State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

8/11/2019 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

1/103

Delaware Department of Education

Exceptional Children Resources Office

State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

84.323A

Submitted on August 31, 2012


2/103

Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant

Table of Contents

Abstract.... i

Introduction and Welcome to the Reader... 1

Needs.... 3

Delaware Demographics.. 4Graduation and Dropout Rates.... 4

Academic Performance....... 6

Suspension/Expulsion Data..... 6

Least Restrictive Environment Data.... 8

Parent Involvement Data..... 8

Communication Needs ........ 10

Summary. 11

Significance......12

Significance of Proposed Framework.... 12

Significance of Implementation Strategies. 14

Significance of Initiatives.. 16

Goal 1 ..... 16

Goal 2 ......... 20

Summary... 24

Project Design. 26

Goal 1. 28

Goal 2. 39

Personnel..... 48

Delaware Department of Education Staff. 49

Consultants....... 52

Evaluation ......... 54

Adequacy of Resources.. 55

Delaware Department of Education Staff..... 55

Parent Information Center of Delaware ........ 56

Center for Disabilities Studies........... 57

Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc. ....... 59

Management Plan.......61

Advisory Board...... 61Management Team........ 62

Time Line/Person Loading Charts 64

Evaluation... 77


3/103


Table of Tables

Table 1: Student Demographic Data.......... 4

Table 2: Reading and Math Data........ 6

Table 3: 2010-11 Communication Level Data......... 10

Table 4: Goal 1 Loading Chart....... 64

Table 5: Goal 2 Loading Chart....... 64

Table 6: Management Plan Goal 1, Objective 1...... 65

Table 7: Management Plan Goal 1, Objective 2....... 66









Table 16: Evaluation Plan Goal 1, Objective 1...... 80

Table 17: Evaluation Plan Goal 1, Objective 2......

81Table 18: Evaluation Plan Goal 1, Objective 3...... 82








Table 26: Stage of Implementation Assessments...... 93


4/103


Table of Figures

Figure 1: Delaware Education Support System....... 13

Figure 2: Delaware SPDG Framework...... . 27

Table of Charts

Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates........... 5

Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates......... 5

Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data....... 7

Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions...... 7

Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates.... ........ 8

Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education programs.... 9

Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data.... ....... 9

Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All Their Goals on Their

Child's IEP Were Accomplished. ............ 10

Appendix A

Acronyms.............. 99

References............. 101

Sample LEA Commitment Form.......... 103

Logic Model.............. 105

Implementation Driver Assessments............ 107

Appendix B

Support Letters............ 115

Appendix C

Resumes............. 134


5/103


PAGE # REQUIREMENTS

48(a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employand advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities inproject activities. (See Section 606 of IDEA)

48, 55 - 60 (b) Applicant must describe steps to ensure equitable access to, andparticipation in, its program for students, teachers, and other programbeneficiaries with special needs. (See Section 427, GEPA)

BudgetNarrative

(c) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a three-dayProjects Directors meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of theproject.

BudgetNarrative

(d) The applicant must budget $4,000 annually for support of the StatePersonnel Development Grants Program Web site currently administeredby the University of Oregon (www.signetwork.org)

55-56

(e) If a project receiving assistance under this program authority maintainsa Web site, the applicant must describe how they will include relevantinformation and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility

Significance &

Project Design

12 - 47

(f) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional developmentpractices that will increase implementation of evidence-based practices andresult in improved outcomes for children with disabilities;

Project Design

26 - 47

(g) Provide ongoing assistance to personnel receiving SPDG-supportedprofessional development that supports the implementation of evidence-based practices with fidelity

Project Design

26 - 47

(h) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoingprofessional development to personnel, including to personnel in ruralareas and to other populations, such as personnel in urban or high-needlocal educational agencies (LEAs)

Needs &

Significance

3 - 25

(i) State Personnel Development Plan that identifies and addresses theState and local needs for the personnel preparation and professionaldevelopment of personnel, as well as individuals who provide directsupplementary aids and services to children with disabilities

Budget

NarrativeSupport Letters

(j) Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher

education, parent training and information centers, or community parentresource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State PersonnelDevelopment Plan

BudgetNarrative

1

(k) Not less than 90 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grantfor any fiscal year for the Professional Development Activities
http://www.signetwork.org/http://www.signetwork.org/http://www.signetwork.org/http://www.signetwork.org/


6/103


7/103


8/103


2

For DE, applying for the SPDG Competitive Priority is a given. The Race to the Top grant

provided impetus for the adaptation of Component V of our teacher evaluation system which is

related to student growth. Full implementation of the revised teacher evaluation begins fall 2012

with growth measures used for the 2012-2013 appraisal system. Three measures inform

Component V: (1) DCAS scores, (2) external (standardized assessments) and internal (educator

developed assessments approved by DDOE) assessments, and (3) teacher established growth

measures. We will gather data from DCAS reading and math assessments, as well as working

with administrators in participating LEAs to obtain the results from the other measures beyond

DCAS to inform ongoing PD. We will be able to examine student DCAS growth data

immediately and school-level data as it becomes available.

As we discuss in greater detail in the Project Design section of this proposal, an initial step in

all proposed PD is a needs assessment so that PD is linked specifically to LEA and teacher

needs. Part of our planning with each LEA will be a careful examination of longitudinal student

DCAS data and additional school-level measures indicating areas of growth or stagnation. The

needs assessment process concludes with an LEA-specific PD action plan for implementing and

sustaining a SPDG practice. As part of our ongoing evaluation process, we will seek input from

teachers on how well the PD is meeting their needs for improving student achievement.

Findings and plans on the use of data will be shared first with our advisory board as

discussed in our Management Plan section. As findings might change the scope of the DE

SPDG, we will stay in regular communication with our OSEP SPDG Project Officer.

Thank you for taking the time to read our proposal.


9/103


3

NEED FOR PROJECT

This section provides the data and analyses of the data that have driven the development of

the DE SPDG proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to facilitate the greater use of evidence-

based practices and resources in DE schools and districts to improve upon statewide needs

related tograduation rates and achievement gaps. Quantitative data from the DEs ESEA

Flexibility Request (http://tinyurl.com/DE-Flexibility) and FFY 2010 State Performance Plan

(SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) (http://tinyurl.com/DE-2010-SPP-APR) as well as

qualitative data gathered through stakeholder meetings held in May and June 2012 were used to

inform our study of state need.

