Part III
State Improvement Grant

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION
Development Process
ESEA Integration
Special Education/Vocational Rehabilitation Integration
Collaboration with Higher Education
Partnership Agreements

Section 1 - NEED FOR PROJECT
Major Needs
The Educational Workforce
The Preservice System
Performance Gaps in Educational Achievement
Disproportionality of Ethnic and Language Minority Students
Significance for Systems Change

Section 2 - SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT
Likelihood for Systems Change or Improvement

Section 3 – PROJECT DESIGN
Overview
Infrastructure
Targeted Districts and Participation Agreements
Higher Education Support Centers
Objectives, Activities, and Outcomes Associated with Project Goals

Section 4 – QUALITY OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
New York SED Hiring Practices
Qualifications of Key Project Personnel
Qualifications of Key Personnel on Field-Based SIG Teams

Section 5 – ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES
Adequacy of Support
Relevance and Demonstrated Commitment of Each Partner in the Proposed Project
Adequacy of Budget
SIG Budget
SIG Teams
Project Evaluation
75% of SIG for Staff Development
VESID Supplemental Funds
VESID In-Kind Contributions
Reasonableness of Costs
Potential for Continued Support

Section 6 – QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
Defined Responsibilities, Timelines, Milestones
Management
Professional – Project Director
Diversity of Perspectives to Advise the Department

Section 7 – PROJECT EVALUATION
Overview
Project Activities and Outputs
Intermediate Outcomes
End Outcomes
Evaluation Team
State Improvement Grant Logic Model

APPENDICES

TOP
New York’s State Improvement Grant (SIG) is designed to address the need to:

• reduce the performance gap in educational achievement between general education and special education students in high-need and low-need districts, and
• reduce or eliminate the disproportionality of language and ethnic minority students in classification and placement practices.

In those cases where both low performance and disproportionality occur, there is a likelihood that the root causes on both are the same. They include lack of parental involvement and effective home-school collaboration models; poor use of local data to analyze needs and develop appropriate goals/benchmarks; inadequate district and building policy for teaching reading and math; inappropriate evaluation tools, techniques, and interpretation of results for language and ethnic minority students; inadequate prereferral strategies; inadequate coordination of mental health programs including behavioral interventions and strength-based planning; inadequate IEP development; and a high turnover rate of teachers and leadership personnel.

New York’s SIG incorporates the following strategies to effect systems change:

• Three SIG Teams consisting of four professionals each will be established statewide to provide ongoing regional training on specific "root cause" topics associated with low performance and disproportionality.
• Targeted districts and schools in need of improvement will receive intensive (up to 20 days per district) on-site, job-embedded training from SIG Teams tailored to the unique goals and expected outcomes of each district/school.
• Three cohorts of approximately 45 school districts each, including all major urban areas, will receive funding for two-year cycles to participate in the project. These districts have over 50 percent of the students with disabilities in the State.
• Targeted districts will provide personnel development programs based on a comprehensive district planning process for both general education and special education that includes a personnel development plan for all paraprofessional and professional staff in the district.
• Targeted districts will develop and implement their comprehensive plans in partnership with institutions of higher education, parent information and training centers, and other State agencies involved with the education of students with disabilities.
• Project evaluation is based on actual district/school performance gains as measured by data reported to the State Education Department.
• Faculty of institutions of higher education with teacher training programs will be provided with the same training on topics associated with "root causes" as school personnel, for inclusion in teacher training programs.
  

TOP
New York State enjoys an international reputation for intellectual and spiritual freedom, metropolitan sophistication, artistic expression, ethnic and cultural diversity, business and financial leadership, and manufacturing and agricultural expertise all in a setting of stunning natural resources. The multiple dimensions that define New York State are both its strength and its greatest challenge. New York:

• is home to 18,976,457 people who speak 174 different languages;
• has the largest city in the country (New York City) with a population of 7,428,162;
• has four other Big Cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers) with a combined population of 859,972; and numerous small cities, towns, and villages ranging in size from under 100 to over 50,000;
• has 703 public school districts serving an estimated 2.84 million students in approximately 4,250 buildings;
• has 2,150 nonpublic schools serving 490,000 students;
• has 264 institutions of higher education, including 117 with teacher preparation and related services preparation programs and 71 with special education teacher preparation programs;
• has approximately 207,000 persons teaching in the public schools and an additional 39,000 serving in other professional positions;
• provided services to 393,012 students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 in 1998, representing 11.8 percent of total enrollment; and
• provides vocational rehabilitation services for approximately 107,546 persons per year with 16,373 placements into employment situations in FFY 2000.

