Ohio Consortium to Improve the Teaching of Students with Disabilities

1
Ohio Consortium to Improve the Teaching of
Students with Disabilities

• October 23, 2008

Ohios Inter University Special Education Forum
Dublin, Ohio
2
My vision is that we create the kind of
educational system where all students reach
higher levels of achievement no matter where
they liveno matter what their background.
Susan Tave ZelmanSuperintendent of Public
Instruction
3

• OVERVIEW

• INTRODUCTIONS

• FRAMEWORK FOR THE OHIO CONSORTIUM TO IMPROVE
  THE TEACHING OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

• QUESTIONS ANSWERS

4

• INTRODUCTIONS

Stephen Kroeger, Ed.DSpecial Education Program
CoordinatorUniversity of Cincinnati Stephen.Kroeg
er_at_UC.EDU
Richard Welsch, Ph.DAssistant ProfessorThe
University of Toledorichard.welsch_at_utoledo.edu
Linda Morrow, Ph.D. Robert Osgood,
Ph.D. Professor of Education Assoc. Dean Acad.
Affairs Muskingum College lmorrow_at_muskingum.edu
Catherine D. Keener, Ph.D. Assistant
Professor Wright State University catherine.keener
_at_wright.edu
5

• FRAMEWORK

Ohio is taking a unique approach to redesigning
special education teacher preparation programs to
improve services and results for children with
disabilities.
6

• FRAMEWORK

ODE is partnering with IHEs statewide as a member
of theOhio Consortium to Improve the Teaching of
Students with Disabilities
7

• FRAMEWORK

The Consortium builds on the work of the Ohio
Special Education Task Force and was inspired by
the OSEP grants awarded to several teacher
preparation programs in Ohio in 2007 and again in
2008.
8

• FRAMEWORK

Special Education Pre-serviceTraining
Improvement Grant(CFDA 84.325T)
9
5 Domains of 84.325T

• Domain 1 Improvement on Meeting Licensure
  Standards
• Domain 2 Improvement on Organizational
  Structure and Instructional Delivery
• Domain 3 Improvement on Curriculum and Course
  Content
• Domain 4 Improvement on Student Support
• Domain 5 Program Evaluation

10

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

11

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 1 Improvement on Meeting Licensure
Standards

• At least 2 academic content areas
• Middle school guidelines Praxis II
• Beginning and advanced content courses
• Collaboration with AS and TE programs
• HQT Toolkit aligned with the criteria of local
  schools
• Ohio Consortium Statewide collaboration
• 15 IHEs were present at the last meeting 9/24/08
• 4 IHEs with Federal Grants
• 7 IHEs with ODE SPED Grants

12

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 2 Improvement on Organizational
Structure and Instructional Delivery

• Moving from a discrete to integrated program
• Co-enrollment in content, methods courses, and
• field placements
• Co-teaching/planning of university coursework
• Pilot research project in co-teaching contexts
• Action Research Project among programs
• Changes are designed to survive the long-term

13

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 3 Improvement on Curriculum and Course
Content

• Program curriculum explicit focus on EBP
• Analyze course syllabi
• Improving curriculum to include EBP
• IRIS modules aligned with courses
• Cultural Diversity increase urban placements
• from 33 - 50
• Course sequence changes
• More advanced content courses later in program
• Introductory courses earlier in program

14

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 4 Improvement on Student Support

• Course advising guides specific to content areas
• Training days
• Analysis of Student Work TWSM
• Co-Teaching, Analysis of Student work
• Integrated field experiences
• Internship seminar
• Integration of content pedagogy
• Professional cohort
• Induction and retention ODE innovations

15

• UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 5 Program Evaluation
Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4
C. disposition report Fluency w/EBP, teaming, etc. (CAL) Mentor program evaluation C. disposition progress reports
C. performance based on Praxis 3 Evaluation of systems case studies (TWS) Faculty evaluation program C. evaluation of U.S.
C. evaluation of program C. Evaluation of field experience Employer, program evaluation C. evaluation of program items
Employer eval U.S. evaluation of field placement Superintendent survey C. follow-up survey
Educator Impact Rubric U.S. contact log Course evaluations C. evaluation of field experience
C. tech use I. tech use Community perceptions
TQP Mentor nominations
16

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

Add text here
17

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

DOMAIN 1 Improvement on Meeting Licensure
Standards

• Undergraduate program revision
• HQT in English/LA
• Use of HOUSSE for other content areas
• Statewide collaboration and development

18

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

DOMAIN 2 Improvement on Organizational
Structure and Instructional Delivery

• Integrated training opportunities
• Literacy courses
• Middle-grade curriculum (co-teaching)
• Redesign field experiences
• Increased reliance on web-based learning
• Workshop/professional development in core
  content