DDOE staff convened five stakeholder groups to discuss state needs and to propose strategies

for overcoming these barriers. Two meetings were held with DOE staff, one with staff from the

Exceptional Children Resources (ECR) office and a second with staff from the Teacher and

Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College & Workforce Readiness

Branch. The meetings served to gather input from the offices leading the implementation of LEA

interventions and supports based on the ESEA flexibility waiver. An evening meeting was held

with representatives from the Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens and the

Parent Information Center, Delawares PTI. Representatives from the UDs School of Education,

Center for Teacher Education, and Center for Disabilities Studies, as well as Delaware Technical

and Community College also provided input. Data from each of these meetings were synthesized

for common themes and potential strategies. This analysis was shared with LEA Special

Education Directors and Coordinators, who recommended priority strategies to be used to

increase the academic performance and graduation rates for students with disabilities. Our

resulting two goals are:


10/103


4

Goal 1:To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the

implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with

the greatest academic needs.

Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of

dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral

practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff.

Delaware Demographics

Delaware has three counties, 19 LEAs, 22 charter schools, and 210 total schools (which

includes the charter schools and 17 special schools). Based on 2010-2011 Accountability

determinations, 66 schools (or 32%) have been identified as needing School Improvement. DEs

relative small size is challenged by the diversity of the state. The northern part of the state

borders large economic centers and is impacted by the benefits and challenges involved with

larger urban communities. The southern part of the state is rural, sparsely populated, and faces

the benefits and challenges of other rural communities. Almost half of DEs students qualify for

Free/Reduced Lunch programs. Student demographic data are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Student Demographic Data

Count WhiteAfrican-

AmericanHispanic Other EL

Low

Income

Special

Education

130,610 49.4% 31.8% 13.0% 5.7% 5.3% 45.9% 13.6%

Graduation and Dropout Rates

After a three year decrease in the graduation rates of students with disabilities, there has been

a steady increase in graduation rates over the last three years. However, the discrepancy in

graduation rates between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since

2006. In 2006-07, as part of a statewide high school redesign, Student Success Plans (SSP)

became a graduation requirement in DE for all students from 8th through 12th grades. The SSP


11/103


5

focuses on student long-range planning for postsecondary pursuits, the identification of courses

leading to those goals, and supports that will assist in high school completion and preparation for

careers. The data in Chart 1 provide support for the effectiveness of this process.

Delawares dropout rates for students with disabilities followed a similar pattern to state

graduation rates for the same group between FFYs 2007 and 2009, with rates moving in the

desired direction. However, the dropout rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY

2009 and 2010 (see Chart 2). As reported in DEs FFY 2010 SPP APR, the primary cause of this

increase in dropout rate from 1.3% to 6.7% was believed to be economic-related, as many of

these individuals dropped out of school in an attempt to assist their families financially. This

time period coincides with the economic recession and high unemployment rates. DDOE is

working collaboratively with community and adult service agency partners to expand initiatives

to combat the current dropout rate.

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates

Special Education

All Students

Discrepancy betweenGroups

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates

Special Education

All Students


12/103


6

Academic Performance

Delaware implemented a new statewide assessment system (Delaware Comprehensive

Assessment System DCAS) in 2010-12, so only baseline data are available at this time. On

average, students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their

nondisabled peers. These baseline results were used as part of our ESEA Flexibility Request to

calculate the 2016-17 targets that are designed to result in a 50% reduction in the percent not

proficient for each group by content area (see Table 2). Targets for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,

2014-15 and 2015-16 were determined by increasing the targets in equal increments from the

baselines to the 2016-17 targets. These rigorous targets require specific, evidence-based

practices, implemented in a scientific manner to obtain the desired results.

Table 2: Reading and Math Data

Subgroup2011

Baseline

Targets

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ELA

All 64.0 67.0 70.0 73.0 76.0 79.0 82.0

English Language Learners 41.4 46.3 51.2 56.1 60.9 65.8 70.7

Students with Disabilities 29.7 35.6 41.4 47.3 53.1 59 64.9

Economically Disadvantaged 51 55.1 59.2 63.3 67.3 71.4 75.5

Math

All 64.2 67.2 70.2 73.2 76.1 79.1 82.1

English Language Learners 48.9 53.2 57.4 61.7 65.9 70.2 74.5

Students with Disabilities 30.2 36.0 41.8 47.7 53.5 59.3 65.1

Economically Disadvantaged 52 56.0 60.0 64.0 68.0 72.0 76.0

Suspension/Expulsion Data

For the 2009-2010 academic year, no LEAs were identified with a significant discrepancy in

the rate of suspension for greater than 10 days for students with disabilities when compared to


13/103


7

the number of students without disabilities. Of the states 37 LEAs, two LEAs which exceeded

the states relative difference were excluded from the calculation due to an n size below 15.

Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data

While there were no discrepancies in suspension/expulsion rates between students with

disabilities and their nondisabled peers, the unduplicated count of student with disabilities

suspended or expelled has not changed significantly since 2005. As shown in Chart 4, after four

years of 20% increases and decreases in the number of suspensions/expulsions, there was a

decline between 2008 and 2009 (partly explained by a change in measurement in 2008), to just

below the 2005 amount. This was stabilized in 2010. These data suggest there is a persistent

problem of a large group of students missing too much instructional time.

Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions


14/103


8

Least Restrictive Environment Data

DEs LRE data is promising on one hand, as the amount of time students with disabilities

spend in a general education setting continues to grow, while the amount of time students spend

in resource and segregated classrooms has steadily decreased (see Chart 5). Yet, approximately

40% of students with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than

20% of the school day. Compounding this barrier is the finding that the number of students

educated in separate settings has increase slightly since 2005. These are often the students who

are most at risk for low academic performance, to be suspended or expelled, and to drop out.

Parent Involvement Data

Parent satisfaction data reported in DEs FY 2010 SPP APR were positive overall, but there

is still room for improvement. The return rate for this reporting period was only 12.6%, so it is

difficult to say these responses are representative of all DE parents. This return rate is lower than

last years return rate of 17.3%. Keeping in mind that the low response rate makes generalization

difficult, overall, parents reported high satisfaction levels, with 86% of parents responding that

they were very or somewhat satisfied with their childs special education services in FFY 2009

and 2010 (see Chart 6). When parents were asked if they had an opportunity to be an active

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates

Inside Regular Class > 80%

Insider Regular Class 40%

Inside Regular Class < 40%

Separate Setting


15/103


9

participant in their childs IEP meeting, 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, with the

large majority strongly agreeing. Parents responded that their childs IEP provided necessary

services to meet IEP goals at a rate of 87 - 89%. Approximately 86% of the respondents agreed

or strongly agreed that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services

and results for children, although half of these respondents agreed, rather than strongly agreed.

These data are presented in Chart 7. However, when parents were asked if their childs IEP goals

were accomplished, only 58% reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met

(see Chart 8 on the next page). So, overall parents reported high levels of satisfaction with each

item, except how well the IEP goals were accomplished.

