1 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference April 28 th, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WV High Quality Standards for Schools
Advertisements

Progress Towards Reading Success: The Reading First Evaluation Prepared by: Amy Kemp, Ph.D. Research Associate and Patricia A. Muller, Ph.D. Associate.
A Roadmap to Successful Implementation Management Plans.
Campus Improvement Plans
Decision Making Tools for Strategic Planning 2014 Nonprofit Capacity Conference Margo Bailey, PhD April 21, 2014 Clarify your strategic plan hierarchy.
Braiding Initiatives Steve Goodman, Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Initiative (MiBLSi) April 16, :00PM – 3:30PM
Sherry A. Key, Director Alabama State Department of Education Career and Technical Education Section Sherry A. Key, Director Alabama State Department of.
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
Funding Opportunities at the Institute of Education Sciences Elizabeth R. Albro, Ph.D. Acting Commissioner, National Center for Education Research.
Introduction & Background Laurene Christensen National Center on Educational Outcomes National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
1 Program Performance and Evaluation: Policymaker Expectations 2009 International Education Programs Service Technical Assistance Workshop Eleanor Briscoe.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
LOCAL LEVEL ALIGNMENT UNDER WIOA Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education for NTI Conference November 12, 2014.
The Current Status of States' Early Childhood Outcome Measurement Systems Kathy Hebbeler, SRI International Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst October 17,
EVALUATION IN THE GEF Juha Uitto Director
How to Develop a Project Evaluation Plan Pat Gonzalez Office of Special Education Programs
Developing School-Based Systems of Support: Ohio’s Integrated Systems Model Y.S.U. March 30, 2006.
Proposed EA Assessment Framework 2.0 Chief Architect’s Forum (CAF) Dick Burk Chief Architect and Director of Federal Enterprise Architecture Program, OMB.
PROGRAM PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION The Service Delivery Model Link Brenda Thompson Jamerson, Chair Services to Youth Facet May 8-12, 2013.
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Are We making a Difference
2011 SIGnetwork Regional Meetings Professional Development: the heart of the matter.
1 Early Childhood and Accountability OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting August 2006.
Leadership Team Meeting March 24,  Project Based Approach  Cross Functional Project Teams  Projects Support Multiple Operational Expectations.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Research & Technology Implementation TxDOT RTI OFFICE.
V Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention (TACSEI)
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING FY 2011.
CONDUCTING A PUBLIC OUTREACH CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENTING LEAPS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE: TRAINERS’ HANDBOOK Conducting a Public Outreach Campaign.
Progress Monitoring for All Student Adapted from the Kentucky Systems of Interventions Guidance Document.
ANNUAL AND FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS 524B FORM REPORTING PERIOD BUDGET EXPENDITURES INDIRECT COST RATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
2011 SIGnetwork Regional Meetings Professional Development: the heart of the matter.
0 Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities PERFORMANCE MEASURES Craig Stanton Office of Planning, Evaluation,
Using Individual Project and Program Evaluations to Improve the Part D Programs Dr. Herbert M. Baum.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING.
WELCOME WELCOME PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OSEP PROJECT DIRECTORS’ VIRTUAL CONFERENCE APRIL 27, 2015.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
The Process we Used and What we Learned…. Renee Bradley, Judy Shanley – OSEP Herb Baum, Danielle Schwarzmann – ICF Macro 2009 OSEP Project Director’s Meeting.
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Connecting TA for Part B Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14: Working Together to Support States OSEP Project.
Presented at the OSPA Summit 2012 January 9, 2012.
Tuesday, April 12 th 2011 SPDG Performance Measure Discussion.
Office of Service Quality
O S E P Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Aligning the State Performance Plan, Improvement Strategies, and Professional.
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING FY 2015.
Overview of the FY 2011 SPDG Competition Jennifer Coffey, Ph.D. State Personnel Development Grants Program Lead 1.
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
GRANT PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR CONTINUATION FUNDING FY 2013 Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education.
325K: COMBINED PRIORITY FOR PERSONNEL PREPARATION Webinar on the Annual Performance Report for Continuation Funding Office of Special Education Programs.
325D: PREPARATION OF LEADERSHIP PERSONNEL Webinar on Project Objective and Performance Measures for the Annual Performance Report for Continuation Funding.
1 Monitoring and Revising the Title I, Part A, Schoolwide Plan Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Title.
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Office of Special Education Programs April 13, 2017
OSEP TA&D Program Performance Measurement
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
OSEP TA&D Program Performance Measurement
Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report:
Performance Measure Collection for the OSEP Parent Program 2018
Office of Special Education Programs March 7, 2018
Welcome 2018 TA&D Program Area Meeting If your project is represented by more than one person, please distribute yourselves throughout the room.
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS
Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Response to Intervention in Illinois
Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008
PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation transcript:

