1. Quality Programs for Students with Visual Impairment (QPVI)
A MODEL FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS
Copyright © 2004 – Revised 8/2012
The field of education, like any other, develops buzz words or phrases around the latest BIG THING….. We’re hearing lots about accountability, progress monitoring, bang for the buck, and, still, quality! So, what’s the big deal about looking at quality??? To do it right, we have to know what’s being done, have some standards of quality, have a way of measuring it…. AND have a way of bringing staff up to that standard. This presentation tells you how QP proposes to accomplish all that for your programs for students with visual impairments.

2. Who cares about accountability?
If you’re included in the majority of people who chose to work in this field to make a difference in the lives of students, then accountability for that outcome is important to you. It is only by collecting data to support our claims of positive outcomes that we can move from a culture of perception to a culture with the data to substantiate those claims.

3. Accountability timely – quality – data + data-based - decision making
+ effective student programming
= positive student outcomes
Scribe examples of: timely, quality, data, dbdm, effective student programming (research based strategies – marzano, explicit instruction, criss strategies), positive student outcomes -

4. Why is QPVI unique?
QPVI is the only program improvement process designed specifically for this population of students.
It respects & incorporates the knowledge and experience of district VI staff members and administration in setting program standards of practice.
It works to provide needed supports and remove barriers to positive outcomes.
A knowledgeable QP Facilitator from outside the district brings objectivity to the district’s process.

5. TWO PHASES OF QPVI
SELF-STUDY
CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT

6. PHASE ONE Setting standards of practice in all key component areas
MODIFIED SELF-STUDY BY A DISABILITY SPECIFIC LEARNING COMMUNITY – GRASS ROOTS PROCESS
Setting standards of practice in all key component areas
Establishing uniformity of practice across staff members
Demonstrating positive student outcomes
Identifying needed staff development

7. PHASE TWO
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY (Using the Results Based Accountability Process found at what-is-results-based-accountability/)
Validity Checks: Maintaining the Master List, Caseload Analysis, and Priorities for Change

8. Developing a Master List Database of Students Eligibility & Assessment
Key Components of the Self-Study
Developing a Master List Database of Students
Eligibility & Assessment
Unique Needs (ECC)
Roles & Responsibilities
Type & Amount of Service
Workload Profile Analysis
Self-Study Report

9. Developing a Master List (KC 1)
Developing a Master List Database of Students who are blind or visually impaired, including those with additional disabilities. Analyzing this data to identify program needs and strengths. Establishing a baseline against which to measure subsequent gains.

10. Eligibility & Assessment (KC 2)
Noting timeliness and quality of student data (as per IDEA & State Performance Plan requirements), such as eye report, FVLMA, AT, O&M and other ECC content areas as well as how eligibility decisions are made.  

11. UNIQUE NEEDS (KC 3) Expanded Core Curriculum(ECC) Screening Assessment
Planning
Instruction
Evaluative data

12. Roles & Responsibilities (KC4)
Focus on the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) and collaborative consultation.

13. Type and Amount of Service (KC 4)
Standards for determining student service needs – frequency and intensity of service. (Delphi studies)

14. Workload Profile Analysis (KC 5)
Equitable distribution of students among staff members (see Div. 16 Position Paper)

15. Work Group Self-Study Report (KC 6)
Strengths/needs noted during the Self-Study, Action Steps for Phase 2

16. Phase Two: Validity Check
Completed Self-Study: report written, priorities for action selected, the site is ready to move on to QPVI Phase Two.
Phase Two: accountability and professional development, process tracks integrity of implementation.
QPVI Facilitator, now attends three meetings: fall, mid-year, and end-of-year and is involved in planning and tracking

17. Phase Two: Validity Check
Program Supervisor/Administrator continues site’s monthly meetings, implementing and tracking completion of action steps and sustaining both the Master List and Caseload Analysis.
(During Phase Two, the district administrator who has been involved in the Self-Study assumes the major leadership role for ongoing activities)

18. BENEFITS OF QPVI
Process for all professional staff to review and implement research based strategies and “promising practices” in the educational program
Allows professional staff, including district administrators, to work together as a learning community to adopt program standards in areas such as; assessment, evaluation and skills taught

19. BENEFITS OF QPVI
Identifies needed teacher skill building in areas such as; assessment, Braille, abacus, low vision training, slate/stylus, social skills, and other ECC content areas.
Adapts itself to the unique needs of both public and special purpose schools.

20. BENEFITS OF QPVI
Clarifies the roles of all professional, support and related service staff.
Increases staff effectiveness, accountability, and satisfaction
Assures carryover in the event of personnel changes

21. How is the process completed?
Monthly meetings with the selected Work Group are held throughout the school year.
Administrators are always present
Outside facilitator is used for objectivity

22. Who Participates?
All educational service personnel involved in programming for VI students, and a representative of administration supervising VI staff members make up the Work Group along with the trained QPVI Facilitator(s).

23. QPVI vs Problem Solving Model
Systematic, Global
Staff Issues
Interconnecting Web
Outside
Current Standards Based
Problem Centered, Piecemeal
Prescribed Issues
Organizational Model
Inside
Personal Choice

24. QPVI vs Problem Solving Model
Identifies & Provides Needed Supports
Proactive
Learning Community
Admin.Partnership
Action Orientation
Student Outcomes
Maintain Traditional Barriers
Reactive
Isolated Effort
Separate Efforts
Planning Orientation
Staff Outcomes

25. Length of Self Study
The length of the Self-Study depends in part on the size of the program and the number and complexity of issues raised. An estimated ten to eighteen monthly meetings will be needed to complete the Self-Study.

26. How long does Phase Two take?
Phase Two could be considered an ongoing process that becomes the program’s mechanism for effecting and tracking any practices or changes needed. As such, there is no end date to Phase Two.

27. How do we get started?
Take a look at these websites for more information-
Talk to me about coming to Nashville for training
Contact Karen Blankenship or Nancy Toelle to assist with a plan for your area

28. Which States Have Used QPVI?
Public Schools: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Florida, Louisiana, Washington D.C., Oregon, Pennsylvania
Special Schools: Georgia, Iowa, Texas,
University Programs using QPVI Materials: University of Northern Iowa, Florida State University, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Vanderbilt University (Tennessee)

29. QPVI Publications
Program Accountability for Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired (2008) JVIB 102 (2)
QPVI: Public and Special School Guide used in these respective processes (available with training only).

30. Contact information?
Karen Blankenship Nancy Toelle Website:

31. STATES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED QPVI
IN THE U.S. DC
Representatives from Germany & Canada have also participated in QPVI training
States participating in QPVI Training University Programs using QP

32. Now Canada
APSEA