6% 8%33%

53%5% 8% 36%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not at all Satisfied Somewhat notSatisfied

SomewhatSatisfied

Very Satisfied

Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education

Programs

FFY 2009

FFY 2010

97%89% 86%

97%87% 85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I had the opportunity to be an

active participant in my child's

IEP meeting.*

IEP provided services,

supports, & accommodations

necessary to meet goals.*

School seeks my involvement

for improving services and

results for my child.*

Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data

FFY 2009 FFY 2010


16/103


10

Communication Needs

Much of our focus in this proposal is to provide PD to help LEAs address the needs of

students scoring at the lowest range of both the DCAS and the Delaware Comprehensive

Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1). With the DCAS-Alt1, many of the

lowest performing students are students with significant communication needs. Table 3 shows

the percentage of students in each of the communication levels, based on self-report data from

the 2010-2011 alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.

Table 3: 2010-11 Communication Level Data

Communication Level Percent

Abstract 54.4

Concrete 38.3

Pre-symbolic 7.3

Approximately 7% of DE students in the alternate assessment do not have a reliable means of

communication and as a result, are not able to fully engage in the general education curriculum.

In addition, the students reported to be Concrete symbolic still need additional communication

supports in order to make continued growth toward fully Abstract communication. The DE

Deaf-Blind project has provided some PD related to communication assessment, but the PD was

58% 58%

0%

20%

40%60%

80%

100%

FFY 2009 FFY 2010

Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All

Their Goals on Their Child's IEP Were Accomplished


17/103


11

limited to students with deaf-blindness and did not reflect all students with communication

barriers. As we will discuss in the Significance section, we will work with Dr. Kearns and

Kleinert from the University of Kentucky, to replicate a PD model developed through the current

KY SPDG so that LEAs can meet the communication and academic needs of students with

significant communication needs.

Summary

Our goals are to improve the academic and social/behavioral outcomes for students most at

risk of low performance in the DCAS and DCAS-Alt1. While the graduation rate for students

with disabilities has increased over the last three years, the discrepancy in graduation rates

between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since 2005. The dropout

rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY 2009 and 2010.

Students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their

nondisabled peers, with only approximately 30% of students with disabilities scoring proficient

or higher in these subjects. This problem is compounded when approximately 40% of students

with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than 20% of the school

day. Adding to this is the finding that the number of students educated in separate settings has

increased slightly since 2005. SPP data related to parent satisfaction with services found overall

satisfaction with parent engagement and relations with their childs school, yet only 58%

reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met.

To address these needs, in the next section we discuss the proposed evidence-based strategies

that will be used to insure that a higher percentage of students with disabilities, particularly those

in Priority and Focus schools, are more proficient in ELA and Math, and graduate from high

school, college and career ready (CCR).


18/103


12

SIGNIFICANCE

Delawareans pride themselves as early innovators, creating significant solutions to difficult

problems throughout history. Delaware was one of the first Race to the Top states in 2010. This

section describes the strategies that will be used to insure that there is systematic improvement in

the needs identified in the previous section, particularly increasing graduation rates, decreasing

dropout rates, and increasing proficiency in reading and math for students most at risk for not

achieving. This section is divided in two parts. We begin by providing a rationale for the

significance of the professional development framework we will use to achieve our proposed

outcomes. Then we provide evidence for the significance of the initiatives we have proposed.

Significance of Proposed Framework

Professional Development Delivery

Delaware is known for the ability to collaborate, meaningfully engage and solicit

input among the many constituencies, including teachers and their representatives,

not only because of size, but because of the common goal of improving student

outcomes. This has been the case for many decades and continues with the current

leadership as evidenced by the development of the Delaware Education Plan in

2009, the Race to the Top award in 2010 and the ongoing revisions to the statewide

teacher evaluation system. This application followed that same path of engagement

and because of this engagement the proposal evolved and reflects a commitment to

putting in place processes that support students graduating college- and career-

ready. Delaware ESEA Flexibility Request (p.10)

In developing this proposal, we followed the DEs ESEA Flexibility Request framework.

Concurrently, we carefully reviewed our SPP. Specific attention was given to looking at existing


19/103


13

activities in both plans to either avoid duplication, or to provide to additional resources to

ongoing work. Evidence of this strategy was our stakeholder meetings with staff from the ECR

office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College &

Workforce Readiness Branch, to make sure a collaborative theme was present from day one of

proposal development, continuing through implementation, evaluation, and refinement.

Figure 1: Delaware Education Support System

Following the lead of the ESEA Flexibility Request, SPDG PD activities will focus on

selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE personnel already

working with those schools. DE has identified 10% of the states lower performing Title 1

Statewide Technical Assistance Sessions (All LEAs)

Topics may include success planning, goal setting, and alignment, monitoring, resource

allocation, building leadership capacity (including building collaboration between

general ed, special ed, and EL), curriculum alignment, or DPASII.

Focused Technical Assistance Sessions

(LEAs in Moderate or Higher)

Topics may include school climate, assessment, interventions, or

time utilization.

Targeted Support TA and Reporting

(LEAs in Advanced or Higher)Targeted DOE staff support to identify & prioritize

needs, realignment of DOE resources to support

prioritized needs, & quarterly Success Plan reporting.

1 to 1 Support, TA & Monitoring

(LEAs in Intensive)

One on one support from DOE staff to

identify & prioritize needs,

realignment of DOE resources to

support prioritized needs, & quarterlymonitoring.

Minimal Support Moderate Support Advanced Support Intensive Support


20/103


14

schools with the largest achievement gaps in ELA and Math as Focus schools. Approximately 15

schools annually will be identified as Focus schools. Five percent (8 schools) of DEs lowest

performing schools will be identified as Priority schools based on statewide assessment data.

As shown in Figure 1 (on the previous page), the DDOE has developed a tiered method of

professional development, focusing most resources on schools and LEAs in greatest need.

Minimal and moderate levels of support and professional development are available to all

schools. The Priority and Focus schools require advance and intensive support and will be the

focus of DEs SPDG efforts. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within

the first year and will include additional Focus LEAs based on identified needs within Year 2.

Over the course of the grant, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as

determined through the accountability system.

Significance of Implementation Strategies

We have used an implementation science framework to develop the project design discussed

in the next section. SPDG Performance Measure #1 was designed to make sure evidence-based

professional development was being practiced in SPDGs. Five specific drivers (four competency

drivers and one organizational driver) have been identified as crucial to successful professional

development: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment and Facilitative

Administrative Support/Systems Intervention. All proposed objectives and activities have been

organized to address these drivers. The goals of this proposal have been carefully considered in

developing activities within each of the driver domains.

To insure the drivers do not operate in isolation, feedback and feedforward loops are

necessary to facilitate ongoing improvement in the implementation of effective practices. These

loops will be developed so that practice informs policy (PIP) and policy enables practice (PEP).


21/103


15

PIP cycles begin with the collection and analysis of implementation and intervention fidelity

data, that is then shared with all stakeholders, particularly those in a position to influence policy

(DDOE). PEP cycles operate in the opposite direction, with information flowing across state,

regional, and local personnel so that all SPDG participants are knowledgeable and skilled in the

implementation of SPDG activities.

