DRAFT 8/16/09
sTATE eDUCATION rESOURCE cENTERA Program Evaluation of SERC’s Individual Education Program (IEP) Professional Development Series
Designing Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum
Draft Date: 8/16/2009
This program evaluation was conducted on SERC’s 2008-2009 professional development series entitled, “Designing Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum.” Four districts sent selected representatives to this four-day training. Three of the teams consented to participate in this program evaluation. The evaluation examined the immediate responses of participants regarding the training content and design using the participant evaluations. Three interviews were conducted after the professional development experience to determine how the participants felt about the experience and to determine how they used the information. Product reviews were conducted on sample IEP goals and objectives. Teams provided sample written prior to the training and samples written after the training. The pre-post analysis of these samples was conducted to examine the change that occurred in the writing of goals and objectives. participants felt about the experience and to determine how they used the information. Product reviews were conducted on sample IEP goals and objectives. Teams provided sample written prior to the training and samples written after the training. The pre-post analysis of these samples was conducted to examine the change that occurred in the writing of goals and objectives.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
Purpose 4
Evaluation Questions 4
Professional Development Content and Design 5
Background 5
Linking to Student Outcomes 5
The Content Components of the Professional Development 6
Participant Learner Objectives 10
METHODOLOGY 11
Participants 12
Procedures 12
Data Collection 12
Data Analysis 13
RESULTS 16
Participant Evaluations 16
Overall Analysis 16
New Learning 21
Organization of Materials 21
Using a Case Study 22
Effectiveness of Presenters 24
Specific Content and Tools 25
Reported Application of Content 30
Interviews 33
Beneficial Aspects 33
Potential Changes 36
New Learning 37
Potential Changes in Practice 38
Quality of IEP Goals and Objectives 39
Analysis of General Education 39
Summary of Findings 40
Participant Reactions 40
Impact of Professional Development 40
CONCLUSION 40
Lessons Learned 40
Recommendations 40
Potential Future Study 40
RESOURCES 40
INTRODUCTION
Connecticut’s State Education Resource Center (SERC) has created a professional development series entitled Designing Standards-Based IEPs for Participation and Progress in the General Education Curriculum, which targets changes in thinking and practices associated with IEP development and implementation. This program evaluation has been conducted by SERC to examine how participants react and use the content shared in this professional development experience.
Purpose
Since SERC receives its primary funding from the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), it has a responsibility to provide information regarding the impact and progress of the programming it provides. It is difficult to determine any causal relationships between professional development and impact on student outcomes due to the many complex and interconnected relationships among variables within a school. Therefore, the nature of any program evaluation is to collect a body of evidence that can be sufficiently used to make informed decisions regarding the impact of the professional development (Guskey, 2002). The purpose of this program evaluation is to examine the reaction of participants regarding the content and design of the professional development and to determine the impact of SERC’s professional development on the quality of IEP goals and objectives.
Evaluation Questions
This evaluation will examine SERC’s professional development training series by exploring two overarching questions.
1. What are the reactions of participants to the design and delivery of SERC’s professional development?
a. What do participants value as beneficial about the training?
b. What recommendations for changes do participants have for the future design of the professional development?
2. What impact did the professional development have on the practice of writing IEP goals and objectives?
a. What new learning did participants obtain through the professional development experience?
b. Was there a change in the quality of IEP goals and objectives written by the teams of participants who attended SERC’s professional development?
Professional Development Content and Design
Background
There are many procedural requirements required under IDEA in the development of IEPs. As a result completion of IEPs can seen by families and educators as checking off a list of items rather that the development of instructional design for improving student performance. (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002). The Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) report emphasizes the need to shift IEPs from procedure compliance to an instructional plan for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002). SERC’s design for professional development regarding the development of IEPs focused on shifting the paradigm from a legal “paperwork” perspective to IEPs being an instructional tool to provide high quality general education to students with disabilities.
Linking to Student Outcomes
Effective professional development links directly to student outcomes (Guskey, 2000). SERC has linked this professional development to specific goals defined by the P.J., ET AL. V State of Connecticut, Board of Education, ET AL. (1993) and the Connecticut State Performance Plan (SPP). The following are the selected goals from the P.J. ET Al Settlement Agreement and the SPP that are targeted in this professional development series.
Goals from the P.J. ET AL Settlement Agreement
Goal # 1 An increase in the percentage of students with mental retardation or intellectual disability who are placed in regular classes, as measured by the federal definition (i.e., 80 percent or more of the school day with nondisabled students)
Goal# 3 An increase in the mean and median percentage of the school day that students with mental retardation or intellectual disability spend with nondisabled students
Goal # 4 An increase in the percentage of students with mental retardation or intellectual disability who attend the school they would attend if not disabled (i.e., “home school”)
Goals from CT’s SPP
Indicator# 3 Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards
Indicator# 5 Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;
B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day;
The Content Components of the Professional Development
“Consider children with disabilities as general education children first.” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002, p. 9)
Decision-Making Values that Promote LRE
The literal translation of LRE discussed the notion that students with disabilities should be educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Examining LRE using only this simple phrase fails to embody the full intention of the law. The full statement on the LRE provision in IDEA, 2004 highlights a critical step in the decisions made regarding the placement of children with disabilities. The law requires that the removal of children with disabilities from general education “occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2006a). This statement implies a few critical concepts in regards to LRE. First that general education is the first placement option that should be considered for all children. Second that special education supports and services can be provided within the general education setting as part of the first placement option. Third that there is rationale provided as to why a removal from general education is necessary that uses hard evidence that child with disabilities cannot be or is not successful in the general education setting.
