Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grant Institutions' Year

Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grant Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports

September 2016

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grants Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports Priority Area # 1: Marietta College, Ohio Dominican University, Ohio University, Shawnee State University, University of Rio Grande, Youngstown State University ……………………………………………....5

Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grants Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports Priority Area # 2: Malone University, Ohio Dominican University, University of Cincinnati…………..10

Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grants Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports Priority Area # 3: Shawnee State University, University of Rio Grande …………………………………………13

Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grants Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports Simultaneous Renewal: Kent State University, Kent State University (Salem Campus), Ohio University, Shawnee State University, Youngstown State University…………………………………………….17

Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grant Institutions’ Year One Annual Reports

Executive Summary

During 2015 – 2016, the Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children funded a total of 15 Incentive Grants to a total of 11 Ohio institutions of higher education (IHEs). These grants supported the development of educational programs and practices, including collective conversation among educational professionals, that would improve results for children and youth in Ohio at all levels of the educational system.

Priority Areas

The Compact supported two major initiatives: incentive grants, and simultaneous renewal grants. The first initiative invited Ohio IHEs to submit proposals for incentive grants to develop and implement sustainable improvements in Ohio’s personnel preparation and development system for teachers and administrators. The second initiative challenged Ohio IHEs to engage in short-term development efforts to support shared inquiry into common problems of practice related to improving results for all learners. Projects resulting from this effort are intended to improve inclusive leadership preparation and develop inclusive leadership models for educators in low resources areas of Ohio. Proposals could address one or more of Priority Areas #1, #2, and #3.

The purpose of Priority Area # 1 was to restructure existing general and special education teacher preparation programs to create merged programs leading to dual licensure in a general content area and an intervention specialist program area. The purpose of Priority Area # 2 was to foster inclusive instructional educational leadership practice through course redesign or program overhaul. The purpose of Priority Area # 3 was to strengthen existing intervention specialist programs through development of course content and associated field experiences in sensory impairments through development of a set of courses or modules. Six IHEs were funded for Priority Area #1, three were funded for Priority Area #2, and two collaborated to submit a combined proposal for Priority Area #3.

Incentive Grants

Following a review of the Incentive Grants Year One Annual Reports submitted for the three priority areas, the Ohio Deans Compact reports the following findings:

• Grantees have leveraged existing internal support structures and practices to support their project. Use of resources, such as technology infrastructure, meeting space, and human resources was also mentioned as an asset.

• Existing relationships moved the work forward more quickly. Collaboration among faculty in teacher preparation programs was critical in agreeing upon project goals and reaching out to potential external partners. Discussing the potential of the project with university leadership

secured buy-in from faculty in other programs whose courses would be impacted by a merged program.

• Buy-in from and active engagement with K-12 partners were best secured by involving them in decision making and planning early in the project.

• Time and timing have been a challenge in meeting grant requirements, but grantees managed those challenges through creativity and flexibility and by garnering support from administrators at an early stage to secure buy-in from decision-makers.

• Unanticipated changes in university and partner personnel created challenges, but grantees adapted by revising workloads or accommodating the new partner.

• Faculty from different areas within the university’s department of education (educational leadership and special education) see the necessity for and value of redesigning educational leadership courses that will better equip principal candidates to meet the needs of all students.

Simultaneous Renewal

Five IHEs were funded for Simultaneous Renewal projects designed to improve equitable access to high- quality instruction that results in equitable outcomes for struggling learners.

Review of annual reports from Simultaneous Renewal grants revealed the following:

• Partnering districts and schools—whether long-term or new partners—were eager to collaborate early on with higher education institutions that led the project. Both IHEs and partners recognized the need to either sustain existing relationships or build new ones.

• There appeared to be a strong interest on the part of districts and schools to learn about and implement co-teaching processes as a way to support student learning.

• Potential barriers, such as difficulty gaining access to school data, were overcome through adjustments made by the higher education institution in negotiating with district partners.

• Time has been an issue, but grantees managed this challenge by allowing partners to determine many of the meeting days and times, allowing for flexible scheduling, and taking advantage of teachers’ summer break to facilitate critical professional development.

Introduction

The Ohio Deans Compact on Exceptional Children promotes shared understanding and implementation of effective practices that contribute to improved results for all children and youth in Ohio. While primarily focused on strategies that build the capacity of the P-16 system to improve outcomes for children and youth with disabilities and other marginalized groups of learners, the Compact promotes collective conversation among education professionals at all levels of the system.