The work of the State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-Based Practices project

(SISEP) has suggested that increased innovation fluency can be enhanced through the

development and use of practice profiles. Practice profiles are a process for identifying the

critical components of an innovation or intervention. Each critical component identifies a gold

standard of implementation, acceptable variations in practice, and ineffective practices and

undesirable practices. We will use practice profiles as a tool for evaluating how well each

intervention is implemented, as another tool to insure a strong focus on fidelity of

implementation (how the PD is provided) and fidelity of intervention (to what the degree is the

intervention being used properly in schools).

Last, to make sure an evidence-based approach to PD is used, we plan to use Dunst and

Trivettes (2009) Participatory Adult Learning Strategy (PALS) as a model for training and

coaching. PALS addresses three aspects of adult learning: planning, application, and deep

understanding. During the planning stage, the training topic is introduced and illustrated so the

learner is aware of the strategies to be introduced and understands the applicability of the

strategies to their work. In the application stage, participants have the opportunity to practice the

new strategies, as well as thinking through how to evaluate the implementation of the strategy.

Last, deep understanding requires reflection and mastery.


22/103


16

Significance of Initiatives

Keeping students engaged and performing well are essential strategies in keeping any student

in school and on track to graduate. Lower performing students as a result are often at risk for

dropping out. We have proposed a number of strategies to increase student engagement and

performance as methods for keeping students with disabilities in school and successful. Most of

our strategies are targeted at LEAs with the highest needs, providing professional development

on the use of sustainable, evidence-based academic, social, and behavioral practices to improve

school and post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. PD will focus on strategies to

support students who are performing the lowest on the DCAS state assessment.

Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the

implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students

with the greatest academic needs.

Activities under Goal 1 focus on developing academic IEP goals that are linked to the CCSS,

implementing the Strategic Instructional Model from the University of Kansas, and increasing

the capacity of LEAs to support students with challenging communication needs.

Developing Academic IEP Goals Tied to the CCSS

This proposal provides the support for DE to move forward in two areas related to IEP

development. First, DDOE has traditionally used a compliance protocol to ensure LEAs are

addressing the IDEA-required IEP and secondary transition requirements for students with

disabilities. Through the SPDG initiative, a more comprehensive tool will be developed to better

address student results and reflect best practices.

The adoption and implementation of the CCSS necessitated new consideration of the IEP

development process to ensure that IEPs adequately reference the standards for both instruction


23/103


17

and assessment. Well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core

content and evidence-based instructional strategies, must also identify the necessary supports,

modifications, and accommodations. PD will focus on the use of the CCSS as a framework with

the IEP detailing the student-centered plan that provides access to the curriculum to promote

academic success. This change in focus will require sustained PD, particularly in training on the

CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities.

During the first six months, DOE staff and key stakeholders will review foundational

materials in order to establish a training curriculum. Materials include Courtade and Browders

(2011)Aligning IEPs to the Common Core Standardsand Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process

to Creating Standards-Based IEPs. Holbrooks seven-step process is designed to develop IEPs

aligned with state academic grade-level content standards. Each step is followed by guiding

questions for the IEP team to consider in making data-based decisions. This process can help

school personnel to: (a) consider each students strengths and needs to develop goals focused on

closing the gaps between the students levels of academic achievement and grade-level

standards; and (b) use data to make decisions, including selecting the most appropriate

assessment option. The goal is to support IEP teams to develop documents that, when

implemented, provide access to the general curriculum and enable students to demonstrate

academic achievement linked to grade-level content.

Current federal policy requires that alternate achievement standards be linked to grade level

content that promotes access to the general curriculum. The Courtade and Browder text provides

a clear framework for aligning academic state standards and IEPs for students with moderate and

severe intellectual disabilities. It promotes overall ELA and math skill development, self-

determination skills, assistive technology, and real life activities to increase active, independent


24/103


18

responding and to give meaning to academic concepts. These IEP improvement activities set the

stage for the next objective, professional development on evidence-based instructional strategies.

Evidence-Based Instructional Strategies

In recent years, training and coaching has been provided on the use of evidence-based

practices such as co-teaching, differentiation, accommodations, and universal design for

learning. Professional development was provided by DOE staff as co-teaching, differentiation

and UDL related to previous SPDG goals. Additionally, PD on co-teaching has been an initiative

of specific LEAs with PD provided by LEA staff and outside consultants. Professional

development and technical assistance related to accommodations, particularly for the state

assessment, has been on-going.

SIM is based on three interrelated components: Learning Strategies, Content Enhancement

Routines and Teaming. Learning Strategiesare used by students to help them understand

information and solve problems. Learning strategy instruction focuses on making the students

more active learners by teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to

solve problems and be successful. The Learning Strategies Curriculum is divided into strands, or

categories of skills. Strands focus on (1) how students acquire information, (2) what helps

students study information once they acquire it, and (3) helping students express themselves.

Other strategies focus on reading, math, writing, studying & remembering information,

improving assignment & test performance, effectively interacting with others, and motivation.

Content Enhancement Routinesare used by teachers to teach curriculum content to

academically diverse classes in ways that all students can understand and remember key

information. Content Enhancement is an instructional method that relies on using powerful

teaching devices to organize and present curriculum content in an understandable and easy-to-

learn manner.


25/103


19

Some Content Enhancement Routines help teachers think about and organize content, then

present it in such a way that students can see the organization. Others help teachers explain text,

topics, and details. A third group helps teach complex concepts so students gain a deep

understanding and develop a shared vocabulary for talking about important information. A final

group of routines help students complete work in the classroom.

SIM posits that altering the poor performance of underachieving students occurs only when

teachers are well supported in their work and when teachers carefully team with others on behalf

of those students who struggle to succeed. SIM provides a number of supporting programs and

materials designed to improve communication and teaming both within the classroom and within

the larger community. Teaming can help provide a sustained, well-coordinated, and well-

orchestrated balance of curriculum content, skills, and strategies. Teaming involves general and

special educators, administrators, parents, physicians, counselors, coaches, and other individuals

or agencies that have contact with the student in some way. Bringing this group into the teaming

environment helps ensure a consistent message to the student as he or she continues to pursue

academic success.

Communicative Capacity

To achieve greater access to both curriculum and assessment, an increase in capacity must

occur in order to meet the needs of students with significant communication disorders. This need

and subsequent strategies have received increased attention in the last few years. A recent 19-

state symposium on communication was held by the National Center and State Collaborative,

one of two national consortiums funded by OSEP to develop new alternate assessment systems,

with corresponding professional development activities. DDOE staff attended the symposium as

a NCSC Tier II state.