It is almost easier to think of New York as a state with two distinct personalities. One would be characterized by the metropolitan areas associated with the big cities of New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers. The second would be characterized by small cities, towns, and villages in sparsely-populated rural settings often associated with the New England states. New York’s commitment to high educational standards for all children applies to the entire State. However, the issues, problems, needs, and strategies to meet those needs are often different depending on the area.

The State Education Department is governed by a Board of Regents, established in 1784, consisting of 16 members elected by the State Legislature. The Board of Regents also governs the University of the State of New York that consists of all public and private schools; colleges and universities; chartered libraries, museums, historical societies; and other educational institutions in the State. The Department's Chief Executive Officer is the Commissioner of Education and President of the University of the State of New York, who is appointed by the Board of Regents. The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) is responsible for special education and vocational rehabilitation services and has lead responsibility for development of the State Improvement Grant.

TOP
New York State established external and internal Implementation Teams when IDEA was reauthorized in 1997 to provide advice, guidance, and recommendations regarding IDEA implementation. Many of the systemic change activities and initiatives presented in the application and currently in place evolved from discussions and debates as New York embraced the need for significant educational reform. The development process has involved many constituencies representing general education, special education, higher education, and parent groups; and has included all required partners identified in IDEA. The SIG development process for the State Improvement Grant also intersects and parallels several major initiatives initiated by the Board of Regents. These include the Regents Task Force on Teaching, which in July 1998 approved a comprehensive reform agenda for teachers and teaching in New York State, and the approval of new curriculum standards and graduation requirements for all students, including students with disabilities.

TOP
The special education and general education functions within the State Education Department have a long tradition of collaboration across a wide range of initiatives including strategic planning, policy development, prevention and support programs, interagency cooperation, workforce preparation, and related program areas. Staff also collaborate in the joint development and/or review of publications, policy memoranda and media presentations (satellite downlink PBS scheduled broadcasts and broadcast/cable productions). The development process for the State Improvement Grant led the Education Department to examine and question the impact of general education and special education integration efforts. Two major deficiencies were identified that require systemic change at the State and local district levels: significant academic performance gaps between general education and special education students, and overrepresentation of language and ethnic minority students in special education classification and placement types. We believe these areas can be effectively addressed through personnel development initiatives as a component of systems change, consistent with the findings of Sparks & Heroek that "...staff development not only must affect the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of individual teachers, administrators, and other school employees, but it must also alter the cultures and structures of the organizations in which these individuals work."

These needs are addressed through the State Improvement Grant and represent collaborative planning with program representatives of the State Education Department’s Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education.

TOP
VESID recognizes the interdependency among special education, general education, and vocational rehabilitation and has taken active steps to ensure their integration. VESID's organizational structure and culture emphasize shared responsibility by staff towards goals for students with disabilities and adults receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Clearly defined measures for these goals are contained in management personnel performance agreements at all levels of the organization.

All Comprehensive Systems of Program Development (CSPD) and personnel development functions for special education and vocational rehabilitation reside in VESID’s Program Development and Support Services Unit. The Coordinator for this unit is also the State Coordinator for the IDEA and vocational rehabilitation CSPD, and plays an active role in the development of the State Improvement Plan, State Improvement Grant, and the State Plans for Vocational Rehabilitation and Independent Living Services. The unit consists of three teams: 1) Personnel Development, 2) Lifelong Services, and 3) Recruitment and Outreach. The Personnel Development Team (PDT) is responsible for special education and vocational rehabilitation staff development and delivery activities. The Lifelong Services Team (LST) is responsible for coordinating and managing all networks and services that serve individuals with disabilities. The LST bridges special education and vocational rehabilitation and is responsible for administering 13 Early Childhood Direction Centers, 42 Special Education Training and Resource Centers (SETRC), 6 Transition Coordination Sites, and 36 Independent Living Centers. The Lifelong Services Team also coordinates Deaf Services for special education and vocational rehabilitation, bilingual services, parent initiatives, and a statewide Resource Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The Recruitment and Outreach Team is responsible for identification and support of diverse eligible individuals, including individuals with disabilities, for VESID’s workforce.