The goal of the Compact is to increase the level of collaborative inquiry among Ohio's Institutions of Higher Education, thereby improving the capacity of teacher education, administration, and related services personnel preparation programs in Ohio to better prepare professional educators to effectively teach and support every child.

To that end, the Compact has identified four priority/focus areas that guide the work of institutions of higher education participating in the Compact. These are:

1. Identifying and infusing targeted knowledge, skills, and dispositions into preservice coursework;

2. Modifying intervention specialist preparation programs;

3. Developing partnerships to facilitate collaboration among systems (e.g., higher education, P-12, etc.); and

4. Identifying strategies for increasing the number of credentialed intervention specialists and related services providers in low-incidence areas, including visual impairment/blindness, hearing impairment, and orientation and mobility challenges.

In September 2015, Ohio institutions of higher education were invited to submit proposals for incentive grants to develop and implement sustainable improvements in Ohio’s preparation and development system for teachers and administrators. Proposals could address one or more of the following three priority areas:

Priority Area # 1: to restructure existing general and special education teacher preparation programs to create merged programs leading to dual licensure in a general content area and an intervention specialist program area;

Priority Area # 2: to foster inclusive instructional educational leadership practice through course redesign or program overhaul; and

Priority Area # 3: to strengthen existing intervention specialist programs by developing course content and associated field experiences in sensory impairments through a set of courses or modules.

In January 2016, the Compact invited Ohio institutions of higher education to submit proposals for incentive grants. These grants would support short-term development efforts to encourage shared inquiry into common problems of practice related to improving results for all learners and result in products to be used by Ohio four-year institutions of higher education to improve inclusive leadership preparation and by school districts to support the ongoing development of inclusive leadership models for educators in low resources areas of Ohio. These Simultaneous Renewal projects were designed to improve equitable access to high-quality instruction and equitable outcomes for struggling learners.

Institutions of higher education that were awarded the Priority Area grants and the Simultaneous Renewal grants were required to submit annual reports to the Compact at the end of Year One (July 2016). This report provides a synthesis and summary of findings from the Incentive Grant Institutions Year One Annual Reports.

Synthesis and Summary of Findings for Incentive Grant Institutions’ Annual Reports

Priority Area # 1

Priority Area # 1 required institutions of higher education (IHE) to develop viable models for restructuring existing general and special education teacher preparation programs—undergraduate or graduate--to create merged, dual licensure programs leading to licensure in both a general content area and an intervention specialist program area. Participating candidates would be eligible to receive both credentials within a four-year period. Higher education institutions seeking support for planning and implementing Priority Area # 1 included Marietta College, Ohio Dominican University, Ohio University, Shawnee State University, University of Rio Grande, and Youngstown State University.

Project Description All IHEs identified between five to seven early childhood and special education faculty members, who served as a core team, to lead the planning of their project, sometimes including IHE faculty members from other areas (e.g., arts and sciences, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) and a teacher education or university advisory board. Smaller teams, such as clinical teams, were sometimes created to address specific project requirements. Partnerships were a required component of the grant. The numbers and types of IHE partners varied, ranging from one to three district partners, and at times including a board made up of specialists in developmental disabilities, child development, Head Start programs, and educational service centers.

Issues Grantees’ reports mentioned a number of issues arising during project planning. The challenge most often cited was the lack of time, which impacted availability to meet, including the external evaluator meeting with the core team; working around K-12 school calendars; timing of the release of grant funds; and institutional requirements for course approval. Institutions resolved these challenges in several ways, including teleconferencing to accommodate schedules and save on costs; being flexible with K-12 school calendars (even meeting on Saturdays); and garnering support from administrators (deans and heads of departments) at an early stage to secure buy-in from decision makers. Institutional course approval proved to be more of a barrier at large universities because of their governance processes and requirements; the smaller IHEs indicated they had no problem, or did not anticipate a problem, with course approval. However, smaller IHEs noted that their small staff was impacted by an increase in workload distribution as a result of grant activities.