There two foundations of thinking which can promote the proper decision-making process on LRE for children with disabilities: the concept of least dangerous assumptions developed by Donnellan (1984) and only as specialized as necessary developed by Giangreco (2001). Least dangerous assumptions are assumptions that believe that all students can be a fully contributing member of a larger community therefore that assumption will lead to greater opportunities for students to participate in the larger community. This assumption will lead teams to examine ways to create opportunities for interactions between children with disabilities. Only as specialized as necessary is a value that assumes supports already exist in general education and those supports should be used before moving beyond general education to provide additional supports and services. The amount and intensity of these supports are based on the level of need. (Giangreco, 2001) SERC’s professional development uses these two concepts as the underlying principles for decision-making regarding the placement of a child with disabilities.
“IEPs preserve basic civil rights and promote achievement.” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2002, p. 17)
Decision-Making Values that Provide Access to General Education Curriculum
The definition of special education is stated in IDEA 2004 as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2006).” Specially designed instruction is defined in the Federal Regulation as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction: to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children” (U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs, 2006a). These definitions imply that the intent of the IEP is to be an instructional plan for students with disabilities. The more leading definition is the one listed in the Federal Regulation which directly connects the child to the general education curriculum. Therefore any decisions for a child with a disability should result in the child gaining access to general education rather than the removal of general education. This concept is critical in the development of SERC’s professional development and is embedded across the various tools and content of the training.
Educational Benefit
Hendrick Hudson Dist. BD. OF ED. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) has outlined a two pronged test to assess FAPE for an IEP: the procedural compliance; and the substantive prong, which focuses the IEP on the educational benefit that child can receive from the IEP. (Bates, 1996; Drouin, 2004) The procedural requirements are defined by IDEA 2004 in section 614 (d). However; the assessment of the educational benefit derived from an IEP is difficult to do given the individual variances and contexts of IEPs.
The California Department Education has developed a process by which it can monitor the educational benefit within an IEP. The Educational Benefit Review Process is a process that allows educators to reflect on the quality aspects of an IEP. The Educational Benefit Review Process takes approximately 2 to 3 hours to complete. Districts or schools select a three year cycle of annual reviews to examine individually and comprehensively. There is a four step process by which articulates that examination.
· STEP 1 Chart what is recorded in each IEP about the student’s strengths, needs, goals and objectives, accommodations and modifications, services/placement, and progress for the annual reviews in a three-year cycle;
· STEP 2 Analyze the relationship and alignment among the student’s identified needs, goals, and services and how they result in progress for each annual review;
· STEP Compare progress from year 1 to year 2 and year 2 to year 3 to determine if subsequent changes to goals and services were made based on the results; and
· STEP 4 Determine if there are any patterns in the IEP and decide if the IEP was reasonably planned to result in educational benefit (Youtsey, 2006)
SERC’s professional development expanded on this content in two ways. First SERC created charts that the teams will use to record the information. These charts were specifically designed to mirror the CT’s IEP form. Second SERC added an additional step which allowed teams to reflect on the quality of their IEPs beyond the scope of the Educational Benefit Review Process. This step asks teams several questions related to the items such as the kinds of assessments used in analyzing the student’s current level of functioning and the quality of the IEP goals and objectives. The Educational Benefit Review Process is used in the first day of the training. Most of the day is spent on working through the process and the remaining portion of the day is spent analyzing the results from the reflection and assisting teams in isolating the areas they should focus on during the remaining days of the professional development. Thus the Educational Benefit Review Process serves as a basic needs assessment for the professional development.
Gap Analysis
Analyzing a student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance is the first step in the development of an IEP. The purpose of that analysis is to understand what specific supports and services a student may need to have access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum. This analysis should begin with understanding the expectations for ALL students within the context of general education. These include the learning and environmental conditions that used to provide instruction for students. Moll (2003) has created a guide that can be used to assess an individual student’s needs and performance directly aligned with the performance expectations in the general education curriculum and the instructional conditions within the general education classroom setting. This method of gap analysis includes an examination of the unique needs of a student that impact the student’s ability to progress in general education curriculum. The second day of the professional development is focused on teaching this process.
Levels of Support
Based on IDEA and the work of Donnellan and Giangreco, SERC’s professional development states that general education curriculum is the starting point of all supports and services. The first examination begins how supports that exist in general education can be used to meet the needs of an individual student with a disability. If general education in of itself does not contain the sufficient supports, the additional supports can be provided. These additional supports operate on a continuum beginning with accommodations before moving to modification (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000; Stetson, 2002). Additional instruction or supplemental instruction is also needed to support areas that may be missing skills and concepts within a student’s repertoire. SERC’s professional development outlines the continuum of supports as the following: