origin. In addition, the ALSDE actively supports the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accommodations will be made as needed. In addition, materials will be made available in alternate formats to ensure the equitable participation of students, parents, and others with special needs.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 45 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Efforts will be made to hire individuals with disabilities and/or other underrepresented groups including: (1) Seeking guidance from the Advisory Group about ways to hire traditionally underrepresented candidates, (2) Encouraging members of the Advisory Group to promote the opportunity to their stakeholders, (3) Advertising in diversity outlets such as
Hispanic Outlook and Historically Black Colleges, and (4) Including diverse representation on hiring committees. Any SPDG subcontractor will also be contractually required to follow these steps when hiring staff for Project CTG.
A. KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
Mrs. Susan H. Williamson (.75 FTE in-kind) will serve as the SPDG Director and
Principal Investigator. Mrs Williamson is the current AL SPDG Director. She has taught general education and special education students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. She has also worked as an elementary school counselor, where she implemented numerous academic and behavioral intervention programs for students who were at-risk for school failure. Mrs. Williamson joined the ALSDE in 1989, where she worked as an Education
Specialist in the Special Education Services, for 10 years prior to becoming Associate Director of the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC), where she served as state liaison and worked with evaluation and data collection. Following her work at SERRC, she returned to the
ALSDE to work with SPP/APR and was appointed Director of the Alabama SPDG in 2010.
Ms. Shirley Farrell (.25 FTE) will serve as a SPDG Technology Consultant. Ms. Farrell is an Education Specialist with the ALSDE Special Education Services, providing TA, PD, and program reviews for gifted education programs in schools. She taught in gifted classrooms for
12 years and served as the Gifted Supervisor of 45 gifted specialists for the second largest school system in Alabama. As a Doctoral student in Instructional Technologies, Ms. Farrell is highly
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 46 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
proficient with computer technology and assists many specialists in the SES and across the state.
Her technology and gifted education work has been presented at the state, national, and international levels. Ms. Farrell has written, edited, and reviewed curriculum; published training and technical assistance documents, manuals, and booklets; published two novels with students; and currently edits and publishes two newsletters. In the past 15 years, she has received and managed over 30 grants.
Mr. Curtis Gage (.50 FTE in-kind) will serve as a SPDG Math Consultant. Mr. Gage has served as an Education Specialist for the ALSDE-SES division, for more than four years.
Prior to this position, he served as a Special Education Facilitator in Montgomery County. He has taught students with special needs in Montgomery County Public Schools for 12 years. Mr.
Gage holds a Master’s of Education in Special Education degree from Alabama State University; an Administration Certification in Educational Leadership from Auburn University at
Montgomery; and an Educational Specialist in Educational Leadership degree from Auburn
University.
Mrs. Nancy Johnson (.25 FTE) will serve as a SPDG Math Consultant. Nancy
Johnson is a Specialist at the Alabama State Department of Education, where she has worked for more than four years. Prior to that, Mrs. Johnson spent 12 years in the classroom as a general education, elementary teacher (all grades) and Gifted Specialist (Grades K – 8).
Mrs. Johnson has worked with AMSTI and the Alabama SPDG to develop a challenging mathematics curriculum for high-functioning SWD. She has an Ed.S. Degree from The
University of Alabama in Gifted Education, and is currently working toward a Ph.D. at The
University of Alabama in Education Leadership/Instructional Leadership.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 47 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Mrs. Theresa Farmer (.75 FTE in-kind) will serve as a SPDG Instructional Strategies and Reading Consultant. Ms. Farmer is an Education Specialist with the ALSDE. Since 2002, she has primarily worked with the Alabama SIG and SPDG projects. Ms. Farmer brings over 20 years of experience as a general education collaborative teacher, and in 2001, she was selected as the Alabama State Teacher of the Year. She is also a National Board Certified Teacher.
Ms. Farmer’s areas of expertise include Inclusive Education Practices, Collaborative Teaching,
Effective Instructional Strategies, and Universal Design for Learning. She designed and facilitated the Models of Collaboration DVD Series project.
Ms. Brandolyn Barnes (1.0 FTE) will serve as a District Coach. Ms. Barnes is currently a Literacy Coach with the Mobile ALPs in conjunction with the ARI. Prior to her current position, she was a Language Arts teacher, a Writing Coach, a Literacy Coach with ARI and the Project for Adolescent Literacy, and a Literacy Consultant for Escambia County Public
Schools. Ms. Barnes received a B.S. in Language Arts Comprehensive Education from Troy
State University and an M.S. in Teaching and Learning with a concentration in Curriculum and
Instruction from Nova Southeastern University. She advocates researched-based strategies, six traits writing instruction, instructional coaching, and technology integration.
Ms. Rosemary L. Merold (.75 FTE in-kind) will serve as a District Coach. Ms. Merold has worked for the Alabama Reading Initiative since 1999, and has been a Reading Specialist, a
Regional Coach, and a Regional Coach Coordinator. She is a current Regional staff for the
Adolescent Literacy Project, in collaboration with the Alabama Reading Initiative and the
Alabama SPDG project. Prior to her work with ARI, Ms. Merold was a specific learning disabilities teacher for 13 years. She holds Master’s degrees in both Reading Specialist and
Specific Learning Disabilities.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 48 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Ms. Heather Wible (.50 FTE in-kind) will serve as a District Coach. As a graduate with a Master’s Degree in Collaborative Teaching, Mrs. Wible has had a wide variety of experiences in the field of education. She has served as a classroom teacher, special education teacher, reading coach, regional reading coach, and educational specialist. For the past nine years, she has been involved with coaching teachers and reading coaches to improve literacy across the state of Alabama. These duties include working with central office staff, principals, reading coaches, teachers and students as well as facilitating professional development sessions to local education agencies and universities.
B. PROJECT CONSULTANTS
External Evaluator (.75 FTE) Alabama statute requires all contracts over $25,000 be filled through a request for proposal process. Upon notification of funding, ALSDE will allow bids for the project evaluation services as described in the Quality of the Project Evaluation section. The selected evaluation contractor will fulfill the evaluation reporting requirements set forth by OSEP; in addition, the evaluator must meet the minimum qualifications in Table 5.
Table 5: Minimum Qualification for the External Evaluator
Recent experience conducting evaluations of similar scope and content. It is highly preferred that the evaluator have extensive evaluation experience on a SPDG or SIG. Priority will be given to evaluators who demonstrate knowledge of implementation science.
Knowledge and skills in evaluation design, assessments, and data collection processes appropriate to federal education grants to states.
Working knowledge and context of centers and projects funded through the USDOE and the provision of technical assistance at the regional and national level.
Strong oral and written communication skills for interaction with ALSDE staff, SPDG
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 49 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
personnel, state and local agencies and for reporting to stakeholders.
Pamela W. Howard, Ph.D. (.25 FTE) will provide content expertise and technical assistance on online coaching. Dr. Howard is a Contract Consultant for the current ALSDE
SPDG. In addition, she is an adjunct instructor in the University of Alabama’s Special
Education and Multiple Abilities Program where she previously served as a clinical assistant professor and a research associate for the university’s Project TEEACH, a Federal Personnel
Preparation Grant. She holds current Georgia Educator Certificates in Leadership for Special
Education, as well as a Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher. Dr. Howard’s current professional memberships include the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) in which she serves at the chairperson of the
Publications and Products Review (PPR) committee.
David Ellis (.10 FTE) will lead the pre-service field experience program at the University of South Alabama. Dr. Ellis has a thirty year career in service to persons with disabilities. His employment history includes therapeutic camping, classroom instruction, funded research, teacher preparation, program evaluation, and behavior analysis. Dr. Ellis has ongoing interests in
Secondary Education and Transition Services for persons with severe disabilities and has documented accomplishments in these areas. In addition, he has maintained productive relationships based on service and advocacy with public schools and community-based agencies in Mobile County. He received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in Special Education with an emphasis in Mental Retardation Research in 1991.
V: ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES
A. ADEQUATE SUPPORT OF THE LEAD AGENCY
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 50 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The ALSDE has adequate facilities, equipment, supplies, and resources to support Project
CTG over the next five years and beyond the grant period. The ALSDE has made significant financial and personnel investment in the delivery of services to Alabama educators who work with SWD, as well as to the proposed project.
The ALSDE’s Special Education Services (SES) will implement the Project CTG activities. Located in Montgomery, Alabama, the SES currently manages state and federal resources to serve approximately 80,149 SWD. The SES will provide office space for Project
CTG, and the ALSDE will provide the necessary equipment, supplies, and resources to implement the project, including fiscal, accounting, contract, human resources, and IT support.
The ALSDE will make a significant personnel contribution to Project CTG (2.75 FTE). The SES has the necessary teleconferencing and videoconferencing capabilities to implement the project’s goals. The SDE maintains its own computer network, Internet access, and e-mail system. The
SES also maintains an active Web site, which meets government-wide accessibility standards, and has a link to the SPDG website that is regularly updated by the SES.