26/103


20

Two data collection tools will inform our communication intervention. At the state level,

questions from the Learner Characteristics Inventory (LCI) (Kearns, Kleinert, and Towles-

Reeves, 2006) will be added to a student questionnaire that will be completed for all students

participating in the DCAS-Alt1, Delawares alternate assessment based on alternate achievement

standards. The LCI is designed to enhance the demographic data collection for the test. The

students who participate in the DCAS-Alt1 represent a highly diverse population with varying

levels of communication and other complex characteristics. This information will be useful both

for state policy makers examining assessment participation, but will also allow us to determine

which LEAs are working with students who have complex communication needs.

The Communication Matrix (Rowland, 2004) is an assessment tool designed to specify how

an individual is communicating and to provide a framework for designing communication goals.

First published in 1990, it has been revised in 1996 and 2004 with an online format added in

2011. Its intended use is for educators and speech-language pathologists to determine the

expressive communication skills of children with significant communication needs. Students

with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication Matrix to

determine IEP strategies addressing their communication needs. The Matrix is currently being

used in DE, so it is familiar to many teachers and SLPs.

Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at

risk of dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and

behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and

related staff.

Similar to Goal 1, Goal 2 addresses three types of PD activities. First, we focus on the

development of IEP goals that address behavioral and social needs. Second, we will work with


27/103


21

the DE PBS Project to further develop the capacity of Delaware schools to implement intensive

PBS and other interventions for students with challenging behavior and/or diagnosed mental

health needs. The last activity focuses on developing the capacity of LEAs to implement social

skills training to students at risk of dropping out.

Developing Behavioral IEP Goals

Similar to developing clear, well-developed academic IEP goals as we discussed related to

our first goal, writing clear, measurable behavioral IEP goals is equally important. The IEP

behavioral goals are necessary for identifying appropriate and necessary supports to allow

students to achieve their goals. This is the foundational activity for Goal 2, setting the stage for

work around Tier 3 behavioral interventions and social skills training. Professional development

on behavioral goal setting will be delivered as part of training on academic IEP goals. Bateman

and Herr (2006) provide a quality reference for developing IEP goals, starting with present level

of performance, developing measureable and meaningful goals and objectives, how to project

annual goals and track performance. In addition, we will utilize Writing Measurable Functional

and Transition IEP Goalsby Herr, Bateman, and Kinney (2012) to focus on behavioral and

social goals.

Intensive Behavioral Interventions

The DE PBS Project has provided training on Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR, Dunlap et al.,

2010) to five LEAs in DE. PTR is a five-step process. Each component has its own evidence

base. The steps are teaming, goal setting, functional assessment, intervention, and evaluation. At

the heart of the intervention are Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Support

Plans. The U.S. Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences funded a study of

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce to determine if the intervention was more effective than control

conditions (business as usual) in decreasing severe problem behaviors and increasing pro-social


28/103


22

and academic skills of students. Results from this study found statistically significant decreases

in problem behaviors and increases in social skills (as measure by the Social Skills Rating

System), as well as increases in time spent engaged in academics for students receiving the PTR

intervention (Iovannone et al., 2009).

A functional behavior assessment is a set of strategies used to determine the underlying

function, or purpose, of a behavior, so that a Behavior Support Plan can be developed. FBA

consists of isolating and describing the problem behavior, identifying antecedent events that

influence the behavior, developing a hypothesis of the behavior, and testing the hypothesis.

Professional development on FBAs and BSPs will be included as part of the PTR process, as

well as part of targeted training in LEAs with this need.

Many states implementing positive behavioral support initiatives have struggled in providing

high quality PD on Tier 3 behavioral supports. Students with extreme behavioral or emotional

challenges require comprehensive interventions. These students often have significant clinical

problems that are chronic, hard to change, and often threaten other students, teachers, and others.

Examples of Tier 3 interventions include school-based mental health services, comprehensive

wraparound or system of care services, individual counseling/behavioral therapy, relaxation

therapy, desensitization, cognitive-behavioral strategies (e.g., Second Step), etc. In year 1, DOE

staff and stakeholders will prioritize Tier 3 intervention strategies for implementation with

Priority and Focus LEAs.


29/103


23

DE Social Skills Project

Many students identified as needing behavioral interventions need training to address deficits

in social cognition. A meta-analysis of 55 studies researching the outcomes of social skills

training for children on the autism spectrum found that programs held in typical classroom

settings were more likely to result in positive changes than programs held in other settings.

Generalizationofthe constructs taught is necessary for students to learn and internalize the

necessary social skills. Presently, few educators receive training in social skills interventions as

part of their undergraduate and graduate school training. The responsibility for professional

development in this area often falls to LEAs, with limited resources to implement the necessary

social skill interventions (Belini et al., 2007). Research through the Arkansas SPDG (2009)

found that social skills instruction was an essential component for teaching students the

cognitive-behavioral steps needed to master interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict

resolution, and coping skills.

DDOE, in conjunction with CDS staff, developed a Social Skills Pilot in 2009-10. Schools

volunteer to participate and nominate one or two group facilitators per school. The facilitators

receive professional development, materials and consultation on implementing groups that teach

social cognition and communication skills. The groups are based upon the Social Thinking

curriculum developed by Michelle Garcia Winner. Before individuals are able to use social

skills, they must be able to take the perspective of others and recognize that these viewpoints can

be different from their own. Typical social skills programs focus only on teaching discrete social

skills (e.g., how to initiate conversations) and often students are not able to generalize the skills

learned in the group to real social situations outside the group. The social cognitive approach

seeks to develop a students ability to understand how others think and feel and how his or her


30/103


24

behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to promote positive

social interactions and develop friendships. Fifteen schools in four districts have participated in

the pilot project.

Summary

From the start of proposal development, our intent was to make sure all professional

development was aligned with DEs strategies outlined in our ESEA Flexibility Request and

SPP. To do so, we have worked closely with staff from the Exceptional Children Resources

office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College &

Workforce Readiness Branch to design this proposal. Most of our work will focus on supporting

selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE and other personnel

already working in these LEAs. We have used an implementation science framework to develop

this proposal, with information loops (PIP and PEP cycles) designed, involving data collection,

reporting, and sharing of results. These activities will insure that all PD and evidence-based

interventions are implemented as designed, and with the results expected.

The significance of our interventions is as important as the significance of our PD processes.

We will use a variety of foundational materials by Courtade and Browder as well as Bateman

and Herrto support our PD efforts related to IEP goal development. The connection of IEPs to

the CCSS is timely and critical. SIMs three interrelated components: Learning Strategies,

Content Enhancement Routines and Teaming have a strong research base and have been used by

other SPDGs. A focus on Tier 3 behavioral interventions will provide LEAs with the necessary

strategies for keeping students with complex behavior needs in their home schools, in classrooms

taught by highly qualified content teachers. DE, as a Tier 2 member of the NCSC, was able to

attend a recent 19-state symposium to learn and inspire our work in providing evidence-based


31/103


25

communication interventions. The DE Social Skills Project, based on the Social Thinking

curriculum (Garcia Winner), allows students to better understand how others think and feel, and

how their behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to

promote positive social interactions and develop friendships. The initiatives related to IEP

development, academic and behavioral tiered interventions as well as communication and social

skills provide a network of support to LEAs as they prepare students for academic success.