Another challenge cited was accommodating all courses of the revised program into a four-year time period, as many courses were offered only once a year or were offered only as one section. This barrier was addressed through careful curriculum mapping to identify courses that could be flexible (i.e., a course formerly in the teacher education curriculum was moved to become a general education requirement) or could be removed altogether from the education course sequence.

In several instances, personnel changes were unanticipated, but the grantees adapted without much delay. When such changes occurred at their institutions, IHEs contracted out faculty to teach some of their courses. When changes occurred with partners, IHEs worked collaboratively to fully apprise the partner about the project.

Collaboration and Readiness All grantees met regularly and often, particularly in the beginning of the project, to build relationships and develop a common understanding of the grant. Before their first meeting, most IHEs had already identified and reached out to their potential K-12 and other partners and inquired about their interest in formally collaborating. When meeting for the first time, topics included understanding project goals and discussing roles of the IHE and its partners. Subsequent meetings—often held weekly by the core team—focused on sharing information on competency standards, clinical experiences, and modes of course delivery. Further conversation about planning occurred through a review and analysis of syllabi to align course competencies to develop a crosswalk of standards. In some cases, the IHE core team also created surveys and questionnaires to distribute to their partners; these allowed IHEs to gauge their partners’ perceptions of their needs with regard to serving all students, particularly those with disabilities, and which subsequently informed their course and syllabi development as well as their field and clinical experiences.

Standards, practices, and frameworks that were examined included the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); Council for Exceptional Children (CEC); Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE); Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (OSTP); Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC); Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP); the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP); the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC); Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional Improvement (OLi4); various Specialized Professional Associations (SPA); Ohio Learning Standards (OLS); Ohio Early Learning and Development Standards (OLEDS); Ohio Extended Learning Standards (OELS); and Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE). Existing program outcomes, learning objectives, and key assessments were also reviewed by the IHE core team and revised when necessary to align to the standards and frameworks.

All institutions reported that by the end of Year 1 they were ready to make or had made changes to their curriculum to reflect the merged program. Some IHEs indicated they still needed institutional program approval, while others had already received it and will submit their proposed program to the Ohio Department of Higher Education in fall 2016.

Grantees reported that professional development was very helpful in further developing their and their partners’ knowledge and skills in understanding the processes for and benefits of a merged early childhood and special education program. Professional learning events included attending the annual Ohio Deans Compact Conference, the CEEDAR Conference, and networking with former grantees to learn about best practices and processes for blending curriculum and creating a four-year plan. Some IHEs participated in other professional development events with their K-12 partners, including technology training.

Project Description Grantees ranged from small private institutions (1,200 students) to large public institutions (over 23,000 students). Most serve students in-state, though one online program serves students across the state and in neighboring states.

Funding Institutions reported that the funding they received through the grant was valuable and contributed to their ability to effectively plan their project. Funding was most often used for personnel costs (faculty and partner stipends; faculty release time; external evaluators; graduate assistants) professional development (conferences, retreats, technology training); and materials (books, videos, online modules).

Implementation – Process and Steps All grantees met with their institution’s faculty and administrators early in the project. Many also met with partners, often at their partner sites. Several mentioned the importance of meeting face-to-face with administrators in their partner K-12 sites to be able to fully explain and garner support for the project. Grantees reported that they developed and followed a strategic timeline for grant activities and solicited feedback from stakeholders to adapt planning as needed.

Research on change models used by grantees in project planning varied widely and included Fullan’s Educational Change Model, Weiss’s research on theories of change; constant comparison and iterative processes, Ohio’s Leadership Development Framework, and Ontario’s research on early learning experiences of English language learners.

With regard to planning for implementation in 2016-2017, most institutions reported they foresee that a great deal of professional learning will need to occur for faculty, partners, or both. Topics they intend to address include co-teaching, differentiated instruction, use of technology, formative and performance- based assessments, backward design, and training in IRIS, OLAC, and OCALI resources. Project implementation timelines for the upcoming year vary according to the progress IHEs have made thus far. All have completed the grant requirement of developing a crosswalk of standards and have merged or are ready to merge coursework. Some have already received institutional approval for their blended program and are ready to submit their new program to the Ohio Department of Higher Education. Other grantees are awaiting authorization by their institution and plan to submit their program as soon as possible for state approval. Creating resources, such as field experience handbooks, training and marketing videos, student field evaluations, evaluations for future professional development, and end of project surveys were identified as activities for 2016-2017.