The ALSDE is connected to all 134 LEAs and 11 Regional Inservice Centers through the internet conferencing and high speed videoconferencing. Due to the rural areas of the state as described in the Project Need section, this remote conferencing capability is a critical component of Project CTG, particularly for the online coaching (Objectives 2.2 and 2.3) and the PD scale- up process (Objective 2.3). While District Coaches will provide on-site PD in districts, the remote conferencing will allow ALSDE staff to work with the District Coaches and the District and Building Leadership Teams. Additionally, the technology will allow for sharing of ideas, modeling, and collaboration among districts and Regional Centers across the state.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 51 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
The ALSDE will provide the necessary equipment for Project CTG to create documents in accessible formats and ensure that physical space is accessible for individuals with disabilities.
The Project CTG website materials will be developed in accordance with WAI standards
(Objective 3.3) and any materials for districts or parents (Objective 3.2) will be available in alternate formats including large print, audio, or Braille as needed. Video resources developed by the project work will be appropriately captioned (Objective 3.2) and any conference or meeting spaces for Project CTG will be accessible in accordance with the ADA to ensure full participation of individuals with disabilities.
Since 1998, the ALSDE has successfully administered a SIG/SPDG, and therefore has demonstrated its capacity to execute a SPDG project. In implementing the proposed SPDG,
ALSDE will use at least 90 percent of the funds received for PD and the infrastructure to deliver the PD and will continue to provide significant in-kind support using Part B discretionary funds to build the capacity to sustain the PD model after SPDG funding ends.
B. COMMITMENT OF PARTNERS
Project CTG strategically uses its partnerships throughout the state and nation in order to provide up-to-date PD to districts and other education agencies. The project will collaborate with an array of partners throughout the state, including IHEs, the AL PTI, and numerous
ALSDE offices. In addition, national consultants will be utilized such as Dr. Knight and Mrs.
Ann Hoffman from the Kansas University - Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL); Dr.
Pam Howard, Dr. Marci Rock (University of North Carolina-Greensboro); and Dr. Marion
Parker; and SERRC. SPDG partners will commit resources of their own to ensure that the
Project CTG activities integrate with that organization’s existing activities. A brief summary of the key SPDG partners is provided below. Appendix C includes the letters of support for
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 52 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
partners listed below.
ALSDE Partners
Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI). The ARI, housed within the Office of Student
Learning, is a statewide K-12 initiative with a goal to significantly improve reading instruction and ultimately achieve 100 percent literacy among public school students. The ARI provides training to teachers to insure that they teach in proven and effective ways, specifically by targeting the five critical areas of effective reading instruction. Evaluation data using individual student data has shown dramatic gains in performance on Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment compared with their placement at kindergarten. Currently,
ARI’s PD on reading is being implemented in every Alabama school, however, its PD is not specific to instructional practices for SWD. The ARI will work closely with Project CTG to offer instructional PD (Goal 2) and to develop a collaborative approach to PD (Goal 1) for SWD.
Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI). The AMSTI, housed within the Office of Student Learning, is a statewide, K-12 math and science initiative with the goal of preparing all students for the workforce and/or post-secondary educational success. As the largest math and science initiative in the nation, AMSTI is often regarded as a model for other educational programs. The AMSTI has been rigorously evaluated and found that on every state assessment, AMSTI schools have always outscored paired-matched non-AMSTI schools.
This strong evidence of effectiveness will greatly contribute to Project CTG’s Goals 1 and 2.
Project CTG and AMSTI will work closely to address the needs of SWD.
Prevention and Support Services. Housed within the Office of Learning Support,
Prevention and Support Services provides TA to schools and districts on school safety, discipline, attendance, drop-out prevention, Safe and Drug Free Schools, the Comprehensive
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 53 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Guidance and Counseling Program, and Alabama School Health Services. Prevention and
Support Services was instrumental in reducing Alabama’s drop-out rate; the state currently ranks third in drop-out reduction. The Safe and Civil Schools CHAMPS program is overseen by
Prevention and Support Services. Working with Project CTG, Prevention and Support Services will assist the SPDG with feeder pattern schools that choose to implement the CHAMPS program as well as behavior and community PD aligned with the Big Four (Objectives 2.2 and
2.3) to address the needs of SWD and their parents.
Other ALSDE Partners. Aligned with the State Superintendent of Education’s ALSDE reorganization and the subsequent targeted collaboration among offices to improve district performance, Project CTG will work with most offices within the Department. Specifically,
Project CTG will work closely with the Office of Teaching and Learning, Student Assessment and Accountability, the Technology Initiative, and Information Systems, so that resources can be maximized. In addition, this collaboration will help ensure sustainability of efforts beyond the
SPDG funding period. While the partnerships will be informal consultations regarding particular districts or school-based needs (Objectives 2.2, 2.3), Project CTG will also utilize the expertise of these offices for building capacity of the SPDG team (Objective 2.1). Together, these collaborations focus on improving outcomes for all Alabama students that is complementary and not duplicative.
ALABAMA PARENT TRAINING INSTITUTE (PTI)
Alabama Parent Education Center (APEC). The Alabama PTI, APEC, provides training and information about special education laws and regulations, evaluations, individual education programs, and communication and problem solving strategies. As a PTI, APEC provides information and training to parents regarding their children’s educational outcomes. The APEC
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 54 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
assists schools to strengthen the home-school partnership to improved educational outcomes, and will work with Alabama families of SWD, district staff, and pre-service students regarding the home-school partnership (Objective 2.2, 2.3, 2.4) and transitioning to successful post-school outcomes (Objective 3.2 and 3.3).
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION (IHE) Partners
University of South Alabama (USA). USA is Alabama’s fourth largest university and offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees. Eighty-five percent of the teachers in the greater metropolitan area hold either an academic degree or teacher certificate from USA.
The College of Education has an enrollment of over 2,300 undergraduate and graduate students, and the College is the third largest provider of public school educators in Alabama. The College maintains a variety of support services through its various offices, including the Office of Media
Services, the Office of Contacts and Grants, the Office of Field Services, and the Office of
Assessment and Evaluation. Project CTG and USA will work collaboratively to create a field experience program with model SPDG school for pre-service students (Objective 2.4).
Auburn Transition Leadership Institute (ATLI). Located at Auburn University, ATLI seeks to improve life’s transitions for persons with disabilities through TA, outreach, research, and instruction activities for students, parents, community leaders, agency representatives, educators, and transition practitioners. Over the past 12 years, ATLI’s instruction, research, and outreach program activities have engaged all of Alabama‘s public school systems, as well as over 58,000 students, parents, and professionals. Project CTG and ATLI will work collaboratively to develop a transition PD needs survey for educators (Objective 3.1), promote
ATLI’s TNT modules for in-service educators as well as develop new evidenced-based modules
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 55 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
on post-secondary educational enrollment (Objective 3.2). Additionally, ATLI will provide
Web-based materials for families and districts for the SPDG Web site (Objective 3.3).
Local Education Agency (LEA) Partners
During the five-year funding period, it is anticipated that Project CTG will work intensively with feeder patterns located in all 11 Regional Inservice Centers throughout the state.
During Years 3-5, the Project will work to leverage other federal, state and local funds in order to achieve scale-up and to maximize support for the Project CTG’s partnership model in all areas of Alabama. As part of Objective 2.2 and 2.3, the ALSDE will provide subcontracts to LEAs that participate in Project CTG PD to provide monetary support for substitute teachers and PD materials. As part of the agreement, LEAs will provide a 0.5-0.75 FTE Shadow Coach in-kind as well as develop District and Building Level Implementation Teams. The LEA staff will be represented on the SPDG Advisory Group, including a superintendent, principal, local Special
Education Director, and a teacher.
Other State Stakeholders
The SES has strong working partnerships with districts and state organizations. Project
CTG will work with other educational groups including the State Special Education Advisory
Panel (SEAP), the A+ Education Partnership, and the Governor’s Office for Transition Issues.
Additionally, Project CTG recognizes the importance of partnering with community and business leaders, particularly around Goal 3’s transition supports. These partners will include: the
Alabama Department of Community Economics and Affairs, Vocational Rehabilitation, Winn-
Dixie, and the Governor’s Office. These state partners will be represented on the SPDG
Advisory Group in order to provide a variety of perspectives and expertise.
National Consultants
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 56 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Project CTG will partner with national consultants for expertise in a variety of content areas. The experts will assist with both cross-training of staff (Objective 2.1) as well as consult with SPDG staff regarding district and educator PD (Objectives 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2). Drs. Marci
Rock and Pamela Howard will provide TA and coaching regarding online coaching. Dr. Howard will work with District Coaches and SPDG staff to build capacity; she will also work directly with districts to ensure they have the technological prepared staff to implement online coaching.
Dr. Marion Parker, formerly an education professor at Troy State University, will consult with
Project CTG regarding UDL best practices (Objective 2.1).
Dr. Jim Knight and Ms. Ann Hoffman, both with KU-CRL, offer expertise on the Big
Four model; instructional coaching strategies; and Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) which is a comprehensive approach to teaching adolescents. KU-CRL has existed since 1976 and is a nationally-recognized research and practice center. Project CTG will work with Dr. Knight and
Ms. Hoffman regarding Goal 2.