32/103


26

QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN

This section presents the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved for our two goals. A

listing of each activity associated with each objective, as well as when it will be accomplished

and who will perform the work, is included in Table __ in the Management Plan section.

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will

successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

(iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program

of training in the field.

(v) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other

appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.

(vi) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to

improve teaching and learning & support rigorous academic standards for students.

The criteria above have been discussed in the Needs and Significance sections. As discussed

in the Significance section, our SPDG activities are connected to existing state priorities and are

implemented to support existing programs. We also link to other agencies including Prevention

and Behavioral Health Services, the DE PIC (PTI), the DE Deaf-Blind Project, our University

Center on Excellence on Developmental Disabilities (CDS), and other related agencies so there

is a coherent and sustained PD infrastructure. Our work is designed to build the capacity of

personnel teaching in Priority and Focus schools.

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed

project are clearly specified and measurable.

(iv)The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge

from research and effective practice.


33/103


27

Figure 2: Delaware SPDG Framework

GOAL 1ACADEMIC

PROCESS DRIVERSGOAL 2

BEHAVIORAL

IEP Development

(Standards-basedGoals)

Obj 4: Performance Assessment

Obj 3: Coaching

Obj 2: Training

Obj 1: Selection

IEP Development

(Behavioral Goals &Supports)

Intensive Tiered

Supports(Academic)

Intensive Tiered

Supports(Behavioral/

Social)

Communication SkillsSocial Skills

Our framework contains two goals, both focused on improving student outcomes through PD

to low performing LEAs to build their capacity to support students with the most intense

academic and behavioral needs. Each goal begins by building a strong foundation, with IEPs

developed with well-written academic and behavioral goals. The academic IEP goals are to be

linked to the CCSS. Building on the foundation, we will implement evidence-based targeted

strategies (SIM and PBIS advance tiers interventions) to improve student academic and

behavioral outcomes. Augmenting these practices are communication and social skill

interventions, also designed to impact student outcomes. So, within each goal is a continuum of

strategies designed to improve student achievement and behavior. There is also a continuum and

connection of strategies across the two goals. IEP training will address both academic and

Obj.5:FacilitativeAdministrativeDriver


34/103


28

behavioral goals. It is quite likely that many students who will benefit from SIMs intensive

academic interventions will also be impacted by an LEAs implementation of strong Tier 3

behavioral interventions. As displayed in Figure 2, the initiatives described in the Significance

section are organized under Goal 1 and Goal 2. The Process Drivers described in the center

column outline the objectives used to organize the Project Design section.

Linking the two goals is a system that addresses SPDG Priority 1 an effective and efficient

system for delivery of PD, as well as the first SPDG Performance (GPRA) Measure (described in

more detail on page 14 in the Significance section). The organization of activities within each

goal was developed within an implementation science context, as operationalized within SPDG

Performance Measure 1. So for each goal, we describe how personnel providing PD and LEAs

receiving PD will be selected; how training and coaching will be delivered, by whom, and with

what accountability; what performance measures will be put in place to gather data for

accountability and program improvement purposes; and how organizational capacity and

leadership will be nurtured to sustain the proposed work.

Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the

implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students

with the greatest academic needs.

This goal focuses on providing professional development within identified Priority and Focus

LEAs through the ESEA flexibility requirements, targeted to improving the academic

achievement of students scoring the lowest on the general assessment (DCAS), as well as

students whose communication needs are limiting their performance in the alternate assessment

based on alternate achievement standards (DCAS-Alt1). Professional development will be

provided by DDOE staff and partners at the Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS).


35/103


29

Three streams of PD are planned for Goal 1. First, we will focus on the quality of IEPs,

making sure there are well-developed academic goals with linkages to the CCSS. Next, we will

implement the KU Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) as targeted and intensive interventions for

low performing students. Our third stream focuses on increasing the capacity of LEAs to support

students with the most significant communication challenges.

The first eight months of Year 1 will focus primarily on planning, curriculum and instrument

development, fine tuning of the evaluation plan, and relationship building/strengthening. This

will put us in position for kick-off training events in the summer and fall of 2013. Professional

development will be targeted at schools within identified Priority and Focus LEAs. We expect to

work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year and introducing additional

LEAs across the three streams based on identified needs. As the grant continues, we will work

with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through the accountability system.

Outcome 1: To improve the quality of IEPs in specifying academic goals necessary for

students to access the Common Core State Standards.

As Delaware moves forward in implementing the CCSS, insuring that students with

disabilities are provided academic instruction linked to these standards is essential. This begins

with well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core content. A focus

on standards-based IEP development will help to ensure that IEP goals are aligned with the

CCSS and will be a new initiative within DE as PD on standards-based IEPs has not been

conducted in the past. The adoption of the CCSS makes it imperative for IEPs to have

established goals and benchmarks, linked to the CCSS, and to assess students academic

performance, as one measure of CCR. This change in focus will require sustained PD,

particularly in training on the CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities.


36/103


30

Outcome 2: To increase the use of evidence-based instructional practices by school

personnel.

To increase the graduation rate and decrease the dropout rate of DE students, it is essential

that students receive the highest quality instruction, based on the use of evidence-based

instructional practices, so that they are academically proficient and engaged in school. Students

most at risk of failing academically are often those that need specialized instructional strategies

to learn the core content. We will adopt the Kansas Universitys SIM as our primary

intervention. SIM is discussed in greater detail on page 18 of the Significance section.

Outcome 3: To increase the communication capacity of students with communication

disorders.

National and state data clearly show that there are too many students who cannot

communicate sufficiently to participate fully in instruction and state assessment systems; yet

effective communication systems have not been identified for many of these students or there is

insufficient capacity to support the use of the communication systems. Our proposed

communication activities draw from lessons learned by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at the UK, who

are just completing a similar initiative through the KY SPDG. Quantitative and qualitative data

demonstrated the impact of this PD on student, team, and school outcomes.

Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to high needs

schools and high needs students.

To sustain the three PD activities just described, it is necessary to develop and support an

infrastructure that can sustain this work after the funding period is over. Delaware has a wealth

of coaching excellence across the states IHEs, CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent


37/103


31

organizations. We will develop and support a PLC designed to provide on-going support around

IEP development, the use of evidence-based instructional practices, and communication support.

These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following

five objectives.

Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic and

communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving

PD. (Selection Driver)

This objective focuses on (1) the selection of individuals responsible for providing

professional development, (2) the selection and commitment of LEAs to participate in the

professional development, and (3) the selection of interventions and the degree to which they are

determined to be evidence-based.

