1. WELCOME WELCOME PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MEETING @ OSEP PROJECT DIRECTORS’ VIRTUAL CONFERENCE APRIL 27, 2015

2. OSEP Investments 2 Personnel Development Program 325 D325KTotal FY 2013 $3.57M$10.2M$83.7 million FY 2014 $4M$11.6M$83.7 million FY 2015 $3.75M$9.75M$83.7 million FY 2016 ($4.25M)($11M)($83.7 million) Request

3. OSEP INVESTMENTS 3 Grants for Leadership Consortia in Sensory Disabilities and Disabilities Associated with Intensive Service Needs CEEDAR Center Early Childhood Personnel Center IRIS Center Center on Great Teachers & Leaders PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ALSO SUPPORTS - NEW CENTERS

4. OSEP KEY RESOURCES 4 AND PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUPPORTS - G5 System Grant Reporting - Forms, new Webinars Product Accessibility TA&D Network Uniform Guidance – Technical Assistance for Grantees PDP Data Collection Center (DCC) UPDATED NEW

5. FY 2012 Data Collected & Reported in 2014 Published in 2015 Search on “Special Education Budget Justification FY 2016” for more information Personnel Development Program Performance Measures April 27, 2015 OSEP Project Directors’ Virtual Conference

6. Performance Measure 1 Percentage of projects that incorporate evidence-based practices into their curricula

7. Performance Measure 2 7 Percentage of scholars completing OSEP- funded training programs who are knowledgeable and skilled in evidence based practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

8. Measure 2 for 2014 by Priority Area 8

9. Performance Measure 3 9 Percentage of program scholars who exit preparation programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance

10. Performance Measures 4 and 5 Percentage of funded degree/certification program recipients who are working in the area(s) in which they were trained upon program completion. Percentage of funded degree/certification program recipients who are working in the area(s) in which they were trained upon program completion and who are fully qualified under IDEA. Will report data for FY 2012 on these measures in late 2015. 10

11. Performance Measure 6 Percentage of degree/certification recipients who maintain employment for 3 or more years in the area(s) for which they were trained and who are fully qualified under IDEA. Discontinued reporting on this measure, as three new outcome measures and methodologies have been approved by OMB to be piloted beginning in 2015. 11

12. Performance Measure 7 Performance Measure 7 The Federal cost per degree/certification program recipient who completed the program. 12

13. Three New Outcome Measures Measure 1: The number and percentage of degree/certification recipients who are employed in high-need districts. Measure 2: The number and percentage of degree/certification recipients who are employed in the field of special education for at least two years. Measure 3: The number and percentage of degree/certification recipients who are rated as effective by their employers. 13

14. Summary of Results 14  Of the four PDP measures reported on this year, program grantee data showed increased performance on two measures, and showed decreased performance on two measures (EBP in the curriculum, and an assessment of knowledge and skills attained in the program).  Only one of four PDP measures reported on this year is on or above target for the measure. The remaining three measures reported this year were all below expected performance.

16. Live Discussion of Video 16 Demonstration of Scripted Systematic Instructional Approach to College and Career Ready Standards  Aligning Instruction to Grade Level Standards for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities  Jodi Fortney and Susan Weigert

17. Traditional Language Arts instruction Typically, language arts instruction in a special day class focused on teaching sight words and reading simple text. The literature chosen is often matched to ability level rather than grade level.

18. College- and Career-Ready Standards  With the introduction of the CCRS, instruction is changing for all students, including students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities.  Teaching the grade-level ELA CCRS can be a challenge with these students especially in the upper grades. Many teachers report feeling overwhelmed by the task.

19. Language Arts Systematic Instruction  Based on the LASSI format developed by NCSC, this video demonstrates one way that literature can be presented in a high school special day class—  by using visuals to aid in the understanding of grade- level vocabulary and content, allowing all students to interact with the material.  The goals for the students are based on the CCRS- but each student is working toward an objective that is within his or her measurable performance range.

20. Inferential Reasoning  The standards of focus in this LASSI include  1. the use of context clues to determine the meaning of words and  2. drawing inferences from text.  Pre-requisite skills such as phonemic awareness and syllabication are also addressed.

21. Use of Reverse Mainstreaming ‘Reverse mainstreaming’– brining in grade-level peers from regular education, is another method used to create an inclusive environment within this a special education classroom.

22. Questions for Discussion  How do teachers choose text to adapt? Vocabulary to present?  What are the challenges of preparing the curriculum for this population of students?  How are lessons best taught: whole group, small group, individually?  Can decoding skills also be taught with this method?  To what extend should these practices be covered in our personnel preparation program?  What knowledge and skills do scholars need?  Where would these concepts be covered in the program?  How can we enhance our current coverage of this area? 22 Considerations for Practice Considerations for Personnel Preparation

23. For additional instruction on creating LASSI Instruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZPCckay9_w