The SERRC, part of the OSEP-funded Regional Resource Center Program, offers training, TA, and information to Part B and Part C agencies regarding IDEA. The SERRC will offer facilitation for the collaborative development of the PD model (Objectives 1.1 and 1.2) as well as content expertise on secondary transition and post-school outcomes (Goal 3).
C. ADEQUACY OF THE BUDGET
Project CTG is in a position to take advantage of significant ALSDE resources and support. The ALSDE will provide significant in-kind contributions using IDEA Part B discretionary funds, which will subsidize the costs of the SPDG. Key ALSDE Offices will be contributing to and supporting the SPDG, as described above. This support streamlines the
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 57 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
process of developing a model of PD for districts, ultimately reducing duplication of effort and increasing effectiveness and efficiency of service.
Using prior fiscal experience and the prior SPDG budgets, the ALSDE has determined the estimated costs to implement Project CTG in terms of salaries, benefits, and other direct costs. The detailed Budget and Justification provided within this application specify the support that will be available for project activities. The ALSDE will carry out the project using general accounting and fiscal accountability standards and as required, 90 percent of the projected costs will support comprehensive personnel development.
D. REASONABLENESS OF THE BUDGET
The ALSDE is requesting $1,215,400.00 for Project CTG. This amount, with an in-kind contribution from the ALSDE, will provide adequate funds for staff, travel, subcontracts, SPDG consultants, and project operational costs. The application Budget and Budget Narrative detail the breakdown of costs by expense category and the justification of costs.
The ALSDE will contribute approximately $345,980.04 of in-kind contributions from
Part B funds and other contributed SES staff time. This contribution will off-set the costs of implementing the grant. In particular, ALSDE will also provide funding for the SPDG Director
(.75 FTE), two ALSDE Consultants (1.25 FTE), one District Coach (.75FTE), and various
ALSDE consultant’s time. This high level of commitment to Project CTG results because
ALSDE recognizes: (1) The importance of the AL SPDG integration into the vision of the
ALSDE and SBE goals; (2) The need to provide collaborative PD; and (3) The critical need to develop an evidenced-based PD model with ARI and AMSTI that can be used now as well as in the future. Based on the support from partners and the ALSDE’s current resources and financial commitment, the funds requested are adequate for implementing Project CTG.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 58 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
E. SUSTAINABILITY BEYOND SPDG FUNDING
The concept of the SPDG/ARI/AMSTI PD model in Goal 1was designed to provide a mechanism for streamlined PD after SPDG funding has ended. The ALSDE is making a large investment in personnel and resources up-front to ensure that the model is developed, implemented, and evaluated over the next five years. Once SPDG funding has ended, the
ALSDE will have a model that can be used by the department for delivering proactive PD not just for reading and math content, but that could be applied to a variety of content areas.
Furthermore, the SPDG will build capacity and knowledge at every level. The capacity begins at the ALSDE with Project CTG, ARI, Prevention and Support, and AMSTI staff as well as parent partners when applicable. As the coordinators and deliverers of training and coaching to districts, it is essential that they have a strong foundational knowledge. Since Objective 2.1 addresses cross-training, all consultants and project staff will have the knowledge and skills to provide effective TA to districts, even with staff attrition.
Objectives 2.2 and 2.3 build capacity among districts and feeder pattern schools that will be sustained following grant funds. The implementation model with built-in feedback loops creates a model of communication and support between districts and the state that is following the Policy Enabled Practice-Practice Informed Policy (PEP-PIP) cycles (MIN, 2011).
Furthermore, participating LEAs will be required to allocate a .50-.75 FTE Shadow Coach within the district. The Shadow Coach will receive PD and modeling from the District Coaches and administer fidelity instruments with the District Coaches, in order to build capacity within the district that will continue after funding. The pre-service component in Objective 2.4 ensures that pre-service students will work with Project CTG sites as model school demonstration sites. This
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 59 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
objective builds capacity among new teachers and fosters collaboration among LEAs, University of South Alabama (USA) other IHE partners, and the PTI.
Goal 3 results in the development of new tools for making data-based decisions.
Additionally, Objective 3.2 and 3.3 will lead to new resources and a centralized location for accessing resources in order to promote knowledge and awareness among families of SWD, education agencies, and stakeholders. The development of these resources, which will continue to be available after the SPDG, will also foster collaborations among the ALSDE and its partners and build capacity among parents, teachers, and transitioning students. The collaborative interactions can lay the groundwork for future post-SPDG work.
Collectively, Project CTG is designed to enhance the skills, knowledge, and practices of
ALSDE staff, LEAs, families, and stakeholders through information, training, coaching, and collaboration. With the support of ALSDE and other partners, Project CTG’s model of PD will continue to provide support to educators after the grant period.
VI: MANAGEMENT PLAN
The ALSDE’s plan for managing the grant is essential for completing the proposed objectives and activities. Central to this approach is receiving input from and informing stakeholders, individuals with disabilities, families of SWD, districts, and the community. A description of the communication and reporting system are described below. Charts detailing the involvement of partners as well as timelines and milestones, are also included in this section.
Together, the proposed management approach will assist Project CTG’s External Evaluator in tracking process measures and evaluating the overall progress toward the projects’ goals.
A. OVERALL STRUCTURE OF PROJECT CTG
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 60 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
In designing the plan for this five-year systems change initiative, the SPDG partners were guided by management principles of strong leadership, clear lines of accountability, ongoing communication, collaboration, flexibility, and procedures for ensuring cost effectiveness.
As Figure 8 demonstrates, Project CTG’s management structure is based on the SISEP model of collaborative implementation partnerships (Fixsen & Blasé, 2008).
Figure 8: Depiction of the Structure of the Project CTG PD
As the figure shows, the various teams work collaboratively in terms of communication of practice and outcomes. This cycle is aligned with the PIP-PEP cycle of feedback to assure that policies inform practice and practices are informing policies (Fixsen et al., 2009).
At the top of the image, the ALSDE Leadership, is comprised of the State Special
Education Director (the Principal Investigator on Project CTG), the Director of the Office of
Student Learning (ARI’s and AMSTI’s Office), the Director of the Office of Learning Support
(Project CTG’s and Prevention and Support’s Office), and the State Special Education Advisory
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 61 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Panel (SEAP). In addition, the Directors will work with the Office of Financial Management and
Information Systems as needed. These leaders will work with Legislatures, the Governor’s
Office, the Superintendent, and within ALSDE to enact organizational, fiscal, management, and policy changes as recommended by Goal 1 Directors and evaluation data from Goal 2.
The SPDG Team, as described below, will feed information from districts to ALSDE leaders. The SPDG Team will also seek guidance from the SPDG Advisory Group. Other than the PTI Director and Theresa Farmer, the SPDG Advisory Group Liaison, the two teams are mutually exclusive. This autonomy will ensure there are not conflicts of interest, and the SPDG
Advisory Group can give independent feedback to the SPDG Team.
Supported by SISEP practices (Dughman et al., 2011), the District and Building Level
Leadership Teams will be formed within each Project CTG district. As described in the Project
Design, these groups will provide oversight for the implementation of the PD in the buildings, remove barriers to implementation, and provide organizational support for sustainable PD. The two teams will provide feedback regarding needed policy and practice changes.
As indicated in the figure, both the teachers/educators and families will interact to impact the student. This interaction demonstrates the need for parents and teachers to partner when implementing reading and math tiered instruction, creating effective environments for students, and creating foundations for successful transitions. The AL PTI will be instrumental in providing knowledge and skills to parents that will assist parents with supporting these innovations.
B. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROJECT
Project CTG daily operations will be led by a SPDG Team, which will be responsible for implementing the project workscope; managing communication among the department and stakeholders; meeting reporting requirements to OSEP; reviewing evaluation activities, and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 62 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
ensuring fiscal responsibility of the grant. Supported primarily through in-kind contributions of the ALSDE, the SPDG Team will include: Susan Williamson (Director); Shirley Farrell (ALSDE
Consultant); Curtis Gage (ALSDE Consultant); Theresa Farmer (ALSDE Consultant); Heather
Wible (ALSDE Consultant);Pam Howard (Coaching Consultant); Jeana Winters (PTI Director);
Brandolyn Barnes (District Coach); Crystal Richardson (AL SES Program Coordinator); and
Ray Glasscock (Administrative Assistant).
The SPDG Team will meet bi-weekly, through Skype or conference calls, to communicate: 1) project updates; 2) needs and concerns of staff, consultants, or districts; and 3) administrative pass-downs. While these meetings will be short, they will help all project staff remain up-to-date and aware of the grant’s progress.
The Project CTG Director/Principal Investigator (PI) will monitor the daily operations of the grant and will have the ultimate responsibility for the project’s completion. To maintain the specified timelines, the Project Director will conduct data reviews and monthly meetings with the SES Program Coordinator and Project CTG Evaluator. These meetings will include implementation updates but also fiscal, reporting, personnel, evaluation, and federal updates.