Deliverables All grantees reported their deliverables as required by the project: a standards checklist and crosswalks; course sequence, alignment of courses with appropriate standards and the Ohio Improvement Process and Ohio Leadership Advisory Council modules, as well as field experiences. Fiscal impact statements

7 were also included. Several institutions provided a revised outline of course sequence, draft syllabi, field expectations, and observation rubrics.

Impact Institutions identified the following methods for evaluating program impact—both immediate and long term and at different levels.

University Level • Number of candidates recruited for the program • Improved results on key assessments • Course evaluations • Candidate observation data • Candidate portfolios • Pass/fail data to assess course and program effectiveness • Number of program completers (2018-19) • Candidate surveys (pre- and post-program implementation) • Cooperating teacher surveys (pre- and post-program implementation) • Faculty surveys (pre- and post-program implementation)

State Level • Ohio Department of Higher Education program approval • Results from the Ohio Assessment of Educators and edTPA

Stakeholder Level • Hiring statistics • Value-added data

National Level • Program assessment feedback from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation

Several reports identified the practice of progress monitoring as important to determining their institution’s success or effectiveness at implementing the program in Year 2.

Common Themes

The following themes emerged from a review of Priority Area # 1, Year 1 annual reports.

1. Grantees have leveraged existing internal support structures and practices to support their projects. Use of resources, such as technology infrastructure and meeting space at universities and partner locations was reported as important to the work. Human resources, such as other graduate assistants and librarians, were also mentioned as an asset.

2. Existing (internal/external) relationships moved the work forward more quickly. Collaboration among faculty in teacher preparation programs was critical in agreeing upon the project goals and reaching out to potential external partners. When IHEs had established partners, particularly with K-12 schools, those partners signed on to the project at an early stage. Also, discussing the potential of the project with university leadership proved to be a strategic move that secured buy-in from faculty in other programs whose courses would be impacted by a merged program.

3. Buy-in from and active engagement with K-12 partners were best secured by involving them in decision making and planning early in the project. When institutions included their partners in the actual planning process, their commitment to active engagement in the work was strong and sustained through Year 1. K-12 partners agreed to meet outside of the school day to ensure the progress of the project.

4. Time (e.g., planning, meeting, working around K-12 school calendars, release of grant funds, institutional requirements for course approval, evaluator inability to attend most meetings) has been a challenge, but grantees managed those challenges through creativity and flexibility, through teleconferencing to accommodate schedules and save on costs; being flexible with K-12 school calendars (even meeting on Saturdays); and garnering support from administrators (provosts, deans, and heads of departments) at an early stage to secure buy-in from decision makers.

5. Unanticipated changes in university and partner personnel created challenges, but grantees adapted. Often, the changes involved a key individual (faculty member; head of a child development center; principal of a potential school partner). However, the grantees remained adaptable and worked to quickly revise the workload (for new faculty) or accommodate the new partner.

Priority Area # 2

Priority Area # 2 required institutions of higher education (IHE) to build on the work of the Ohio Deans Compact in supporting the incorporation of course content related to collaborative and inclusive practices in educational leadership/administration preparation programs. Projects could focus on Area A (course redesign) or Area B (program overhaul). Higher education institutions seeing support for Priority Area # 2 included Malone University, Ohio Dominican University, and the University of Cincinnati; all grantees focused on Area A (course redesign).

Project Description All IHEs identified between 2 and 12 full-time and adjunct members (some of whom served on smaller committees) and college of education administrative leadership to plan their project. The focus of the projects ranged from increasing numbers of trained educational leaders through development of inclusive educational leadership programs that provide more flexible degree options—such as revising existing courses with modules that increase the presence of inclusive practices in those courses —to developing authentic, diverse clinical experiences for principals in training so that they are better prepared to meet the needs of all students, including those with disabilities.

Issues No major issues were noted by any of the IHEs, with the exception of making adjustments to their schedules so they could meet and plan for their project.

Collaboration and Readiness University faculty met internally at first to discuss strategies they would use for project planning and implementation. One grantee focused on a review of existing courses, with a goal of integrating content reflective of special education into their leadership program. Another sought to assess their current educational leadership program and work with school partners to identify specific areas in need of change with the goal of redesigning online course content where necessary. A third IHE created a monthly implementation plan aligned to the deliverables and goals of the grant. All grantees mentioned that collegiality and willingness to serve on committees were an asset to their project.

