1. Susan Langendonk Susan Bradley Dawn Anderson Robert Wall Emerson

2. 2 Adapted from the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania model beginning in 1995 Published and disseminated by the Michigan Department of Education – Special Education Services Michigan Severity Rating Scales History and Development

3. 3 Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS) Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale for students with Additional Needs (OMSRS+)

4. 4 MDE-LIO Orientation and Mobility Task Force formed in November 2007 Revising Michigan Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale-Task Force’s first project

5. 5 Web search indicated OMSRS was being used and referenced in documents in several other states Referred to in O&M university preparation programs MDE-LIO Task Force did an on-line survey in March 2008

6. 6 Field Tested in Michigan Article in AER Journal Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness Winter 2009 Updated OMSRS and added OMSRS+ to MDE-LIO and TSBVI websites November 2008

7. 7 Internationally recognized Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) Colorado Department of Education Guidelines for Caseload Formula Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI Students Calgary, Alberta, Canada Scholarly references

8. What they are: 8 A data collection tool A guide based on best practices Guideline for IEP team service discussion

9. What they are not: 9 Not an assessment Not a severity of disability but a severity of student’s need for services Not a pre-determiner of service Not the only data source

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13 When Do They Complete a Scale?

14. 14 Factors Considered When Updating (n=53): Change in vision/motor skill 25 To verify service time18 Change in program/staff/campus14 Annual caseload analysis, IEP 14 Tri-annual assessment 6 Assess current level, initial assessment 5 When asked for 5 Student needs 4 Establish eligibility 4 Student not progressing 2 Depends on situation

15. 15 With Whom They Complete the Scale

16. 16 Do External Factors Make a Difference?

17. 17 What Are Those Factors (n=35)? Academic level, age 18 Parental involvement12 Paraprofessional, classroom support 6 Medical fragility, additional disabilities 6 Goals & objectives, expectations 6 Appropriate travel skills, independent 5 Classroom placement, accommodations 4 Involvement of other therapists 3 New environments 2 Service delivery model

18. 18 Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?

19. 19 How Important is it in Caseload Analysis?

20. 20 Scenarios Several students were described for both the O&MSRS and the O&MSRS+. Visual status, academic setting and other characteristics that are crucial to determining the severity of need for services were outlined. Respondents were asked to fill out the Scales, then answer questions.

21. 21 O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

22. 22 O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

23. 23 O&MSRS: Comparison of Frequency of Service Time on Survey to Own Caseload

24. 24 O&MSRS: How Well do Service Times Match Instructional Needs?

25. 25 O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen

26. 26 O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity

27. 27 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Severity of Need Profile No changes; get more people to use it 9 Reword portions; correct spacing2 Confusion on how to score Profound in level of vision2 Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1 Specific number for each category1 Distinguish between direct and indirect time1 Service times vary by need1

28. 28 No changes 9 Student opportunities & experiences3 Time traveled to teach isn’t adequately accounted for2 Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1 Specific number for each category1 Distinguish between direct and indirect time1 Service times vary by need1 Consider only adding to score1 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Contributing Factors

29. 29 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Recommendations for Services Develop reasonable caseload size 2 Add section where discrepancy between SRS rec.& actual rec. can be explained 2 Frequency & time recs. should use same units1 Link lesson length to lesson content area 1 Add option for 2-4 times / month1 Make language more approachable1

30. 30 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Positive Impacts on Services Showed the IEP team the rationale for services 12 Justified a new hire / prevented layoff 8 Explained job to supervisor 4 Helps with consistency 4 Gives parents timeline reference 1 Actually validated a decrease in staff need 1 Gives parents a means of “proving” need for O&M services 1 Caused dissention among professionals, parents & administrators 1

31. 31 O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

32. 32 O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

33. 33 O&MSRS+: Comparison of Frequency of Service on Survey to Own Caseload

34. 34 Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+ for service time

35. 35 O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen

36. 36 O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness & Validity

37. 37 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Severity of Need Profile None 6 Wording can be misleading Add section for recommendations other than from the SRS Add a CVI component Disagree about level of supervision for safe travel – discriminates against severe disabilities

38. 38 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Contributing Factors None 5 Teamwork in deciding times in all areas Student experiences and opportunities Add option to list medications that might impact instruction

39. 39 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Recommendations for Services None 6 Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service time

40. 40 OMSRS+: Positive Impact on Services Showed IEP team rationale for service 6 Helps with consistency2 Justify new hire, prevent layoffs2 Showed need for services for multi handicapped child

41.  Reliability (precision) Respondents overwhelmingly identified the scales as measuring the significant factors to be considered in O&M  Validity O&M SRS above 90% accuracy O&M SRS+ showed 84% accuracy 41

42. 42 Service information from the Michigan Severity Rating Scales Additional hours per week needed for support Hours per week for travel

43. 43 bradleys1@michigan.gov langendonks@michigan.gov dawn.l.anderson@wmich.edu Rob.wall@wmich.edu

44. 44 MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity Rating Scales: http://tinyurl.com/44yq947 Caseload Analysis Resources: http://tinyurl.com/453fy8j http://tinyurl.com/43ebsrx

45. John C. Austin President Casandra E. Ulbrich Vice President Nancy Danhof Secretary Marianne Yared McGuire Treasurer Richard Zeile NASBE Delegate Kathleen N. Straus Daniel Varner Eileen Lappin Weiser Rick Snyder, Governor Michael P. Flanagan Superintendent of Public Instruction 45