The SPDG Team will be responsible for operational aspects of the grant. Specifically: 1)
The Project CTG Director will work with the ALSDE Fiscal Management Office to manage the
SPDG budget. All accounting procedures will be conducted in accordance with EDGAR rules. 2)
The Director will also work with the ALSDE Fiscal Management to establish formal MOUs and contracts with partners. 3) The Director will work with Human Resources if vacancies occur, to fill the positions. 4) Reports to OSEP will be the responsibility of the Director and Evaluator, with input from staff and partners. By establishing clear roles for operationalizing the grant,
Project CTG can increase its efficiency and maintain its timelines.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 63 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
C. PROJECT OVERSIGHT TEAMS
Project CTG will utilize both a SPDG Team and an Advisory Group to implement the project goals, objectives, and activities (See Table 6).
Table 6: Responsibilities of the SPDG Team and SPDG Advisory Group
SPDG Team Advisory Group
1. Make decisions regarding the grant goals, 1. Advise, guide, and provide expertise that
objectives, and activities will assist the SPDG Team & staff
2. Generate updates for stakeholders 2. Receive updates & information to pass
3. Review feedback from stakeholders onto stakeholder groups
4. Review alignment between the ALSDE PD 3. Discuss the needs of their stakeholders as
model and Project CTG activities related to Goals 2 and 3
5. Discuss grant operational concerns (e.g., 4. Review Goal 3 data and form subgroups to
personnel, budget, reporting) generate strategies for addressing needs
As described above, the SPDG Team will provide oversight for the operationalization of the grant objectives and activities (See Table 9). The SPDG Team was purposefully designed to be a small group that could meet frequently and make decisions regarding implementation.
While decisions will be advised by the SPDG Advisory Group, the SPDG Team will have the ultimate authority to make programmatic decisions regarding the grant.
The SPDG Team will receive guidance from the SPDG Advisory Group. The SPDG
Advisory Group will have diverse representation to ensure that all stakeholders, including consumers, families of SWD, individuals with disabilities, district representatives, the
Governor’s Office, the SEAP, Vocational Rehabilitation, and large employers of individuals with disabilities. A list of the Advisory Group members can be found in Appendix A.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 64 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Led by the SPDG Liaison, the Advisory Group will meet two times a year in June and
December, and more often as needed. Due to the size of the state, travel costs, and schedules of members, the Advisory Group will convene on conference calls. Besides the regular meetings, the SPDG Director will seek additional guidance and input from individual Advisory Group members as needed throughout the grant. Together, these representatives will provide their expertise and knowledge to Project CTG staff, and will disseminate information to their respective stakeholder groups.
D. ROLES OF STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
To implement the activities of Project CTG, the ALSDE will enter into formal partnerships with: 1) the AL PTI; 2) USA; 3) ALTI-Auburn University; and 4) Mobile County
Public Schools; 5) Baldwin County Public Schools. Upon funding, MOUs will be drafted and signed. In addition to the formal partnerships, ALSDE will issue contracts to project consultants.
Letters of support from these external contractors and consultants are located in Appendix C.
Table 7 demonstrates the personnel loading chart by objective for Project CTG for key staff and contractors. Shaded boxes denote in-kind funding support.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 65 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE Table 7: Project CTG Personnel Loading Chart: Days by Objectives
SW SF CG NJ TF Coaches JW PH DP TB Eval Objectives Other (.75) (.25) (.50) (.25) (.75) (2.25) (.40) (.25) (.25) (.10) (.70)
Obj 1.1: Building a
Foundation for a PD model 15 5 5 2 5 6 2 8 8 7 Cons. with ARI/AMSTI/SPDG
Obj. 1.2: Develop a
Collaborative PD model 15 3 3 3 3 9 2 1 8 8 7 Cons. with ARI/AMSTI/SPDG
Obj. 2.1: PD Training &
Building Capacity Among 10 6 6 6 6 18 3 6 5 5 6 Cons.
SPDG Partners
Obj. 2.2: Local PD on 40 10 44 22 65 294 4 23 18 2 38 Cons. Reading, Math & CEIE
Obj. 2.3: Scaling-Up PD in 55 10 60 28 74 294 5 26 24 2 51 Cons. Reading, Math & CEIE
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 66 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Objectives SW SF CG NJ TF Coaches JW PH DP TB Eval Other
(.75) (.25) (.50) (.25) (.75) (2.25) (.40) (.25) (.25) (.10) (.70)
Obj. 2.4: IHE Field 7 2 5 11 USA: 45 Experience in RTI/CEIE
Obj. 3.1: Survey Views on AU: 15, 10 3 15 24 Transition Supports Cons.
Obj. 3.2: Offer PD to
Parents and Districts on 20 10 28 47 21 AU: 33
Post-School Supports
Obj. 3.3: Create Web
Resources on AL Post- 15 20 2 2 4 6 20 2 10 AU: 12
Secondary Supports
* 250 days per year= 1.0 FTE
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 67 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Table 8 shows the personnel loading chart by objective for Project CTG consultants.
Table 8: Project CTG Personnel Loading Chart: Days by Objectives
Objectives JK AH MR MP SERRC
1.1: PD Model 8
1.2: PD Model 2 8
2.1: Capacity Building 1 1 1
2.2: LEA PD 5 2 2
2.3: LEA PD Scale-up 5 2 3
2.4: Field Placement
3.1: Post School Survey 4
3.2: Post School PD
3.3: Post School Web
JK= Jim Knight; AH= Ann Hoffman; MR= Marci Rock; MP= Marion Parker
E. SPDG REPORTING & COMMUNICATION
Project CTG Reporting
An online, real-time reporting system will facilitate data collection and reporting by
Project CTG staff and consultants. This data system will assist the Project CTG Director and
Evaluator with monitoring progress and efforts, particularly for the local-level PD (Objectives
2.2, 2.3, 3.2). As a real-time data system, the SPDG Director will have access to the system and its reporting functions. The data from the online reporting system will be a point of discussion in the bi-weekly SPDG staff meetings. If changes to project activities are warranted after reviewing the data, corrections can be made in a timely manner. Reports generated from the online data system will also assist the Project CTG Evaluator’s formative evaluation. Therefore,
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 68 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
the online data system will serve as an accountability measure and a process evaluation mechanism.
The results from the data system together with evaluation data will be used to create reports for stakeholders and OSEP: 1) SPDG Annual Performance Report; 2) Project CTG
Annual Report for the Advisory Group; and 3) A Special Education Snapshot—a community- friendly version of the SPDG results. The SPDG Director will seek feedback on the reports from the Advisory Group. Any changes, clarifications, or additional information the Group has will be considered, thus creating formative feedback loops to inform program changes as needed.
Project CTG Communication Plan
Project CTG has a mechanism for facilitating communicating with its stakeholders. As
Figure 9 demonstrates, Project CTG staff will have open communication through the PTI; SPDG
Advisory Group; District Coaches; and its SPDG website. Stakeholders can access information through their representative SPDG members but also through the project’s website. The evaluation feedback from these sources will be reviewed by the SPDG Team on a monthly basis, which will guide further support to stakeholders, families, and districts.
Figure 9 Project CTG’s Model of Communicating with Stakeholders
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 69 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Project CTG
Project CTG Website Evaluation Feedback
Families, Advisory Group, Districts
Parent Partners SPDG Advisory District Coaches Group
Advisory Group's District/Building Families of SWD Stakeholders Leadership Teams
E. TIMELINES, MILESTONES, AND PERSONNEL FOR OBJECTIVES
Using the management approach described above, Project CTG staff, with its partners and oversight groups, will implement the project’s workscope. As outlined in Table 9, the activities, timelines, and milestones are presented. Additionally, the persons or groups responsible for particular activities are included. This table will be a guiding document for tracking process measures and measuring progress toward the project goals.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 70 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Table 9: Project CTG Responsible Parties, Milestones, and Timelines for Each Project Activity
Goals, Objectives, Activities Responsible Staff Milestones Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5
Goal 1: Create a system for expanding general education programs and initiatives in Alabama to include specific special education content and instructional knowledge for educators and families that will support student learning outcomes.
Objective 1.1: Collaboratively examine the initiatives, oversight, and professional development delivery models in general and special education that will result in increased collaboration among general and special education units in the state level.
A1.1.1: ARI, AMSTI and the SPDG ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Meeting with partners; List Q2 will discuss expectations and outcomes. Director, SERRC of goals and timelines
A1.1.2: Create a PD cross-walk to ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Table with school sites, type Q2-3 identify duplications and gaps. Director, Evaluator of PD, implementation level
A1.1.3: Conduct GIS mapping to ARI, AMSTI, SPDG GIS map of PD; Identified Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 determine district PD activities. Director, Evaluator areas with less support
A1.1.4: Review district SPP/APR data SPDG Director, SPDG SPP/APR analyses; List of Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 to determine reading and math needs. Consultants districts with greatest needs
A1.1.5: Assess barriers and resources ARI, AMSTI, SPDG General, regional, local Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 available to implementing PD. Director/Consultants barriers and resources lists
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 71 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
A1.1.6: Review the leadership and ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Review of leadership; Recs. Q3-4 structure for delivering PD. Director, SERRC to ALSDE Leaders
Objective 1.2: Develop a comprehensive system for delivering integrated special and general education professional development for educators based on the implementation science drivers.