Standards, practices, and frameworks that informed the work of the IHEs included the Ohio Principal Standards (OPS); Council for Exceptional Children (CEC); Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELLC); Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL); CEEDAR resources; Ohio Council for Professors of Educational Administration (OCPEA); the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) and the Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional Improvement (OLi4).

Project Description Grantees ranged from small private institutions (1,500 students) to a large public institution (over 23,000 students), representing suburban, urban, and rural areas.

Funding Institutions reported that the funding they received through the grant allowed for flexibility in fulfilling their grant requirements. Funding was used to compensate faculty, employ graduate assistants, incur meeting expenses, cover professional development expenses, and purchase resources for retreat meetings.

Implementation – Process and Steps All grantees met with their institution’s faculty and administrators (when appropriate) early in the project and to map out a direction for their work. In one instance, the IHE began by creating and distributing a survey to teachers and prospective teachers to determine their level of interest in a new educational leadership program. In addition, the IHE provided a survey to the field to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and changes the university should make to its existing principal leadership program. Their subcommittees also met to analyze course syllabi, develop new learning objectives, and key assessments aligned to CAEP standards. Members of another IHE came together regularly to explore integration of special education and educational leadership courses and identified where the newly developed modules could be included in existing courses. The third grantee held monthly retreats to determine their direction, discuss the logic model they would use for program revision, develop an action plan for evaluation, analyze syllabi and educational leadership standards, determine standards alignment of coursework and field experiences, and discuss the challenges of pre-service principals authentically engaging in internships.

One IHE acknowledged difficulty in conducting the course and syllabi analysis due to the new professional leadership standards and their relationship to the existing state standards and OLAC modules. To address this issue, the grantee determined that alignment with the Ohio Principal Standards and Council for Exceptional Children standards was necessary.

Research on change models used by grantees in project planning included Fullan’s research on relationships, and CEEDAR Leadership Dimensions, as well as the previously mentioned standards, practices, and frameworks that informed the work of course redesign.

Deliverables Grantees reported their deliverables as required by the project: standards crosswalks; revised syllabi, learning objectives, and key assessments with appropriate standards; and a clinical internship matrix, which identifies in what courses principal candidates complete field experiences.

Impact

Institutions identified the following methods for evaluating program impact—both immediate and long term. • Adjuncts instructing redesigned educational leadership courses, which contain inclusive leadership practices, will gather student feedback following course completion • Feedback from Board of Advisors (for one IHE) has informed the focus of newly developed principal internships • Interest in exploring long-term methods to evaluate success of IHE program completers

Stakeholders identified by grantees as likely to be positively impacted by their course redesign efforts include principal candidates, university instructors, district and school partners, and the K – 12 students they serve.

Common Themes The following themes emerged from a review of Priority Area # 2, Year 1 annual reports.

1. Faculty from different areas within the university’s department of education (educational leadership and special education) see the necessity for and value of redesigning educational leadership courses that will better equip principal candidates to meet the needs of all students.

2. While time to schedule faculty meetings was mentioned as something of a challenge, faculty were able to complete their obligations to the grant by working independently and in subcommittees to productively accomplish their tasks.

Priority Area # 3

Priority Area # 3 required institutions of higher education (IHE) to design course content that leads to teacher candidates earning an endorsement in sensory impairment (visual impairment, hearing impairment, combined vision-hearing impairment). While no credential currently exists, the Ohio Deans Compact, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio Department of Higher Education, seeks to pursue the creation of such a credential. This priority also supports modules in sensory impairment that can be integrated into existing intervention specialists’ preparation programs, as well as be used for professional development purposes.

Two higher education institutions have collaborated on a grant for planning and implementing Priority Area # 3: Shawnee State University and the University of Rio Grande.

Project Description This project, entitled “Broadening Horizons” was created to develop a sensory impairment endorsement, including coursework, field experiences, and key assessments. The leadership team is comprised of one faculty member from each IHE. External reviewers and an external evaluator have also been identified as part of the team. Project stakeholders representing 15 counties in Ohio were nominated from local educational service centers, state support teams, and districts.

