1. Growing Effective Special Education Leaders/Directors
Mississippi Department of Education
Office of Special Education
Cindy Taylor, Ed.S. and Margret Ellmer, Ph.D.

2. 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

3. Mississippi School Districts
144 Public Schools 9 Charter Public Schools 3 Specialized Schools Total = 156 School Districts

4. Identification of Need for Mentoring Program
High Turnover of Special Education Directors across state
During school year MDE held a New Directors Training series for directors with 3 or less years of experience
Over 150 district staff participated
Three year data trend indicated 25% - 35% of Special Education Director positions were vacant at the end of the school year
Vacancies were due to retirement, burnout, and other various reasons

5. Mentoring Program for New Special Education Directors: Program Development
Mississippi Department of Education/Office of Special Education (MDE/OSE recognized need for current practitioners to serve as mentors for new directors
2 Special Education Directors were hired to provide mentoring for a program under an employment model called “Educator in Residence”
Program designed to provide monthly on-site job embedded professional development and technical assistance to new special education directors

6. Mentoring Program for New Special Education Directors: Program Development
Professional development and technical assistance under the mentoring program would include:
Policy and procedures related to compliance
Fiscal guidance such as funding applications
Resolution to formal and due process complaints
Programming for improvement of student outcomes
Improvement of results driven accountability
Parental involvement
Other issues related to the carry out provisions of IDEA
The intent was to design a program to meet the unique needs of each new special education director

7. Mentoring Program for New Special Education Directors: Employment Model
MDE employment model for mentors: Educator in Residence (EIR)
EIRs are technically employees of the host district, but are supervised and report directly to the Office of Special Education’s State Director
MDE/OSE enters an MOU with host district to provide a grant to fund EIR positions

8. Districts Served by Mentoring Program
Year 1 Cohort: 32 Public Schools, 1 Charter School = 33 School Districts
21.15% of Districts Served in the State
Year 2 Cohort: 23 School Districts
14.74% of Districts Served in the State
Year 3 Cohort: 23 Public Schools, 1 Charter School = 24 School Districts
15.38% of Districts Served in the State

9. Districts Served by Mentoring Program
First 3 years of Mentoring Program = 80 Districts Served
51.28% of Districts in the State Served by Mentoring Program over last 3 years

10. Districts Served by Mentoring Program

11. Retention Rates for Mentoring Program
Year 1: 4 of 33 Directors did not return
Reason for Departure: Lack of district level support
Year 2: 7 of 56 Directors did not return:
3 of 7 were 1st year directors
Reason for Departure: 2 Directors - Lack of District Support, 1 Director - Declined Mentoring Services, took another position in the district
4 0f 7 were 2nd year directors
Reason for Departure: 3 Directors - Lack of District Support, 1 Director - Retired due to District Consolidation
Year 3: 11 of 80 Directors did not return

12. Retention Rates for Mentoring Program

13. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
70 recipients of the 80 New Special Education Directors were sent a survey (10 had unknown addresses)
Purpose of Survey: To determine the effectiveness of the program and continued need, as well as program improvements
54 of 70 recipients responded to survey
12 Survey Questions: 9 multiple choice, 3 open ended

14. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

15. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

16. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

17. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

18. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

19. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

20. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

21. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

22. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Greatest Challenge as Special Education Director
Common Responses included the following:
Budgeting such as funding applications and amendments
Finding and retaining competent personnel (i.e. teachers and other staff were specially named), lack of teacher training
Discipline
Lack of Related Service Providers and student services
IEP implementation
Advocate Groups and Parents
Compliance Monitoring

23. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Greatest Challenge as Special Education Director
Common Responses included the following:
Lack of Knowledge other administrators have concerning IDEA
Time Management, Deadlines and timelines
Cooperation from General Educators and shifting the paradigm from special education teachers not viewed as “babysitters” and teacher assistants
Child Count (Mississippi Student Information System-MSIS)
Policies and Procedures
Formal State Complaints

24. Special Education Administrator Survey Results

25. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Respondents Suggestions /Comments for Program Effectiveness and Improvement:
Continue having Mentors that were previous Special Education Directors
Need for 2 Mentors, “ I still needed assistance my second year”
“Services provided by Mentors leads to greater success and longevity”
“Program needs to continue and include monthly webinars”
“Needs set schedule and area meetings”
“I would have quit the job without my mentor”

26. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Respondents Suggestions /Comments for Program Effectiveness and Improvement:
“The program was an absolute treasure!!!”
“The program was awesome…I would recommend it time and time again for new directors”
“I gained confidence through this program and I am so thankful”
Meet more frequently
The program should be mandatory for three years

27. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Respondents Suggestions /Comments for Program Effectiveness and Improvement:
“My mentor was available 24 hours a day”
“ This is a much needed and beneficial program… Its too important of a job for our state not to provide intense guidance and support for new directors to be able to stay in this position long term”
“My mentor was an asset and I really believe this program is the reason I am still here”
“I found the services of my mentor to be a life-saver”
“Clone my mentor”

28. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Respondents Suggestions /Comments for Program Effectiveness and Improvement:
“The mentoring program has been a survival training”
“Without my mentor, I would not have survived”
“The program is great and the best thing that the MDE-Special Education Department does”
“ The mentoring program should not be limited to 2 years. If there are not enough mentors to go around, then hire more”
“This program has been a saving grace for new directors. My mentor goes above and beyond to help her new mentees”

29. Special Education Administrator Survey Results
Respondents Suggestions /Comments for Program Effectiveness and Improvement:
“Keep this program in place…new directors must have it to make it”
“This mentoring program was vital to me being able to survive my first year...I appreciate MDE putting this program in place and hope it continues”
“The program is excellent. It is individualized to our needs. This program is the best thing MDE has provided to districts.”

30. Growing Effective Special Education Leaders/Directors
Questions and/or Comments

31. Presenter Contact Information
Dr. Margaret Ellmer, Interim State Director
Cindy Taylor, Educator In Residence: New Special Education Director Mentor
Mississippi Department of Education
Office of Special Education

32. 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)