In 2000, a joint general education and special education initiative called Regional School Support Center (RSSC) was implemented to coordinate and focus resources for targeted low-performing districts. The RSSCs are linked to the LST and represent a major infrastructure component of the SIG operational plan.

TOP
The State Education Department maintains a continuing relationship with the institutions of higher education in New York State that provide teacher education programs. To this end, VESID supports many of the efforts to upgrade teacher preparation programs in collaboration with the New York State Education Department Office of Higher Education (OHE). For example, VESID fiscally supports and underwrites the fall and spring conferences of the New York State Association of Teacher Educators (NYSATE) and the New York Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (NYACTE) in order to maintain the formal connection between preservice teacher preparation and practice in the field. VESID, the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC), and OHE have agenda items at each of these conferences that are intended to build capacity within the teacher education programs in the State to serve diverse learners, especially those with disabilities. Members of NYSATE and NYCTE will be collaborating on key activities associated with the State Improvement Grant.

TOP
Over the past three years, the Department has met with all required partners to discuss the goals and objectives of this project and related issues. Many of them will be part of the Advisory Group established for State Improvement Grant implementation. Some will have active involvement with the grant activities either as technical assistance providers or as members of the grant management team. These groups include:

• Governor’s Office, through the Governor's Office of Children and Family Services;
• Parent constituencies including Parent Training Information Centers;
• New York State Parent Teacher's Association;
• Persons with disabilities and organizations representing individuals with disabilities represented through the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education Services;
• The Independent Living Centers of New York, which are community-based organizations that educate and employ persons with disabilities;
• New York State Department of Health as the Part C lead agency, including the Early Intervention Coordinating Council;
• General and special education teachers represented by New York State United Teachers and the National Education Association of New York State;
• Institutions of higher education represented by NYSATE and NYACTE;
• Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities;
• Office of Mental Health; and
• other State agencies that serve school-age children and youth.

This application represents the collective input and views of multiple stakeholders, including reviewers of previous SIG applications, over a period of several years. The needs presented and the strategies developed to address these needs are recognized as critical components of New York’s reform efforts.

A copy of the partnership agreements for each State agency providing services for students with disabilities is included in Appendix A.

TOP
This "Needs" Section of New York's State Improvement Grant will address five major areas:

1. The Educational Workforce – Teachers and Teaching in New York State
2. The Preservice System - Teacher Preparation in New York State
3. The Performance Gap in educational achievement between general education students and students with disabilities in high-need versus low-need districts
4. Disproportionality of ethnic and language minority students in special education
5. Significance for systems change

It is important to emphasize that New York State faces significant challenges in each of the following areas:

1. New York faces increasing shortages of appropriately certified personnel, especially in special education, yet there is appropriate capacity in its higher education system based on the number of college graduates completing certification each year. More effective recruitment strategies are needed to attract the best candidates and better strategies to retain teachers.
2. New York's teacher training institutions need to rework their programs to ensure that new teachers entering the workforce are appropriately trained to help all students achieve higher standards.
3. Significant gaps in educational achievement have been identified between general and special education students, particularly in poorer districts with limited resources.
4. Disproportionality of students with disabilities exists in both the classification and placement types.

For the purpose of this SIG application, the primary needs to be addressed are the gaps in achievement and disproportionality. Many of the root causes contributing to performance gaps and overrepresentation can be addressed through intensive personnel development initiatives designed to bring about systems change over the life of the grant. We also must acknowledge that strategies to address teacher shortages and retention of teachers, and the establishment of new and better teacher training programs are the focus of major new initiatives by the Board of Regents, New York State Legislature, and the Governor involving legislative and regulatory changes and a major financial investment by the State. Therefore, the teacher shortage/retention issues and preservice quality issues will not be the focus of this SIG except where there are natural connections to grant activities.