Issues Five issues materialized as the IHE team met to discuss the new endorsement, which the team seeks to address. • The perception that this initiative is a preparation program for both intervention specialist teachers of students with visual impairments and intervention specialist teachers of students with hearing impairments • The potential problem of not being able to identify a practicing teacher of students with visual impairments or hearing impairments to support an individual pursuing the endorsement • Identifying field experience settings for individuals pursuing the endorsement who are already full-time teachers • The inclusion of an early childhood intervention specialist license as an option to which the endorsement can be added • The amount of Braille and sign language education required for the endorsement

Collaboration and Readiness Project leaders met with P – 12 partners at a retreat focused on clarifying the purpose of the program, identifying relevant standards, and discussing field experience options. Two additional stakeholder meetings are scheduled for fall 2016. In the first, participants will write course descriptions, develop rubrics for program key assessments, and outline field requirements for the sensory impairment endorsement program. In the second session, participants will review and revise, as needed, the draft syllabi, rubrics, and field expectations. Each IHE will then apply for its own institutional approval for the addition of the endorsement, and submit the program to the Ohio Department of Higher Education for state approval, upon which the IHEs will offer the endorsement coursework in the fall of 2017.

The report notes that it was important from the beginning that nomination of individuals representing the stakeholder group be diverse enough to present a variety of perspectives that adequately addressed the needs of the proposed endorsement. Moreover, the clarity that the leadership of each IHE provided was essential in helping stakeholders understand the complexity of the project.

Project Description Both the University of Rio Grande and Shawnee State University are located in rural Southeastern Ohio. Many individuals located around each IHE experience high poverty and high unemployment. Both IHEs work closely with local school districts, and indicate that one of the few career paths for employment in the region is in the teaching field. However, local school districts are challenged by the difficulty in recruiting and retaining teachers from outside the area, particularly in high-demand fields, such as special education. Both IHEs offer the Intervention Specialist Mild to Moderate and Early Childhood Intervention Specialist programs.

Stakeholders include educational service centers’ directors and supervisors of special education programs; administrators from a local board of developmental disabilities; members of state support teams; K – 12 school administrators; special education teachers, including early childhood intervention specialists and teachers of students with hearing impairments; and parents of children with sensory impairments.

In addition to the regional challenges identified earlier, other barriers to the project include a lack of overall public recognition and statewide exposure for recruitment of prospective candidates for this endorsement. Additional concerns noted were “selling” the program and potential lack of field placements. Given these challenges, practitioner input was seen as a critical aspect in the development of the program.

Standards used to align coursework for the endorsement include the Council for Exceptional Children Blind/Visually Impaired and Deaf/Hard of Hearing and Deaf/Blind teacher preparation standards. Stakeholders reviewed these standards and selected those that would be appropriate for development of the sensory impairment endorsement. Chosen standards were then aligned to courses that will be required; a review of this alignment was subsequently conducted by external advisors, whose feedback was then returned to stakeholders for review.

Successes identified with this process included the collaboration and expertise of the stakeholder group and their ability to consider authentic teaching and learning scenarios for prospective candidates. A challenge mentioned was the lack of a mentor or program supervisor who would oversee implementation of the program and field placement settings. An issue still to be addressed is that although standards for deafblind education are included in coursework, there is no stand-alone deafblind or dual sensory course in the program.

Funding Funding for the grant was used for costs (travel, lodging, meals) associated with the retreat where stakeholders engaged in the standards and course alignment process; stipends provided for university leadership; student workers; costs associated with attendance at the Ohio Deans Compact meetings, joint IHE meetings, and travel to a technology fair focused on the needs of children with dual sensory disabilities.

Other resources include modules for teachers of students with deafblindness and OCALI online resources that will be embedded in coursework. An assistive technology resource consultant is being considered for online course development. Clinical partners representing local districts will be instrumental in providing resources for candidates completing their required field experiences.

Implementation – Process and Steps Both IHEs first met to plan for their work by soliciting and selecting stakeholders as project partners and bringing them together for a retreat where they self-selected participation into work teams to focus on needs related to students with hearing impairments, visual impairments, and dual sensory impairments. Each team worked to identify standards appropriate for coursework for their respective area, as well as discuss field options. The culminating work was then sent to external reviewers and then presented to university provosts for their review. The university leadership team has also worked to recruit two additional universities as potential partners for 2016 – 2017.