19

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

DOMAIN 3 Improvement on Curriculum and Course
Content

• University Core
• Prescribed focus on core content/subjects
• Pre-professional education and English/LA
  coursework
• Integrated training
• Special education licensure coursework
• Evidence-based practices, quality field
  experiences
• Professional development activities to meet
  needed HQT status
• Based on the job assignment

20

• THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

DOMAIN 4 Improvement on Student Support

• Core Content Specialists
• Job-embedded mentoring and content knowledge
  (Spring term)
• Content Knowledge workshops (Summer)

21

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Competence and Collaboration in Teaching Students
with Disabilities 84.325T 2008-2013
Add text here
22

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year One

• Network w Cohort I II Ohio IHEs
• Network w Cohort I II IHEs nation wide
• 22 in Cohort I (2007)
• 20 in Cohort II (2008)
• Work with Ohio Consortium
• Facilitate series of seminars for other private
  and/or smaller IHEs in Ohio
• Regional meetings fall 2008 and spring 2009
• Develop web-based communication networks that
  will extend beyond the project

23

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year One, Cont.

• Identify EBP, plan internal PD for faculty
  implementation
• Engage current stakeholders and expand
  stakeholder base
• Collaboratively re-design our undergraduate and
  graduate IS M/M licensure programs with
• AS faculty,
• regional educators,
• parents of students with disabilities,
• current candidates and alumni
• Continue to pilot co-teaching practices in
  selected Muskingum teacher education courses
• Pilot co-teaching professional development for
  regional teachers

24

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Stakeholder Collaboration

• Project Steering Committee 11 members
• Meets Monthly Math and science faculty, teacher
  education faculty (general and special
  education), field experience coordinator, parent
  of a student with a disability (also faculty),
  district superintendent and alumnus, New Albany
  High School intervention specialist and alumnus
• Project Advisory Panel additional 11 members
• Meets Quarterly Regional directors of special
  education (SST and ESC) ODE personnel from
  offices of educator preparation and special
  education English and social science faculty
  teacher education program advocates Muskingum
  teacher education candidate additional parent,
  special education teacher, and school
  administrator

25

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year Two

• Complete re-designed program approval steps
• Implement re-designed program
• Identify field experience/student co-teaching
  sites
• Currently using
• Interested in using
• Recruit and prepare mentor teachers
• Focus on EBP and co-teaching
• Recruit college supervisors
• Knowledge and skills to assess candidates
• Deepen content preparation to meet HQT
  requirements

26

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year Two, Cont.

• PD support to faculty who will teach courses
• Recruit students into re-designed programs
• Implement initial phases of programs at UG G
  levels
• Revise unit and program assessment system to
  reflect approved program changes
• Meet regularly with steering committee and
  advisory panel for feedback, recommendations,
  etc.
• Evaluate/analyze data from first year project
  activities

27

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Years Three through Five

• Continue to network and collaborate with Cohort
  I, II and III IHEs and Ohio Consortium
• Continue marketing and recruitment efforts
• Ensure all retention initiatives are in place
• Assess candidates in field and clinical practice
  placements
• Continue professional development offerings,
  e.g., Differentiation through co-teaching
• Offer revised courses with stipends provided for
  faculty involved in co-planning and/or
  co-teaching initiatives

28

• MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Years Three through Five, Cont.

• Revise PII review offerings
• Make revised content coursework available to
  regional teachers still seeking HQT status in
  specific content areas
• Meet regularly with steering committee and
  advisory panel for feedback, recommendations,
  etc.
• Evaluate and analyze data from project activities
• Gather exit data on candidates who have completed
  all program requirements

29

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

30

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

DOMAIN 1 Improvement on Meeting License
Standards

• Program Revision/Expansion
• Middle Childhood 2 Core Content Areas
• Special Education Pedagogical Skills
• Ohio Consortium Statewide Collaboration

31

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

DOMAIN 2 Improvement on Organizational Structure
and Instructional Delivery

• Unit Collaboration Committee
• College of Education/Human Services (CEHS)
• College of Science/Mathematics (COSM)
• College of Liberal Arts (COLA)
• Cohort Model Delivery
• 20-25 Preservice Teacher Candidates
• 10-15 - CLD

32

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

DOMAIN 3 Improvement on Curriculum and Course
Content

• Revise/Expand Program Curriculum
• Analyze/Integrate Syllabi
• Seminars IRIS (STAR) Modules
• Co-Teaching
• Response to Intervention (RTI)

33

• WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

DOMAIN 4 Improvement on Student Support

• Recruitment/Retention
• Student Cohorts
• Early Field Experience
• Mentoring
• Cooperating Teachers
• Content Areas
• Intervention Specialist

34

• QUESTIONS ANSWERS

???