1 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference April 28 th, 2015

2  OSEP reports progress on program performance measures annually to OMB and Congress  This provides an aggregate picture of performance  Their review of our performance data affects the continued funding of IDEA Part D programs  OSEP uses the data to improve the TA&D Program’s performance

 Annual Measures o Quality of New Service or New Product o Relevance of New Service or New Product o Usefulness of New Service or New Product o Efficiency - milestones completed within budget  Long-term Measures o Implementation of evidence-based practices o Promotion of effective models 3

 Scientific Review Panel o Panel receives the New Product and New Service Description Guides as well as electronic copies of the product and supporting materials for services o Rates the quality of evidence-based products and services  Stakeholder Review Panel o Panel receives the New Product and New Service Description Guides as well as electronic copies of the product and supporting materials for services o Rates the quality of policy-related products and services and the relevance and usefulness of all products and services 4

5 Percentage of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent (Scientific) review panel.  Substance : Does the product content or the content delivered through the service reflect evidence of conceptual soundness and quality, grounded in recent scientific evidence, legislation, policy, or accepted professional practice?  Communication : Is the product content or the content delivered through the service presented in such a way so as to be clearly understood, as evidenced by being well-organized, free of editorial errors and appropriately formatted?

6 Percentage of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Products and services deemed to be of high relevance by an independent (Stakeholder) review panel.  Need: Does the product content or the content delivered through the service attempt to solve an important problem or deal with a critical issue?  Pertinence: Does the product content or the content delivered through the service address a problem or issue recognized as important by the target audience(s)?  Reach: To what extent is the product content or the content delivered through the service applicable to diverse segments of the target audience(s)?

7 Percentage of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Products and services deemed to be useful by an independent (Stakeholder) review panel.  Ease: Does the product content or the content delivered through the service address a problem or issue in an easily understood way, with directions or guidance regarding how the content can be used to address the problem or issue?  Likelihood of Use: Is it likely that the information derived from the product content or the content delivered through the service will eventually be used by the target audience(s) to achieve the intended benefit?  Replicability: Is it likely that the information derived from the product content or the content delivered through the service will be used repeatedly in multiple settings to achieve the intended benefit?

 2014 Sample Selection o Random selection of projects by The Study Group Inc. (TSG) o Additional TA&D Centers selected by TSG to ensure areas in the strategic plan are represented (i.e., assessment, literacy, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, secondary transition, and inclusive practices) o 11 TA&D Centers and 10 State Deaf-Blind Projects 8

 Data Collection o Projects generated a list of new products/services developed or delivered during the fiscal year o TSG randomly selected one product and one service from the list o Projects provided a description of the selected product and service o Descriptions and products were sent to a scientific review panel (for evidenced-based products or services) to rate quality and a stakeholder review panel to rate relevance and usefulness 9

10

11  The percentage of effective evidence-based program models developed by Model Demonstration Projects that are promoted to states and their partners through the TA&D Network. YearTargetActualStatus 2012Set Baseline50Baseline 2013Not available.Not Collected 2014Set Baseline 29Baseline

O S E P Revised Efficiency Measure Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the technical assistance and dissemination program includes the percentage of milestones achieved in the current APR period and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year. Use the following format for your Project Measure that aligns with Program Measure #4: “(X) milestones completed out of (X) milestones proposed for the reporting period.” 12

O S E P Milestone Data Milestones proposed should be discussed with your Project Officer.Milestones proposed should be discussed with your Project Officer. “Milestone” is defined as a scheduled event signifying the completion of a major deliverable or set of deliverable or a phase of work. “Deliverable” is defined as a technical assistance and dissemination product or service.“Milestone” is defined as a scheduled event signifying the completion of a major deliverable or set of deliverable or a phase of work. “Deliverable” is defined as a technical assistance and dissemination product or service. Proposed milestones for the NEXT reporting period (March 1st – February 28th) should be included in Section C of your APR.Proposed milestones for the NEXT reporting period (March 1st – February 28th) should be included in Section C of your APR. Include a bulleted list of proposed milestones in your APR submission.Include a bulleted list of proposed milestones in your APR submission. 13

O S E P Section C – Additional Information Projects must include: A list of all new products that were developed in FY 2014 (Between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014) A list of all new services that were rendered in FY 2014 (Between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014) In conjunction with your PO, provide a bulleted list of proposed milestones (e.g. products and services you will develop or provide in the next reporting period (March 1 st through February 28 th ). 14

15 Our Partnership is the Key to Successful Performance