For purposes of educational analysis and planning, the State Education Department and Legislature use six designations of economic and demographic indicators called Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) category to describe public school districts. Districts are placed in an N/RC category based on their N/RC Index. The N/RC Index is a measure of a district’s ability to meet the needs of its students with local resources. The measure is calculated by dividing a district’s estimated poverty percentage by the district’s Combined Wealth Ratio. The Needs/Resource Categories are:

1. New York City Public Schools
2. Large City Districts – Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers
3. High-Need Urban-Suburban Districts
4. High-Need Rural Districts
5. Average Need Districts
6. Low-Need Districts

When district data are disaggregated by the N/RC categories, there are often patterns of significant correlation between numerous performance measures and the categories. The N/RC categories will be referenced throughout this application. The first four categories are considered the high-need (i.e., poor) districts, and the last two are the low-need (i.e., average or wealthy) districts.

TOP
New York State collects special education personnel data annually. A Special Analysis Report: Special Education Personnel (Appendix B) provides an in-depth analysis of special education personnel and is used to determine current and future staffing needs. The current and projected need for selected special education personnel titles are summarized below in Table 1.

*Unmet demand is the total number of positions which were vacant or filled by temporarily certified staff, and the projected additional demand is the difference between the projected demand five years from now and the current demand.

• The Education Department projects that, in 2003-2004, the high-need/low resource school districts will require approximately 4,200 additional certified special education teachers, compared to approximately 3,800 in other school districts.
• In the high-need/low resource school districts, there were significant shortages of bilingual staff in the areas listed above. Additionally, the demand for bilingual staff in each title is projected to increase by the 2003-2004 school year.
• In the high-need/low resource school districts, greater percentages of positions in the titles listed above were either filled with temporarily certified staff or were vacant, compared to average and low-need school districts.
• Turnover in key special education positions such as Chairpersons of Committees on Special Education (New York's multidisciplinary team for evaluations and IEP development) is approximately 30 percent in many areas, with some regions approaching 50 percent (as reported by VESID field-based personnel).

The personnel development needs of the existing teaching workforce, particularly in low-performing districts, are the primary targets of this application. The recruitment and retention needs of the State are being vigorously addressed by the Board of Regents and the Legislature and, as indicated, are not the focus of this grant application.

TOP
On June 12, 1998, the New York State Board of Regents Task Force on Teaching issued the report, Teaching to Higher Standards: New York's Commitment. The report identified four major gaps in New York's teaching workforce and recommended sweeping reforms to address these gaps:

Gap 1: New York does not attract and keep enough of the best teachers where they are needed most.
Gap 2: Not enough teachers leave college prepared to ensure that New York's students reach higher standards.
Gap 3: Not enough teachers maintain the knowledge and skills needed to teach to high standards throughout their careers.
Gap 4: Many school environments actively work against effective teaching and learning.

Since the report was issued, New York has adopted new regulations requiring re-registration of teacher training institutions that must be aligned with new curriculum standards and graduation requirements for all students. New York has also adopted new certification requirements for all common branch teaching titles and is developing new certification requirements for Pupil Personnel Services titles and administrators.

New York has also adopted regulations that require every school district to develop and implement personnel development plans, and require new teachers (hired after February 2004) to participate in 175 hours of personnel development every five years. The new requirements also establish a linkage between LEAs and teacher training institutions and address alternate routes to certification to encourage those in other careers to enter the teaching field. Most recently the Regents, Legislature, and Governor have addressed the need for funds to support recruitment and retention initiatives with $20 million allocated in 2000; proposals for additional programs and funds are being introduced during the new legislative session.