During the first quarter of Year 1, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who

will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP academic goals, SIM, and

communication supports for students with disabilities. PD providers, primarily DDOE and CDS

staff will be assessed in relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training

for any new PD providers and benchmarks for coaching feedback. The competencies will be

reviewed by the program developers for each intervention we are adopting (Holbrook/Courtade,

University of Kansas, University of Kentucky) to ensure the validity of the process. Areas of in

need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the trainer/coaches

PD Plan. Any individuals hired to work on any of the SPDG initiatives will be recruited and

evaluated based on the identified competencies.

Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus

LEAs/schools. LEAs will agree to provide the necessary resources and supports for school staff


38/103


32

to participate. A sample letter of commitment with roles and responsibilities all participating

LEAs would agree to is included in Appendix A.

To insure that SPDG PD is based on teachers need, existing data will be reviewed and

discussed among PD providers and participating LEA personnel. Data will include SPP Indicator

13 data, reviews of the degree to which IEP academic goals are linked to the CCSS, annual

student reading and math DCAS data, formative or progress monitoring data, and LCI data. A

review of existing math and reading curricula will also be conducted to ensure they are evidence-

based and are implemented with fidelity. Teachers, administrators, and parents will be surveyed

to determine their knowledge and use of best practice, standards-based IEP, evidence-based

instructional strategies, and degree of knowledge and skills related to communication.

For the communication initiative, LEAs will be recruited based on (1) students

communication needs, as measured by the LCI and (2) recommendations from parents, teachers,

and/or administrators. It is expected we will work with eight to ten communication teams each

year. To make sure the communication initiative is meeting students needs, participating

students with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication

Matrix (Rowland, 2011) to better understand students communication needs. Students rated as

Levels I, II, or III on the Communication Matrix will be identified as potential participants, after

consideration is given by students, parents, and IEP teams. School teams will be identified to

potentially include school and district administrators, related service providers (particularly

SLPs), general and special education teachers, parents, assistive technology specialists, and any

other individuals identified on the IEP. A needs assessment survey will be conducted with each

team to determine existing knowledge and skill base. The needs assessment data will be used to

develop individual LEA action plans to guide their PD.


39/103


33

Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based trainingto increase the competency

of DE teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, & other community

members to support students academic and communication needs. (Training Driver)

We will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS) method of training (Dunst

and Trivette, 2009), discussed on page 15 in the Significance section to ensure all training uses

adult learning principles and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant

knowledge and skills will be collected and analyzed, how PD providers will be trained, coached,

and observed, and the data that will be used to improve trainer skills and the content of training

is described below.

Academic IEP Goals Linked to the Common Core State Standards

We have researched various tools for training and coaching on IEP development and will use

Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPsand Courtade and

Browders (2011)Aligning IEPs to the Common Core State Standardsas professional

development tools for improving the degree to which IEPS have strong academic goals, linked to

the CCSS. Both were discussed in greater detail in the Significance section (see page 16).

Training topics will include identification of student needs, crafting goals aligned to the CCSS,

and selection and implementation of appropriate services, accommodations and modifications.

Prior to DE SPDG staff providing any training, they will review the Courtade and Browder and

Holbrookmaterials and will consult with the authors if determined to be necessary to ensure

fidelity with the training curriculum. Training fidelity tools and processes will be discussed in

the Performance Appraisal section. Training data will be tracked and used to improve future PD.


40/103


34

SIM Training

During the first six months of the project, a cadre of trainers from the DDOE, CDS, and local

LEAs will receive training from the University of Kansas SIM staff. Training will be driven by

local needs, with the appropriate SIMs strategies taught. Training will follow the SIM training

protocols to ensure fidelity to the model. A state-wide kick off training for all participating LEA

personnel will occur each summer. A mid-year booster training will be provided to allow school

personnel to come together to share what they have learned and challenges they face. After the

initial training and careful reviews of LEA needs data, a professional plan will be developed to

guide future training and coaching opportunities. The PD schedule over the course of the grant

is:

Year 1 PD will be delivered to four Priority LEAs, with one to two school teams

(grades 4 10) from each LEA.

Year 2 Ongoing training and coaching with initial cohort of schools. Implementation of

strategies within one classroom in each school.

Year 3 Expanded implementation across a grade or grade band; continued coaching;

identify potential staff for further PD.

Year 4 Expand implementation across schools. Provide PD for additional LEA staff.

Year 5 Expand PD across schools using trained staff within LEA.

Communication Training

DE SPDG staff will receive training from Drs. Kearns and Kleinert to ensure that fidelity of

implementation and intervention occur. Prior to implementation, a kick-off training will be

conducted each summer with new LEA teams. PD will be team-based, with teams supporting

one or more students from a school or LEA. Training topics will include use of the


41/103


35

communication matrix, assistive technology, and strategies to support communication. Trainers

will include CDS consultants, DDOE staff, and personnel from the DE Assistive Technology

Initiative. The DE trainers will be coached and supported by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at U.K.

The kick-off training will conclude with student action plans developed for each student team. A

one day mid-year booster will be held to address common topics across teams and to update

action plans as necessary. Training data will be reviewed to inform future training events.

Parent/Family Training

Concurrently, the PIC will conduct a parallel set of trainings informing parents and families

of students in LEAs being served about standards-based IEPs connected to the CCSS, evidence-

based instructional strategies, and interventions for increasing students communicative

competence. The DE PIC will offer workshops addressing communicative needs focusing on

strategies to support the students at home. Training materials will be developed in conjunction

with DDOE and CDS staff. The training will likely be provided through formal workshops,

Lunch & Learn webinars, individual family consultations, and further training of PIC staff.

Members of the DE Leadership team will participate in parent/family workshops as necessary.

Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support

strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver)

Following the guidelines of SPDG Performance Measure #1, this section describes the

accountability process for the development and monitoring of coaching, and the feedback to be

provided to coaches. The multiple sources of information that will be used to provide feedback to

coaches, is also discussed. Two levels of coaching will be used to ensure strategies are

implemented with fidelity. At the state level, experts (state coaches) in the areas of developing

strong academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS, SIM, and communication supports will provide


42/103


36

guidance and support to LEA coaches. The LEA coaches will serve as coaches to personnel in

their districts who are implementing Goal 1 activities. Participating LEAs will have developed

LEA PD plans at the completion of their initial training; outlining the training, coaching, and any

other resources needed to successfully implement the Goal 1 activities in their schools. LEA

coaches will develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful coaches for

teachers, administrators and staff in their districts.

A coaching fidelity checklist will be developed for each initiative, based on the PALS model.

This checklist will be used with state/LEA coaching, as well as coaching conducted within the

LEA. State coaches, in conjunction with LEA personnel, will collect intervention fidelity data,

the degree to which academic IEP goals, SIM, and the communication interventions were

implemented as designed. Existing SIM instruments will be used to assess SIM fidelity. For the

IEP and communication components, fidelity instruments will be developed through the use of

the practice profile process.