A1.2.1: Define roles and for each ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Descriptions and duties of Q3 leadership level. Director each role in the project
A1.2.2: Review barriers and develop a ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Barriers identified (Obj. 1.1); Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 plan to reduce barriers. Director/Consultants Plan for reducing barriers
A1.2.3: Promote buy-in from schools, ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Public relations materials for Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 districts, regions, and ALSDE. Team, Coaches, project; Plan for sharing
SPDG AG+ results of project
A1.2.4: Develop communication, data, ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Communication plan; Q1 and reporting plans. Director, Evaluator Reporting and data timelines
and responsibilities
A1.2.5: Organize forms and SPDG Director, List of assessments and Q4 assessments for participating districts. Coaches forms; Shared computer file
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 72 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
A1.2.6: Determine processes for ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Selection criteria; Develop Q1-2 expanded site selection and scaling-up. Director, SERRC, rubric; Review GIS map;
SPDG AG Discussions on # of sites
A1.2.7: Obtain and review feedback on ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Evaluation data from pilot Q1-4 training and coaching in pilot district. Director, Evaluator site
A1.2.8: Create a decision-tree for using SPDG Director, P. Decision tree for type of Q3 coaching strategies. Howard coaching; Guidance doc.
A1.2.9: Draft guide to procedures and ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Review of pilot data; Q3-4 best practices for implementing PD. Team, SPDG AG Identified best practices;
Procedures manual
A1.2.10: Review evaluation and ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Formative & summative Q4 Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4 fidelity data on a cyclical basis. Team, Evaluator evaluation data review
A1.2.11: Revise procedures and best ARI, AMSTI, SPDG Revised procedures manual Q4 Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4 practices for PD based on data. Team
Goal 2: Implement the coordinated PD system that will increase the capacity of educators to understand and implement academic RtI and CEIE for SWD, which will lead to improved student performance and graduation outcomes.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 73 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Objective 2.1: Provide PD to ALSDE staff, SPDG Coaches, and parent partners on academic RTI and creating effective inclusive environments that will allow them to provide research-based PD and TA to local-level educators.
A2.1.1: Offer quarterly special topics SPDG Team; AMSTI; Quarterly PD materials; Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
PD for SPDG staff and partners. ARI; Coaches; Knight; Evaluations from PD
Howard; Rock; Parker
A2.1.2: SPDG staff and coaches SPGD Director; PD materials from Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 participate in national/state PD Consultants; Coaches conferences/trainings
A2.1.3: Cross-train SPDG, ARI, and ARI; AMSTI; SPDG Training; Assembled content Q2-3
AMSTI staff on coaching and content. Team; Knight & coaching resources
A2.1.4: Partner with the AL PTI to PTI; SPDG Team; PD materials; Evaluations Q3-4 provide training to SPDG partners. Coaches from PD
A2.1.5: Consultants provide PD on Rock; Howard; SPDG PD materials; Evaluations Q3-4 Q1-4 online coaching to SPDG partners Team; Coaches from PD
Objective 2.2: Deliver local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for schools in pilot districts on academic RtI and CEIE that will result in increased knowledge and skills of individuals providing services to SWD.
A2.2.1: Meet with pilot sites to MCSD; CCSD; SPDG Documented timelines and Q2
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 74 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
establish expectations and roles. Dir.; Coaches roles
A2.2.2: Work with pilot District and MCSD; CCSD; SPDG Meeting notes; Reporting, Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Building Leadership Teams. Dir.; Consultants Data, Comm. Plans; Vision
Statement; Identified barriers
A2.2.3: Provide additional training to SPDG, ARI, AMSTI PD materials; PD records Q3 educators in the pilot district. Coaches Evaluation from PD
A2.2.4: Provide follow-up instructional SPDG Coaches & Coaching records; PD Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 coaching to teachers in the classroom. Team; Parker; Rock; materials; Evaluation from
Hoffman; Howard PD
A2.2.5: Create online PD vignettes. SPDG Coaches Developed modeling videos Q2-4
A2.2.6: Conduct assessments and SPDG Coaches; Fidelity checklists results; Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 implementation fidelity checks. Evaluator Implementation assessments
A2.2.7: Review evaluation data and SPDG Team; SPDG Formative and summative Q4 Q4 Q4 make necessary mid-course corrections. AG; Evaluator evaluation review
Objective 2.3: Scale-up local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for districts on reading, math, and behavior that will result in increased knowledge and skills of individuals providing services to students with disabilities.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 75 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
A2.3.1: Conduct readiness assessments SPDG Consultants SISEP Hexagon Tool results Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 in potential districts.
A2.3.2: Select additional districts based ARI, AMSTI, SPDG List of selected districts and Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 on selection rubric (Obj. 1.1). Director feeder pattern schools
A2.3.3: Meet with sites to establish MCSD; CCSD; SPDG Documented timelines and Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 expectations and roles. Dir.; Coaches roles
A2.3.4: Work with District and MCSD; CCSD; SPDG Meeting notes; Reporting, Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Building Leadership Teams. Dir.; Consultants Data, Comm. Plans; Vision
Statement; Identified barriers
A2.3.5: Provide additional training to SPDG, ARI, AMSTI PD materials; PD records Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 educators in other districts. Coaches Evaluation from PD
A2.3.6: Provide follow-up instructional SPDG Coaches & Coaching records; PD Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 coaching to teachers in the classroom. Team; Parker; Rock; materials; Evaluation from
Hoffman; Howard PD
A2.3.7: Conduct assessments and SPDG Coaches; Fidelity checklists results; Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 implementation fidelity checks. Evaluator Implementation assessments
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 76 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
A2.3.8: Review evaluation data and use SPDG Team; SPDG Formative and summative Q4 Q4 Q4 to make program changes. AG; Evaluator evaluation review
Objective 2.4: Develop a field experience program for pre-service students to observe and work with model RtI/CEIE sites, which will result in pre-service students having the knowledge and skills to implement RtI/CEIE upon graduation.
A2.4.1: USA staff will meet with USA staff; SPDG Dir.; Documented timelines, roles, Q3-4 model sites to obtain input from staff. MCSD; BCSD and expectations
A2.4.2: Develop a field experience in USA staff; SPDG Plan for field experience; Q4 model sites for pre-service students. Director Observation forms
A2.4.3: Place pre-service students in USA staff; Evaluator Identified students; Records Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 model sites and complete assessments. of placements; Observation
forms; Assessment results
A2.4.4: Offer in-class training by ARI USA staff; Materials for PD; Records of Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 for pre-service students. ARI/Perkins PD; Evaluation results
A2.4.5: Offer remote observation USA staff; Howard; Materials for PD; Records of Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 opportunities for pre-service students. PTI PD; Evaluation results
A2.4.6: Review evaluation data and USA staff; SPDG Formative and summative Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4 Q2,4
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 77 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
make mid-course corrections as needed. Director; Evaluator evaluation review
Goal 3: Offer PD for educators, families, and stakeholders on the needs of SWD and the support and services that are needed for successful adult transition, which will lead to improved student graduation rates and post-school outcomes
Objective 3.1: Collect and review data regarding school and community climate regarding the perceptions of and opportunities for
SWD making successful adult transitions, which will inform ALSDE staff and Project stakeholders.
A3.1.1: Develop a school, parent, and SPDG AG, ATLI, Identify survey items; Q2-3 community transition survey. PTI, Eval., Farmer Developed survey
A3.1.2: Transition surveys will be SPDG AG, ATLI, Administration of survey; Q4 Q4 Q3 conducted, analyzed, and shared. PTI, Eval., SPDG Dir. Survey analyses; Report
A3.1.3: Advisory Group subgroups will SPDG AG, SPDG Dir. Selection of subgroup topics; Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 be formed based on survey results. Assignments to groups
Objective 3.2: Deliver statewide training opportunities and modules for families, district staff, and community stakeholders that will result in increased knowledge, skills, and awareness about secondary transition and post-school supports.
A3.2.1: Partner with the AU to promote SPDG Team, SPDG Module information on Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
TNT training for educators. AG, ATLI SPDG website, conferences
A3.2.2: ATLI will develop modules for ATLI Modules developed; Q1-4
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 78 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
personnel on post-secondary education. Modules available online;
Personnel begin enrollment
A3.2.3: ALSDE provides follow-up TA ALSDE Consultants; Coaching records; PD Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 and coaching to module participants ATLI materials; Evaluation from
PD; Fidelity results
A3.2.4: The PTI will develop parent Alabama PTI Training topics identified; Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 training curriculum.
A3.2.5: The PTI will conduct training Alabama PTI Training records; TA Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 and follow-up TA for families. records; Evaluation from PD
A3.2.6: The PTI will conduct Alabama PTI Training records; TA Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 training/TA on IHE accommodations. records; Evaluation from PD
A3.2.7: The PTI will work with the Alabama PTI, CILs Training records; TA Q2-5 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Centers for Independent Living. records; Meeting minutes
Objective 3.3: Create a centralized, web-based system of information and resources for educational agencies, families, consumers, and stakeholders that will increase awareness and knowledge about disability, secondary transition, and community supports.