Two additional stakeholder meetings are scheduled for fall 2016, as well as universities’ plans to present the project at upcoming conferences. Both IHEs intend to submit the program to the Ohio Department of Higher Education for approval, following approval from their own institutions.

Deliverables Grantees reported their deliverables as required by the project: a list of participating stakeholders; and draft course syllabi aligned to Council for Exceptional Children standards for Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Blind/Visually Impaired; and Deaf/Blind, as well as monthly project progress reports.

Impact Institutions identified the following methods for evaluating program impact. • Stakeholder feedback • Analysis of endorsement licensure program key assessment data • Employment rate of teachers serving children with sensory impairments

Finally, the report mentions that the development of this proposed program will meet the need to provide more instructional support to children with sensory impairments and that the final, summative project evaluation will be the quality of the professionals trained through this program.

Simultaneous Renewal

Simultaneous Renewal grants required institutions of higher education (IHE) to partner with local school districts to engage in shared inquiry into common problems of practices that improve results for all learners, that result in products to be used by Ohio four-year IHEs to improve inclusive leadership preparation, and that support inclusive leadership models for educators serving low-resource areas, i.e., districts with a free or reduced lunch rate of 50% or higher. Higher education institutions seeking support to plan for and implement Simultaneous Renewal grants included Kent State University, Kent State University (Salem campus), Ohio University, Shawnee State University, and Youngstown State University.

Project Description Four of the IHEs identified between one to five early childhood and special education faculty members, as well as literacy course instructors, to lead their projects. Institutions’ partners varied greatly and included an Educational Service Center staff member who also served as an instructor at the university, district superintendents, a district special education supervisor, a child development center director, a state support team (SST) member, Pre-Kindergarten teachers employed at the child development center, and classroom teachers from kindergarten to seventh grade. The fifth IHE partnered with a local middle school, as their project focused on high-leverage and evidence-based practices to assess and strengthen school-wide positive behavioral supports as part of the development of their dual licensure program in special education and middle childhood.

Issues Grantees reported few barriers to beginning their work. However, scheduling time to meet and plan, both at the university and with partners, proved to be a challenge. Related to that issue was the timing of the grant itself; partnerships with local educators were a grant requirement, but district calendars were already set for achievement testing and teacher professional development. A challenge reported by one IHE was difficulty gathering the baseline school-wide disciplinary data needed for their project.

Grantees successfully navigated these challenges in several ways: collaborating with district and school administrators to allow for flexible meeting times with classroom teachers, providing grant funds to secure substitute teachers for participating teachers to attend meetings, and scheduling professional development with school partners for the summer. One IHE noted an unanticipated change: their project intended to identify between six and eight teachers from one district with whom to partner. Instead, 17 teachers expressed interest. Though this was a positive development, it required the IHE to adapt the scope of their project. The IHE that lacked access to the school’s data system successfully overcame that challenge by framing their request within the parameters of that system and providing to the district the data requirements needed to facilitate analysis of disciplinary trends.

Collaboration and Readiness While all grantees worked closely within their university and with the partners, they did so in different contexts. Some partnered only with local districts or schools, but one grantee included other partners (e.g., educational service center, SST member, child development center). All IHEs met internally first and then reached out to potential partners to explain the grant and inquire about their interest. One grantee noted that historically their university has not had strong, direct ties to local schools, as adjuncts typically supervise their teacher candidates. However, the grant has provided them an opportunity to authentically collaborate with their local school district to address their shared educational concerns. All grantees indicated partners who eagerly agreed to begin work on their project.

Standards, practices, and frameworks that were used to inform the grantees’ work included the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC); Advanced Specialty Set: Special Education Inclusion Specialist; Association for Middle Level Education Middle Level Teacher Preparation Standards; Ohio Administrative Code (OAC); Ohio Learning Standards (OLS); Ohio Early Learning Standards (OELS); the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC); and the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP). Several grantees noted that their partnering districts also used the OIP process, though one IHE indicated there were varying levels of effectiveness.

Project Description Grantees all are public universities and are located in rural areas of Ohio. Many of their students are of nontraditional age and may be first-generation college students. One IHE maintains “high research activity.” District and school partners also represent high poverty areas and some associated challenges. One partner district has a high percentage of students identified with disabilities (21%). Another district has a high chronic absenteeism rate (18%).

