1. Jillian Gourwitz, Ph.D. Suzanne M. Martin, Ph. D. University of Central Florida

3. The average rate of graduation for leadership preparation programs for years 2006-2008 is 55% (Smith, Montrosse, Robb, Tyler, & Young, 2011) NEED

4.  the critical gaps between the traditional preparation of urban special education mid-level administrators  the skills, knowledge and dispositions needed for full implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004. The Focus of our Work is to Address:

5.  Design and deliver the program-12 doctoral level special education leaders, first grant; 14 students, second grant; 12 future scholars, third grant  Create a cadre of experts in special education to act as members of a National Faculty  Develop and disseminate a model of high-quality preparation and support for mid-level special education leaders in urban settings. GOALS

6. MAJOR UNIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS COLLABORATION

7. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS LOCAL District Superintendent Past Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Director of Exceptional Student Education Services STATE Professor at University of Kansas State Department of Education/ESE Department Task Force committee member State Principal of the Year NATIONAL Director at the Council for Exceptional Children Executive Director of NASDSE Past Education Program Specialist OSEP Executive Director of the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative

8.  Collaboration and problem solving skills  Instructional leadership in urban special education settings  Interpersonal relationship building  Family involvement  Verbal and written communication. NATIONAL FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS

9.  Knowledge of cultural diversity in the global learning community  Knowledge of research-based instructional practices; leadership skills  Research related to implementing and sustaining positive change  Data driven decisions NATIONAL FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS

10. Fall 2012  Data-Based Decision Making Systemic Change in Urban School Districts  Alternative Model for Education Using Technology NATIONAL FACULTY 2012-2013

11. Spring 2013  Federal, State, and Local Policy  A Collegial and Collaborative Process for Teacher Evaluation  Universal Design for Learning in the Real World  Educating Students at Risk of School Failure NATIONAL FACULTY 2012-2013

12. Spring and Summer 2014  Exceptional Education Leadership: Past, Present, and Future  Preparation of Special Education, Early Intervention, and Related Services Leadership Personnel  Completing a Dissertation: Considerations for Full-Time Scholars and Full-Time Professionals NATIONAL FACULTY 2013-2014

13. WE WANTED TO KNOW… How participants feel about the support NUSELI provides How do participants feel about the National Faculty Academy Presentations

14. How do participants feel about support NUSELI provided throughout program? How do participants feel about the national faculty academy presentations? RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

15. INSTRUMENTATION  Qualtrics Survey  Questions featured a 5 pt. Likert Scale  Comment section at end of each category  National Faculty Academy Evaluation Forms  Questions featured a 5 pt. Likert scale  Comment section at end of each category

16.  Grant 2 Scholars  14 scholars accepted in NUSELI  13 current scholars enrolled  Cohort 1 -  1 Graduated  6 Defended Dissertation Proposals and in Data Collection  Cohort 2 -  7 in Dissertation  3 distance scholars – 2 in Miami and 1 in Hillsborough PARTICIPANTS IN QUALTRICS SURVEY *Demographics at time of survey

17. QUALTRICS SURVEY METHODS  Survey was sent to both current participants and graduates.  Email was generated by Project Director, Dr. Martin, and sent via Qualtrics.  Data was collected and analyzed using Qualtrics system.  Results were analyzed according to each support area  Comment sections were collected and examined by theme

18. QUALTRICS RESPONSE RATE  14/14 scholars started the survey  11/14 completed  79% completion rate

19. To what extent do you feel that the National Faculty Academy sessions were an important component of support in your doctoral program? NATIONAL FACULTY Scale: 1-5 1=very unimportant 2= somewhat unimportant 3=neither important nor unimportant 4= somewhat important 5=very important

20. To what extent do you feel that the National Faculty Academy sessions were an important component of support in your doctoral program? NATIONAL FACULTY

21. NATIONAL FACULTY: QUOATABLE QUOTES “The National Faculty Academy afforded me opportunities to collaborate with influential leaders in the education field. Additionally, I have taken the information I have learned at the National Faculty Academy and employed the practices at my school district.”

