1. Michigan Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales: Tools Supported by Data Susan Langendonk Susan Bradley Dawn Anderson

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

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

4. History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales Revised 2008 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 History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales Revised 2008 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 History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales Revised 2008 Presented in working sessions at MAER Conference, Livonia, MI, April 2007 and 2008 Presented in a working session at AER International Conference in Chicago, July 2008

7. 7 History and Development Orientation & Mobility Scales Revised 2008 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

8. 8 Michigan Severity Rating Scales History and Development Internationally recognized Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) Colorado Department of Education Guidelines for Caseload Formula

9. 9 Michigan Severity Rating Scales History and Development Internationally recognized Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI Students Calgary, Alberta, Canada Scholarly references

10. Michigan Severity Rating Scales What they are: 10 A data collection tool A guide based on best practices Guideline for IEP team service discussion

11. What they are not: 11 Michigan Severity Rating Scales 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

12. Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales: The survey 12

13. 13 OMSRS Survey

14. 14 What Do They Teach?

15. 15 Previous Experience with the Scales

16. 16 When Do They Complete a Scale?

17. 17 Factors considered when updating (n=53): Change in vision/motor skill 25 To verify service time 18 Change in program/staff/campus 14 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

18. 18 With Whom They Complete the Scale

19. 19 Do external factors make a difference?

20. 20 What are those factors (n=35)? Academic level, age 18 Parental involvement 12 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 1

21. 21 Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?

22. 22 How Important is it in Caseload Analysis?

23. 23 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.

24. 24 O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

25. 25 O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

26. 26 O&MSRS: Comparison of frequency of service time on survey to own caseload

27. 27 O&MSRS: How well do service times match instructional needs?

28. 28 O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen

29. 29 O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity

30. 30 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Severity of Need Profile No changes; get more people to use it 9 Reword portions; correct spacing 2 Confusion on how to score Profound in level of vision 2 Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1 Specific number for each category 1 Distinguish between direct and indirect time 1 Service times vary by need 1

31. 31 No changes 9 Student opportunities & experiences3 Time traveled to teach isn’t adequately accounted for 2 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 score OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Contributing Factors

32. 32 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 units Link lesson length to lesson content area Add option for 2-4 times / month Make language more approachable

33. 33 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

34. 34 O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

35. 35 O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

36. 36 O&MSRS+: Comparison of frequency of service on survey to own caseload

37. 37 Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+ for service time

38. 38 O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen

39. 39 O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness & Validity

40. 40 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

41. 41 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

42. 42 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Recommendations for Services None 6 Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service time Section for recommendations other than those indicated by the SRS would be helpful Leave the last box blank on compliance & communication so the highest score could only be a 6

43. 43 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 Helps in forecasting need for personnel to meet student demand

44. Components of Caseload Analysis 44 Service information from the Michigan Severity Rating Scales Additional hours per week needed for support Hours per week for travel

45. Contact Information 45 bradleys1@michigan.gov langendonks@michigan.gov dawn.l.anderson@wmich.edu

46. Resources 46 MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity Rating Scales: http://tinyurl.com/44yq947 Caseload Analysis Resources: http://tinyurl.com/453fy8j http://tinyurl.com/43ebsrx

47. Michigan State Board of Education John C. Austin President Casandra E. Ulbrich Vice President Nancy Danhof Secretary Marianne Yared McGuire Treasurer Rick Snyder, Governor Michael P. Flanagan Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Zeile NASBE Delegate Kathleen N. Straus Daniel Varner Eileen Lappin Weiser 47