A3.3.1: Assemble existing resources ALSDE SPDG Review of current website Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 79 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
and information for AL SDE website. Consultants pages; Materials for website
A3.3.2: Partner with PTI and ATLI to ATLI; PTI; SPDG Development of resources Q3-4 Q1-2 create parent-friendly documents. Director for website
A3.3.3: Maintain and add content to SPDG Team, ALSDE Website evaluation; Q2-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 project website. ISS Materials for website
+ SPDG AG= SPDG Advisory Group
* Quarter 1= 7/1-9/30, Quarter 2= 10/1-12/31, Quarter 3= 1/1-3/31, Quarter 4= 4/1-6/30
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 80 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
VII: QUALITY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATION
The evaluation of Project CTG will consist of formative and summative feedback for the
SPDG Team and SPDG Advisory Group on each of the project and program performance measures. The feedback will consist of both qualitative and quantitative measures, as the ALSDE recognizes the importance of multiple measures and multiple methods to triangulate the data.
Through the evaluation, Project CTG will determine: 1) Whether project activities have been successfully implemented (outputs); 2) Whether project activities were implemented with fidelity; and 3) Whether the specified outcomes were achieved.
As described in the Personnel section, the ALSDE will subcontract for an External
Evaluator upon funding. A 0.70 FTE senior-level evaluator is included in the budget, and it is expected that the Evaluator will provide extensive feedback and expertise to the SPDG Team.
EVALUATION METHODS ARE THOROUGH, FEASIBLE, AND APPROPRIATE
Project CTG’s evaluation will be based on five levels of evaluation: 1) Participant reactions (attitudinal measures); 2) Participant Learning (knowledge measures); 3) Organization and support change (behavior measures, outcomes); 4) Participant’s use of new knowledge and skill (behavior measures, outcomes); and 5) Student learning outcomes (Guskey, 2000). These levels of evaluation will provide both formative and summative feedback to Project CTG staff.
Evaluation of Project Activities and Outcomes
The evaluation will incorporate both formative and summative measures. By implementing both of these approaches, Project CTG will: 1) Track the completion and utility of particular grant activities; 2) Provide feedback to the ALSDE on outputs and the SPDG program performance measures for revising and refining project plans in order to align activities with proposed actions and desired outcomes; 3) Recommend actions to improve the likelihood of
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 81 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
achieving grant objectives and goals; and 4) Provide information and data about the impact of the project on SWD, families, Alabama personnel, and SPDG partners.
Formative evaluation measures will consist of both process measures and progress measures to ensure both accountability and effectiveness. Process-based strategies measure the extent to which the proposed activities are delivered as planned. Upon funding, the Evaluator will create a milestone table for the SPDG Team, and for each activity, the Evaluator will regularly update its progress (e.g., “completed as planned,” “in progress,” “completed but deviates from plan,” “no progress,” etc.). Documentation will be included to maintain objectivity. This evaluation strategy will help ensure the activities are implemented as proposed, the grant is meeting its timelines, and milestones are formally documented.
The formative evaluation will also include measures of progress toward objectives and goals. Formative evaluation data will be collected on an ongoing basis (e.g., after each training or following coaching activities) to determine what worked well and how the process could be improved. The formative evaluation will also inform staff which activities are moving Project
CTG toward its goals; how the project could be changed to make the activities more effective; any barriers to implementation; whether there are unintended results, either beneficial or challenging; and the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the PD.
The summative evaluation will examine the extent to which the objectives and goals were met, and how the project has impacted SWD, their families, personnel, and SPDG partners.
Aligned with the Logic Model (Appendix A), the short term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes will be measured.
Data Collection
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 82 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
As demonstrated in the evaluation table below (Table 10), Project CTG will measure the progress and outcomes of the project using a variety of methods. Throughout the grant, the
Evaluator will work with the ALSDE and other stakeholders to conduct data “drill-downs” and determine the story behind the data by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Data collection will include measures of attitude (e.g., satisfaction of training participants, buy-in to the PD framework by districts); knowledge (e.g., pre-post measures of learning by personnel, content knowledge assessment of pre-service students); behavior (e.g., changes in pedagogy, increased collaboration, enrollment of SWD in post-secondary education); and student outcome. Evaluation methods will consist of surveys, focus groups, interviews, fidelity assessments, tracking PD participant and district data, and SPP/APR data (e.g., graduation, achievement, post-school outcomes). Data sources will vary from student-level up to the SES Program Coordinator; as Figure 8 shows in the Management Plan, Project CTG will seek feedback from a variety of stakeholder levels to inform policy and practice changes.
As O’Donnell (2005) found, programs that implemented with fidelity were significantly more likely to achieve higher outcomes. Therefore, fidelity measures will be an integral component of the Project CTG evaluation. If a feeder pattern school receives PD on collaborative teaching, but the personnel do not fully implement the principles, then positive outcomes are less likely to occur. Project CTG has identified several established fidelity tools, such as the RtI Integrity Rubric and the CHAMPS Implementation Tools to measure PD fidelity.
The Evaluator will follow the implementation science drivers (See Figure 6) to support the fidelity analyses (Fixsen & Blasé, 2009). For example, if a selected district is not showing progress, the Evaluator will look at the Competency Drivers, and whether the training and coaching are being delivered with fidelity using prescribed fidelity assessments. If the training
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 83 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
and coaching are being delivered with fidelity, the Evaluator and Project CTG staff will examine the Leadership and Organizational Drivers to see if organizational, policy, or administrative issues are impeding performance.
Description of Evaluation Tools
The forms and tools used in the Project CTG evaluation are described below. For all surveys, Project CTG will use an online format; however accessible and/or print versions of the surveys will be available. Participants will be informed of the confidentiality for each assessment. A brief description of how the tool is administered can be found in Table 10.
Project CTG Activity Reporting. To document and track the activities of Coaches, partners at USA and ATLI, and parent partners, Project CTG will utilize an online Activity
Reporting system. Using the online program Survey Monkey, the reporting form will allow for:
1) Coaches and subcontractors to enter PD activities including the participant groups and counts, activities, activity duration, the evidenced-based practice used, and expected outcomes; and 2)
Coaches and subcontracts can enter training, coaching, or other PD evaluation data. The online
Activity Reporting system will allow activities to be reported in a timely manner.
Collaboration Survey. To assess the collaboration project, partners will complete the
Project CTG Collaboration Survey. The survey will be administered to each Goal 1 Director and participating staff will complete the survey to evaluate the collaboration activities in Goal 1.
Additionally, the survey will be administered to the SPDG Advisory Group to assess group cohesion and purpose. The survey, based on the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (2001), assesses specific collaboration factors such as shared vision, clear roles, or appropriate pace. The survey will be modified to meet the needs of the SPDG and used as a platform for discussion among project partners if barriers to collaboration are identified.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 84 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
End-of-Event Surveys. This short survey will be completed immediately following the
PD activity. It consists of questions about participation satisfaction with the training, what was learned, and what they plan to implement as a result of the PD. The survey will be available online through Survey Monkey for remote TA or PD events. Results from the survey will be shared with the Coaches or other trainers in order to provide feedback for future PD.
Annual Stakeholder Survey. At the end of each year, all PD recipients will be contacted to participate in an annual survey. Personnel and parents who received PD will be randomly selected and contacted to participate in the survey. Questions will consist of the behaviors, knowledge, and skills participants have implemented since the training and how the training has affected the participants and their work.
Web site Evaluation Survey. In order to gather feedback on the website (Obj. 3.3), a short survey will be added to the Project CTG website that will pop-up after visitors have visited the second level of the website (i.e., pages or links beyond the homepage). The survey will consist of questions about ease of use of the website, the usefulness of the materials on the website, and what additional information users would like to see on the website.
Coaching Evaluation Survey. Based on the Florida SPDG’s evaluation (n.d.), the
Project CTG’s Evaluator will administer an evaluation of the District Coaches. A random sample of personnel in the participating feeder school patterns will be selected to complete the survey.
The survey focuses on RtI coaching and will be modified to reflect CEIE coaching as well.
Fidelity of Implementation Measures. A variety of fidelity assessments will be used, including: The National Center for RtI’s RtI Framework Integrity Rubric and Worksheet; the
Safe and Civil Schools’ CHAMPS Implementation Checklists; and the Online Peer Modeling
Observation. In addition, Project CTG will incorporate the SISEP’s Implementation Drivers
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 85 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Tool into the fidelity of implementation measurement (Blasé, Van Dyke, Duda & Fixsen, 2010).
Practice profiles will be created for other fidelity measures, including CEIE, transition support, and PD on post-school supports.
State Assessment for Alabama Students (ARMT). Administered to students in
Grades 3-8, data from the ARMT related to reading, writing, and math skills will be analyzed on an annual basis. Results for individual feeder pattern schools, as well as all feeder pattern schools by level in aggregate form, will be compared longitudinally.
SPP/APR Data. Project CTG will examine results for Indicators 1 (graduation), 3c
(proficiency), 8 (parent involvement), and 14 (post-school outcomes) for individual feeder pattern schools as well as all participating schools in aggregate form. Survey data from both the annual Post-School Outcome Survey and the Parent Involvement Survey, conducted by ATLI at
AU, will be analyzed as well. These indicator results will be compared longitudinally to determine changes over time.