Funding Institutions reported that the funding they received through the grant was valuable, and they were able to leverage it for different activities, including meetings with, and professional development for, their partner districts and schools; attendance at a conferences; stipends for faculty and educational partners; consulting for outside experts; resources and materials for professional learning events, and development of online modules and videos.

Implementation – Process and Steps All grantees met internally at first to develop a common understanding of their project. Initial meetings centered on the project goals developed by the IHE. Three of the four grantees’ goals addressed the co- teaching process, albeit with emphasis on different aspects. The goal of one IHE was to help establish the foundations of socially just classrooms through the development of modules for an inclusive curriculum, which will be integrated into early childhood education courses. Faculty will subsequently practice this curriculum in a co-planning/co-serving context with their partner schools. Another grantee created classroom observation rubrics and protocols to be used to observe instruction of teacher teams in classrooms of their partner schools. A third IHE participated in a co-teaching, train-the-trainer workshop and, in turn, facilitated a workshop with cooperating teachers at their partner school who will

18 be supporting their teacher candidates’ student teaching. The fourth grantee is creating four online modules focused on developing, implementing, and sustaining strong clinical partnerships. The fifth grantee has begun development of content acquisition podcasts for teachers from their partner district who support the IHE’s preservice teachers during their field experiences. As a reflection of their commitment to their partnership, the IHE also agreed to provide future professional development to the school or district on topics of their choice. All grantees reported that the expertise faculty brought to their respective projects was an asset to their projects. A commitment to cooperate collegially within the university also advanced the work during the short timeline to plan.

After their preliminary meeting, IHEs reached out to partners to schedule times to explain the grant opportunity to them. All reported positive feedback from partners, though the timing of the grant (mentioned earlier) was an initial concern. An issue for one grantee that emerged after implementation began was that some of the teachers within their teacher teams did not get along with one another or were not helpful to one another. The grantee noted that administrators identified the teams, and teacher teams were not self-selected.

Research cited for project development and implementation included positive behavior supports, co- teaching, inclusive teaching, universal design for learning, collaborative leadership, teacher teams, professional learning communities, and 21st-century learners.

Deliverables Deliverables reported by the grantees included the following: professional development materials and high-leverage learning modules for use by other institutions of higher education, specific observation techniques using a newly developed mobile application, curriculum modules for inclusive teaching, classroom observation and protocol checklist for team teaching, lesson plan templates for co-teaching lessons, and clinical handbooks revised to include co-teaching resources.

Impact Impact was reported mostly by way of numbers of teachers engaged in the work. One IHE indicated that their partners had increased from one district to four and will continue to impact other districts served by the local educational service center partner. Another IHE noted that they initially intended their teacher partners to number six to eight; however, 17 teachers have expressed interest.

Grantees report that stakeholders who will benefit include those with whom they partner directly, including pre-service teachers; teacher candidates and the cooperating teachers who support them; teacher teams and their students in partner schools. They have identified other stakeholders who will also profit, including any university faculty who may wish to use online modules created as part of this project.

Institutions reported that multiple sources of data will be used to formatively assess the effectiveness of their projects at different points in time, including the following:

• Feedback on modules that are developed and piloted • Focus group interviews of teachers participating in professional development • Teacher candidate reflection journals • Surveys given to workshop participants • Classroom observation data from team teaching at partnership schools • Pre- and post-lesson assessments given to students who have been co-taught by university faculty and partner schools • Teacher candidate learning and performance data (qualitative and quantitative) • Disciplinary and observational data collected from weekly teacher-based team meetings.

Common Themes

The following themes emerged from a review of Simultaneous Renewal annual grant reports.

1. Partnering districts and schools—whether long-term or new partners—were eager to collaborate early on with higher education institutions who led the project. Both IHEs and partners recognized the need to either sustain existing relationships or build new ones.

2. There appeared to be a strong interest on the part of districts and schools to learn about and implement co-teaching processes as a way to support student learning.

3. Time (e.g., planning, meeting, working around K-12 school calendars, release of grant funds) has been a challenge, but grantees managed those challenges by allowing teachers to determine many of the meeting days and times; allowing for flexible scheduling (working into the evening); and taking advantage of teachers’ summer break to facilitate some of the work.