22. NFA EVALUATION FORM METHODS  Evaluation forms were passed out at the end of each NFA presentation  Participants completed evaluation forms independently and anonymously  Evaluation forms were collected by Project Assistant  Results were analyzed according to each NFA presentation and as a whole system of support  Comment sections were collected and examined by theme (in progress)

23. 10 statements 4 on content of presentation 4 on presenter/presentation delivery 2 on Participants take-away NATIONAL FACULTY ACADEMY PRESENTATIONS On a scale of 1 to 5 (one being low, 5 being high) please rate the following statements

24. 97.9% responded that the content was exactly what they needed 83% responded that the style the content was delivered was universal in design 89.3% responded that the provided new knowledge of leadership in urban schools. 85.1% responded that the content of the presentation increased their knowledge of cultural competence 97.8% responded that the presentation led them to be better prepared to serve in urban, inclusive schools NFA Evaluation Forms Overall Results

25. 95.7% responded that of the presentation tied directly to serving students with disabilities in urban schools 100% responded that the presenter built in time for questions 91.4% responded that the presenter built in time for discussion 93.7% responded that the presentation will help them provide enhanced services to students with disabilities and their families 95.7% responded that the presentation included discussion on best practices in exceptional education NFA Evaluation Forms Overall Results

26. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 1:The presentation content was exactly what I needed Overall Response Percent 74.5% rated a 5 (35/47) 23.4% rated a 4 (11/47) 2.1% rated a 2 (1/47)

27. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 2: The style in which the content was delivered was universal in design Overall Response Percent 55.3% rated a 5 (26/46) 27.7% rated a 4 (13/46) 6.4 rated a 3 (3/46) 8.5% rated a 2 (4/46)

28. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 3: The content of the presentation provided new knowledge of leadership in large urban schools Overall Response Percent 57.4% rated a 5 (27/47) 31.9% rated a 4 (15/47) 4.3 rated a 3 (2/47) 4.3% rated a 2 (2/47) 2.1% rated a 1 (1/47)

29. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 4: The content of the presentation increased my knowledge of cultural competence among urban school leaders Overall Response Percent 55.3% rated a 5 (26/47) 29.8% rated a 4 (14/47) 8.5 rated a 3 (4/47) 4.3% rated a 2 (2/47) 2.1% rated a 1 (1/47)

30. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 5: The presentation led me to be better prepared to serve in urban, inclusive schools Overall Response Percent 63.8% rated a 5 (30/47) 34.0% rated a 4 (16/47) 2.1 rated a 3 (1/47)

31. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 6: The content of the presentation tied directly to serving students with disabilities in urban schools Overall Response Percent 61.7% rated a 5 (29/47) 34.0% rated a 4 (16/47) 4.3 rated a 3 (2/47)

32. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 7: The presenter had built in time for questions Overall Response Percent 80.9% rated a 5 (38/47) 19.1% rated a 4 (9/47)

33. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 8:The presenter had built in time for discussion Overall Response Percent 72.3% rated a 5 (34/46) 19.1% rated a 4 (9/46) 4.3 rated a 3 (2/46) 2.1% rated a 2 (1/46)

34. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 9: The presentation will help me provide enhanced services to the students with disabilities that I serve and their families Overall Response Percent 66.0% rated a 5 (31/47) 27.7% rated a 4 (13/47) 4.3 rated a 3 (2/47) 2.1% rated a 2 (1/47)

35. NFA EVALUATION FORM RESULTS Question 10: The presentation included discussion on best practices in exceptional education Overall Response Percent 63.8% rated a 5 (30/47) 31.9% rated a 4 (15/47) 4.3 rated a 3 (2/47)

36. QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

37. References  Grubb & Tredway (2010)A School Leadership “Crisis” Despite Remedies. Education Week.  Smith, D. D., Montrosse, B. E., Robb, S. M., Tyler, N. C., & Young, C. (2011). Assessing trends in leadership: Special education’s capacity to produce a highly qualified workforce. Claremont, CA: IRIA@CGU, Claremont Graduate University  Smith, D., Robb, S., West, J., & Tyler, N. (2010). The changing educational landscape: How special education leadership preparation can make a difference for teachers and their students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education. 33(1), 25-43.  Wallace Foundation (2007). A Bridge to School Reform. The Wallace Foundation National Conference. New York, New York, pp. 1-32.

38.  http://www.urbanspecialeducation.org/ NUSELI Website