Interviews, Focus Groups. The Project CTG Evaluator will conduct interviews with project partners on an annual basis to gather qualitative feedback on PD activities, the organizational and leadership drivers (Fixsen & Blasé, 2009), suggestions for changes, and impacts they have seen. Additionally, focus groups will be conducted at the feeder pattern schools to gather personnel feedback related to Obj. 2.2 and 2.3. All of these different types of data will be used to verify and augment the self-report measures.
EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIVITIES
As part of the SPDG requirements, Project CTG will incorporate the OSEP/GPRA program performance measures (PMs) into its evaluation plan. Project CTG does not have a teacher recruitment/retention goal, and therefore the results for PM #4 will not be reported.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 86 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Program PM #1. Project CTG staff and the Evaluator will complete the Performance
Measure #1 Worksheet developed by OSEP (Appendix A). In order to complete the worksheet, the Evaluator will collect data that documents the evidence- based practices for Goal 2 (PD for
LEAs on reading, math, and CEIE) and Goal 3 (PD on secondary transition and post-school supports). Project CTG developed its activities under these two goals related to the implementation science drivers, and the PM #1 Worksheet corresponds with the drivers.
Therefore, PPMs in Table 10 detail the strategies that will be used to document the categories on the PM #1 Worksheet. The results will generate a score for the following measures:
By the end of Year 2, 50% of the RtI and CEIE PD activities will score a “3” or “4” on the
PM #1 Worksheet
By the end of Year 2, 50% of the transition and post-school outcomes PD activities will score
a “3” or “4” on the PM #1 Worksheet
Program PM #2. Project CTG staff and the Evaluator will measure fidelity of implementation for PD delivered in Goals 2 and 3. As indicated under the list of tools above,
Project CTG will use established measures of fidelity for RtI (reading and math), the CHAMPS behavior program (when implemented), and online coaching. While there are measures of aspects of CEIE (e.g., collaborative teaching, using assessments, etc.), practice profiles will be developed upon funding to define the “gold standard” for effective inclusive environments and assisting SWD with transitioning into post-secondary enrollment (Obj. 3.2).
For the school-wide fidelity measures (RtI, CHAMPS, CEIC), Project CTG’s PM will be:
70% of participating feeder pattern schools will implement 80% of the core components by
the end of Year 2, with a 5% increase in Years 3 and 4.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 87 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
For the individual classroom fidelity measures (post-secondary enrollment), Project CTG’s
PM will be:
75% of Objective 3.2 PD participants will implement 80% of the core components within
one year following participation in the PD modules and subsequent coaching.
For the school-wide fidelity measures, the District Coaches will conduct the fidelity assessment with the Shadow Coaches. In order to maintain objectivity and increase cost- efficiency, the District Coaches will trade schools. For example, the District Coach working with
Grand Bay Middle School will conduct the fidelity assessment for Brazier Elementary, and the
Coach for Brazier will conduct the assessment for Grand Bay Middle School. The Shadow
Coaches will participate in both, if possible, to build capacity on administering the assessments.
By the third year, the Shadow Coaches will conduct the fidelity measures in the pilot district sites, and the District Coaches will validate 20% of those assessments. Moreover, ALSDE
Consultants will randomly select 20% of all sites annually to conduct building walk-throughs and validate the fidelity assessment results.
Self-assessment will be used for the Obj. 3.2 PM; however, the Evaluator and/or Project
CTG Director will randomly sample 20 percent of the participants and conduct on-site classroom observations. Therefore, if 40 personnel participate in the ATLI PD modules in Year 2, Project
CTG will validate the fidelity results in eight classroom visits.
Program PM #3. Project CTG and the Evaluator will measure the cost efficiency of PD for Goals 2 and 3. Using the Project CTG Activity Reporting system, the Evaluator will be able to track the kinds of activities under Objective 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2. When calculating this PM, the
Evaluator will use the formula: Cost of ongoing TA/Cost of all PD activities for an initiative.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 88 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
To define “ongoing TA,” the Evaluator will consider: job-embedded PD activities; coaching; assisting the District and Building Leadership Teams to build capacity; creating and using data, PD reporting, and PD communication plans for LEAs; conducting fidelity measures; personnel entering or sharing SPDG data; providing TA on conducting fidelity measures and other assessments; providing PD on using online coaching; creating and using the “Just in Time
Vignettes;” creating and participating in ATLI modules; and follow-up TA on the ATLI modules. Cost spent on these activities will define the numerator for the formula, and the total cost for Objectives 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2 will serve as the denominator. Using this formula, Project
CTG’s PM #3 is:
60% of all funds used for initiatives 2.2, 2.3, and 3.2 will be used for ongoing TA.
The results of these PPMs will be reported on the annual performance report, as well as shared with the SPDG Advisory Group and the SPDG Team to make adjustments to project activities as needed. The groups will also use the results of the PPMs for gauging success.
Table 10: Project CTG Evaluation Strategies, Methods, and Timelines
Objective 1.1: Collaboratively examine the initiatives, oversight, and PD delivery models in general and special education that will result in increased collaboration among general and special education units at the state levels.
Strategies and Project PMs Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., meetings held, The Project CTG Director will enter process meeting attendees, meeting minutes) will measures into the Activity Reporting System. be tracked. Timeline: Ongoing.
80% of Obj. 1.1 partners and the Online Collaboration Survey will be administered.
Advisory Group members will report Timeline: Pre-test, midpoint of the first year, and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 89 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
increased collaboration within the annually. Interviews with Obj. 1.1 partners re. groups. collaboration. Timeline: Annually.
100% of the Obj. 1.1 partners will report Review of crosswalk and GIS map. Timeline: usefulness of the PD crosswalk of PD Annually. Interviews with partners regarding utility and GIS map of services. of documents. Timeline: Annually.
Objective 1.2: Develop a comprehensive system for delivering integrated special and general education PD for educators based on the implementation science drivers.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., list of roles and The Project CTG Director will enter process responsibilities; communication, data, measures into the Activity Reporting System. reporting plans; forms) will be tracked. Timeline: Ongoing.
At least 5 solutions to PD barriers will Review of meeting minutes. Timeline: Quarterly. be shared with ALSDE leaders. Interview with partners. Timeline: Annually.
80% of stakeholders will support the PD Annual Stakeholder Survey to all stakeholders. framework model. Timeline: Annually.
80% of partners will report utilizing the Review of items in Activity Reporting System. selection rubric for scaling-up PD, Timeline: As completed. Interviews with partners decision tree for coaching, and regarding utility. Timeline: Annually. procedures and best practices manual.
The PD model will be used to scale-up Review of PD activities by regional location in
PD to all 11 Regional Centers by 2017. Activity Reporting System. Timeline: Annually.
Evaluation data will be reviewed to Review of SPDG Team and Advisory Group minutes. make programmatic decisions. Review program changes. Timeline: Annually.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 90 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Objective 2.1: Provide PD to ALSDE staff, SPDG Coaches, and parent partners on academic
RtI and creating effective inclusive environments that will allow them to provide research-based
PD and TA to local-level educators.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., PD held, PD The Project CTG Director will enter process topics, attendees, PD materials) will be measures into the Activity Reporting System. tracked. Timeline: Ongoing.
80% of the participants of the Obj. 2.1 End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants.
PD for SPDG partners will express Timeline: Ongoing, immediately following PD satisfaction with the training and its activity. usefulness.
100% of the District Coaches and 90% of End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants. other Obj. 2.1 PD participants will gain Timeline: Ongoing, immediately following PD new knowledge on the PD topics. activity.
100% of District Coaches and of 90% Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD other Obj. 2.1 PD participants will recipients, District Coaches, and other Ob. 2.1 implement new skills that relate to the participants. Timeline: Annually. evidenced-based topics.
100% of District Coaches will Coaching Evaluation administered to personnel in demonstrate competency in coaching feeder pattern schools and ARI, AMSTI, and SPDG strategies. Directors. Timeline: Annually.
Objective 2.2: Deliver local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for schools in pilot districts on academic RtI and CEIE that will result in increased knowledge and skills of
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 91 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
individuals providing services to SWD.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., PD held, PD The District Coaches and ALSDE Consultants will topics, coaching held, number of enter process measures into the Activity Reporting attendees, roles of attendees, PD System. Timeline: Ongoing. materials) will be tracked.
80% of District and Building Leadership End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants.
Team members will report satisfaction Timeline: Ongoing. Focus Group of Leadership and usefulness of the ALSDE PD. Teams. Timeline: Annually.
80% of District and Building Leadership End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants.
Team members will use the ALSDE PD Timeline: Ongoing. Focus Group of Leadership to make organizational, policy, Teams. Timeline: Annually. leadership, or program changes.
80% of the participants in the feeder End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants. pattern schools will report satisfaction Timeline: Ongoing, immediately following PD with the PD and its usefulness. activity.
80% of the PD participants in the feeder End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants. pattern schools will gain new knowledge Timeline: Ongoing, immediately following PD on the PD topics. activity.