At monthly coaching meetings between state and LEA coaches, up to four sources of data

will be available for review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the LEA PD plan, the

coaching fidelity protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will necessarily be

available or reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches and LEA PD

plans will be expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face, through Skype,

web-conferencing software, and or phone.

Coaching specific to the communication component will take place between state coaches

and LEA teams via monthly webinars and/or phone calls to facilitate parental involvement.

Coaching calls will follow the fidelity protocol discussed previously. Short videos will be filmed

at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the intervention period, demonstrating the use of a


43/103


37

particular strategy for the month, to be reviewed by the team as part of the monthly call. Data on

the impact of SDPG coaching and student communication improvements will be reviewed on an

ongoing basis to inform future PD.

We will develop and support a PLC designed to expand and provide on-going coaching to

support the implementation of SIM and the communication interventions (both driven by well-

developed academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS) and to support professional development for

LEAs on supporting students requiring advanced behavioral interventions.

Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to

support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment

Driver)

The project evaluator, working closely with the DE SPDG Management Team, will develop

training, coaching, and intervention fidelity instruments during the first two quarters of Year 1.

Each intervention fidelity instrument (IEP development, SIM, and communication interventions)

will be developed in accordance with the evidence-base it is derived from. IEP training and

coaching fidelity protocols will be developed in alignment with the research presented in the

Holbrook/Courtade and Browder publications, and reviewed by the authors. SIM fidelity

instruments are provided by the University of Kansas. Fidelity protocols established by

researchers at U.K. will be used to assess the implementation of communication strategies.

Pre/post training assessments will also be developed during this time.

The DE SPDG Management Team will be responsible for overseeing fidelity measurement

and reporting. Project evaluators will train and coach the state and LEA coaches on the use of

implementation (training and coaching) and intervention (i.e., IEP development, SIM, and


44/103


45/103


39

SPDG Performance Measure #1 addresses two Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems

Intervention strategies: (1) administrators are trained appropriately on the SPDG-supported

practices and have knowledge of how to support its implementation and (2) leadership analyzes

feedback from staff and makes changes to alleviate barriers and facilitate implementation,

including revising policies and procedures to support new ways of work.

Training modules will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on

implementation of academic IEP goals, SIM, communication interventions, and parent

engagement strategies. As school and district administrators play a large role in IEP

development, this component is critical to successfully sustaining this work. Training will also

address implementation fidelity to support ongoing coaching of teachers, as well as intervention

fidelity so that administrators are more aware of the instructional strategies being implemented.

A particular focus will be on how administrators can support their staff in the ongoing

implementation of these activities. We will also provide guidance to administrators, teachers, and

staff on analyzing data to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP cycles.

The modules will initially be conducted as real time webinars, but will also be archived on

the DOEs website related to special education. The modules will provide overviews of each

initiative, including training, coaching, and evaluation strategies. In addition, administrators will

participate in follow-up online meetings or phone conferences for feedback and discussion.

Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with

behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence-

based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to

educators and related staff.


46/103


40

This goal focuses on students who are frequently removed from the general education

classroom and often are removed from their home school and sent to a separate setting due to

social and behavioral concerns. Objectives and activities proposed are designed to build the

capacity of LEAs and schools to keep students with behavior support needs in their home

schools and in general education programs the majority of the school day. Our four primary

expected outcomes for this goal are:

Outcome 1: Improved quality of IEPs in specifying behavioral goals.

DEs LEAs have struggled to develop quality goals that lead to the outcomes of reduced

suspensions and expulsions, as well as greater amounts of time spent in general education

classrooms. Activities conducted under this objective will be implemented in conjunction with

academic IEP goal development activities for Goal 1 if appropriate to the needs of the LEA and

identified schools. If the needs of the LEA relate to behavioral/social IEP goal development

only, training activities will be conducted related to this area.

Outcome 2: Increased use of evidence-based social support strategies by school personnel.

The second set of activities focuses on a targeted social skills intervention to increase use of

positive, pro-social behaviors. The DE Social Skills Project (based on Winner, 2008) was piloted

by the DE-PBS Project in one LEA during the 2009-10 school year. In the last two years, 15

schools across four LEAs have participated in the Social Skills Project. We will scale up the

implementation of the DE Social Skills Pilot, with a particular focus on middle and high schools.

Through the pilot, facilitators received PD, resources and materials, and on-site coaching and

consultation. School staff also received PD to support the generalization of skills across settings

and how to develop programming and IEP goals related to social skills.


47/103


41

Outcome 3:Increased use of evidence-based individualized tiered behavioral supports by

school personnel.

Students who need intensive Tier 3 interventions to support their success in inclusive settings

are the focus of the third activity. Many DE students have complex behavioral and mental health

needs that require more intense, wraparound interventions. These activities require strong

collaborative efforts by agencies such as Delawares Department of Services for Children,

Youth, and Their Families; Department of Health and Social Services; the PIC of DE; CDS; the

DDOE; and LEAs. The DE PBS Project coordinates and provides much of the PD on tiered

behavioral supports in the state.

Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to school staff

supporting students with intensive social and behavioral needs.

Similar to Goal 1, the objectives below explain how we will develop an infrastructure that

can sustain this work. Delaware has a wealth of coaching excellence across the states IHEs,

CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent organizations. We will develop and support a

PLC designed to provide on-going support around developing quality behavioral IEP goals, the

DE Social Skills Project, and intensive Tier 3 behavioral supports.

These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following

five objectives.

Objective 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD and to define the expectations

and commitment of those receiving PD. (Selection Driver)

Using the practice profile process, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who

will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP behavioral goals, the DE

Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral supports for middle and high school students. DDOE


48/103


42

staff and other personnel responsible for implementing Goal 2 activities will be assessed in

relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training for any new professional

development providers and benchmarks for employee reviews. The competencies will be

reviewed by experts such as Delawares National PBIS Center regional contact, Dr. Lucille Eber.

Areas in need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the

trainer/coaches PD Plan.

Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus

LEAs. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year. As the

grant continues, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through

the accountability system. Participating LEAs must complete an agreement form established to

demonstrate their commitment to participation in each of the DE SPDG initiatives.

Teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents in participating LEAs and schools

will be surveyed to determine their knowledge and use of behavioral IEP goals, pro-social

interventions, and Tier 3 behavioral supports. Existing student data collected on problem

behaviors will be reviewed. The results of the survey and behavior analysis will help shape the

PD provided. Each LEA will develop a PD action plan, utilizing evidence-based strategies to

address their identified needs.

Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based trainingto increase the competency

of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and

other community members to support students needing social support strategies and

individualized tiered behavioral supports. (Training Driver)

As discussed in Goal 1, we will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS)

method of training (Dunst and Trivette, 2009) to ensure all training uses adult learning principles


49/103


43

and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant knowledge and skills will

be col

Documents

State Personnel Development Grant Proposal