80% of the PD participants in the feeder Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients. schools will implement new skills that Timeline: Annually. Fidelity measures for Obj. 2.2. relate to the evidenced-based topics. Timeline: Annually.
80% of the PD participants that received Coaching Evaluation administered to personnel in
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 92 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
follow-up coaching from the SPDG will feeder pattern schools and ARI, AMSTI, and SPDG report satisfaction with the coaching. Directors. Timeline: Annually.
80% of the PD participants that received Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients. follow-up coaching will implement new Timeline: Annually. Fidelity measures for Obj. 2.2. skills that relate to the PD. Timeline: Annually.
80% of personnel in the PD districts that Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients. report using the online vignettes will Timeline: Annually. Fidelity measures for Obj. 2.2. implement new skills related to the PD. Timeline: Annually.
Evaluation data will be reviewed to Review of SPDG Team and Advisory Group minutes. make programmatic decisions. Review program changes. Timeline: Annually.
Objective 2.3: Scale-up local-level training, TA, and instructional coaching for districts on reading, math, and behavior that will result in increased knowledge and skills of individuals providing services to students with disabilities.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
PPMs for Objective 2.2 will be used for Methods and timeline for Obj. 2.2 will be used for
Obj. 2.3. Obj. 2.3.
Project CTG will assess at least 20% Review of SISEP readiness assessment results more schools than the expected total (hexagon tool), list of schools assessed. Timeline: number of schools each year. Annually beginning Year 2.
100% of new feeder pattern schools will Documentation of scores on the selection rubric. be selected using the selection rubric. Timeline: Annually beginning Year 2.
Objective 2.4: Develop a field experience program for pre-service students to observe and work with model RtI/CEIE sites, which will result in pre-service students having the knowledge and
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 93 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
skills to implement RtI/CEIE upon graduation.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., meetings held, USA staff will enter process measures into the roles defined) will be tracked. Activity Reporting System. Timeline: Ongoing.
A field experience plan and observation USA staff will enter plan and tools into the Activity tools will be created by USA. Reporting System. Timeline: Ongoing.
80% of students and personnel at the Annual Stakeholder Survey to students and PD sites. model sites will report satisfaction with Timeline: Annually. Focus groups with students. the field experience placement and new Timeline: Each semester. knowledge as a result of placement.
80% of field placement students will Observation forms from USA faculty. Timeline: Each demonstrate implementation of the RtI, semester. Annual Stakeholder Survey to students and
CEIE, and online coaching skills. PD sites. Timeline: Annually. Interviews with USA
faculty, selected students, and model sites. Timeline:
Each semester.
75% of employed field placement Annual Stakeholder Survey to former students. students will report implementing RtI, Timeline: Annually. Interview with former students
CEIE, and/or online coaching skills one employed in teaching positions. Timeline: Annually. year after graduation.
Objective 3.1: Collect and review data regarding school and community climate regarding the perceptions of and opportunities for SWD making successful adult transitions, which will inform
ALSDE staff and Project stakeholders.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 94 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
Process measures (e.g., survey ATLI, PTI, SPDG Director, SPDG Consultants will developed and administered, Advisory enter process measures into the Activity Reporting
Group meetings) will be tracked. System. Timeline: Ongoing.
SPDG Advisory Group will form at least Review of SPDG Advisory Group meeting minutes, three subgroups based on the Transition minutes of Subgroups. Timeline: Annually, beginning
Climate Survey results. Year 2.
SPDG Advisory Subgroups will develop Review of SPDG Advisory Subgroups. Timeline: solutions for survey-identified barriers. Annually, beginning Year 2.
Objective 3.2: Deliver statewide training opportunities and modules for families, district staff, and community stakeholders that will result in increased knowledge, skills, and awareness about secondary transition and post-school supports.
Process measures (e.g., modules ATLI, PTI, SPDG Director, SPDG Consultants will developed, PD delivered, types of enter process measures into the Activity Reporting participants, coaching, meetings with System. Timeline: Ongoing.
CILs) will be tracked.
Information about the TNT modules will Evidence of information shared; Review of website. be shared through at least 3 venues. Timeline: Ongoing.
80% of the module PD participants will End-of-Event Evaluation to PD participants. report PD satisfaction and usefulness. Timeline: Ongoing, following end of module.
80% of the module PD participants will Module pre-test, post-test for PD participants. score higher posttest scores on the PD. Timeline: Ongoing, following end of module.
80% of the module PD participants will Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 95 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
implement new skills that relate to the Timeline: Annually. Fidelity measures for Obj. 3.2. evidenced-based topics. Timeline: Annually.
80% of the PD participants that received Coaching Evaluation administered to personnel that follow-up coaching from the SPDG will participated in the Obj. 3.2 modules and coaching. report satisfaction with the coaching. Timeline: Annually.
80% of the PD participants that received Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients. follow-up coaching from the SPDG will Timeline: Annually. Fidelity measures for Obj. 3.2. implement new skills related to the PD. Timeline: Annually.
80% of parent training participants will End-of-Event Evaluation to parent participants. report satisfaction and new knowledge Timeline: Ongoing, following end of PD. from training and/or TA.
50% of the parent participants will Annual Stakeholder Survey to selected PD recipients. report a change in their behavior as a Timeline: Annually. result of the PD.
80% of accommodations training End-of-Event Evaluation to parent participants. participants will report satisfaction and Timeline: Ongoing, following end of PD. new knowledge from training.
50% of the accommodations participants Interview a random selection of participants. will report a change in their behavior. Timeline: Annually.
Objective 3.3: Create a centralized, web-based system of information and resources for educational agencies, families, consumers, and stakeholders that will increase awareness and knowledge about disability, secondary transition, and community supports.
Performance Measures Methods and Timelines
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 96 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Process measures (e.g., materials SPDG Director and Consultants will enter process identified, documents created, count of measures into the Activity Reporting System. materials by topic) will be tracked. Timeline: Ongoing.
In years 2-5 of the grant, the percentage Website analytics will be examined. Timeline: of unique visitors visiting the website Annually. will increase by 10% each year.
80% of the website users will report A pop-up evaluation will be added to the website. satisfaction with the website resources. Timeline: Ongoing.
At least 10 new website resources will Review of the resources added. Comparison with be added by both ATLI and the PTI. evidenced-based research. Timeline: Ongoing.
80% of stakeholders will express Advisory Group members will review materials. A satisfaction with the ATLI/PTI focus group will be conducted to gauge satisfaction resources. with materials. Timeline: Annually.
Evaluation of Long-Term Outcomes
The evaluation of the long-term outcomes will cross all of the goals. While the short-term and intermediate outcomes may be realized within the first half of the grant, many of the long- term outcomes will not be achieved until the end of the grant, such as PD to LEAs added in years four and five. The following measures will be analyzed, however, using the SPP/APR indicators:
In years 4 and 5 of the grant, graduation will increase by 3% for the pilot districts
implementing the PD with fidelity.
In years 4 and 5 of the grant, the gap between graduation rates for SWD and SWOD will
decrease by at least 5% among the pilot schools implementing PD with fidelity.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 97 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
In years 2-5 of the grant, student achievement will increase by 5% for those feeder pattern
schools implementing the PD with fidelity.
In years 2-5 of the grant, the proficiency index will increase by 2 points among the SWD
subgroup for those feeder pattern schools implementing PD with fidelity.
In years 3-5 of the grant, the percentage of parents who report increased parent involvement
will increase by 3%.
In years 3-5 of the grant, the percentage of students with positive post-secondary outcomes
will increase by 5%.
In years 3-5 of the grant, the percentage of SWD enrolling in post-secondary education will
increase by 3%.
The linkage of these outcomes to the SPDG activities is never causal. However, by demonstrating the outputs, short-term, and intermediate outcomes as designated in the logic model, Project CTG expects gains in graduation, achievement, parent involvement, and post- school success.
PROVIDING PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
Following the PIP-PEP cycle, the ALSDE recognizes the importance of seeking continuous feedback in order to make programmatic and policy changes based on data. The feedback activities included in every objective allows for evaluation data to be formally reviewed by the SPDG Team. Through this evaluation review, the results will be used to generate ideas for improvements, suggesting alternative ways to examine the data, and discuss necessary programmatic or policy changes that may be warranted.
As stated in the Management section, the Evaluator and SPDG Director/PI will meet monthly via conference calls so that both parties can share progress and gather information. The
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 98 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE
Evaluator and Director will walk through the process evaluation checklist to determine the status of activities. In addition, since the Activity Reporting System is online, the Director will have real-time access to reports as needed. The Evaluator will share quarterly updates with the SPDG
Team via conference call and will share a biannual report for the SPDG Team and the Advisory
Group. These meetings will ensure that the SPDG staff and stakeholders can make informed decisions about possible changes to the implementation of the activities.
The summative data will be reported annually in April, which will allow the Project
CTG Director to incorporate the results into the Annual Performance Report. At the end of the fifth year of the grant, a final evaluation report will be created and shared with project stakeholders, which will give key leaders the data and recommendations that will be used for sustaining the Project CTG activities after the grant.
ALSDE/SPDG 2012 Page 99 PART III, APPLICATION NARRATIVE