Even with new initiatives and others planned for the future, VESID has identified ongoing systemic issues and needs that will be addressed through this grant:

• There is a need to consciously link preservice and inservice training programs to avoid duplication of efforts or gaps in preparation.
• There is a need to ensure that full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty at Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) are knowledgeable about the processes, instructional strategies, intervention strategies, and expectations for teachers in schools. There continues to be a disparity between the skills taught in preparation programs and the skills actually needed in educational settings.
• There is a need to enhance the prestige of IHE involvement in local school districts. The emphasis on academia, research, and publication often establishes a disincentive for faculty members to actively engage with local schools.

The Performance Gap in Educational Achievement

TOP
The State Education Department utilizes a statewide accountability and reporting system based on its strategic and reform goals. For example, School Report Cards are published annually that include results for students with disabilities, both aggregated and disaggregated, along with those for general education students. In addition, VESID annually publishes a Pocketbook of Goals and Results for Individuals with Disabilities and the Performance Report of Educational and Vocational Services for Individuals with Disabilities. The Pocketbook provides data on how the State is doing in relation to VESID’s six strategic goals. The Annual Report provides detailed information on how individual school districts are doing in key performance areas compared to other school districts, established statewide standards and strategic goals. The primary data set for evaluating special education performance is 13 key performance measures (KPMs) associated with the State's testing program and VESID’s Strategic Plan. These measures include:

1. Grade 4 English Language Arts Examination
2. Grade 4 Mathematics Examination
3. Grade 8 English Language Arts Examination
4. Grade 8 Mathematics Examination
5. Performance on English Regents Examination
6. Performance on Sequential Math Regents Examination
7. Participation in English Regents Examination
8. Participation in Sequential Math Regents Examination
9. High School Diplomas (Regents, Local, High School Equivalency)
10. Dropout Rate
11. Classification Rate
12. Integration in General Education Classrooms
13. Placement in Separate Educational Settings

While six of the measures are directly related to student performance on State examinations, several other measures appear to be indirectly related to student performance and must be considered in light of examination results. For example, the participation of special education students in English Regents and Sequential Math Regents Examinations provides a measure of student access to general education curriculum. As the data will show, as participation rates increase, there is a parallel increase in the number of students with disabilities passing these and other exams. The measures associated with integration in general education classrooms and placements in separate educational settings also have an indirect impact on academic performance because of the same access to general education curriculum. New York collects and analyzes race/ethnicity data in conjunction with the Key Performance Measures which will also be summarized in this section.

The 4^th and 8^th grade tests provide a standardized measure to assess whether students are proficient in the standards for their grade level. Student scores are summarized at four levels. Students at Level 1 have serious academic deficiencies and little or no proficiency in the curriculum standards for their grade level. Students at Level 2 show some knowledge and skill in the required standards but need extra help to reach all the standards. Students at Level 3 meet the standards and, with continued achievement, should pass the Regents examination in the assessed area. Students at Level 4 exceed the standards and are moving toward high performance on Regents examinations. Commissioner's Regulations require that school districts provide academic intervention services to students scoring at the two lowest levels.

Additional data indicate:

• On the grade 4 examinations, lower percentages of students with disabilities in high-need districts scored at or above Level 3: 11.5 percent, compared to 28.8 percent in other districts.
• On the grade 4 math examination, lower percentages of students with disabilities in high-need districts scored at or above Level 3: 22.9 percent, as compared to 55.1 percent in other districts.
  

*Performance at or above Level 3 indicates the students are making sufficient progress towards achieving the Regents higher standards.

• On the Grade 8 ELA examination, 9.4 percent of students with disabilities scored at or above Level 3, compared to 55.2 percent of general education students; 7.9 percent of students with disabilities scored at or above Level 3 on the Grade 8 Mathematics examination, compared to 42.7 percent of general education students.

Additional data indicate:

• On the grade 8 ELA exam, lower percentages of students with disabilities in high-need districts scored at or above Level 3: 4.8 percent, as compared to 14.1 percent in other districts.
• On the grade 8 Math exam, lower percentages of students with disabilities in high-need districts scored at or above Level 3: 3.2 percent, as compared to 12.8 percent.
  

• As indicated in Chart 3, lower percentages of students with disabilities were tested on the five Regents examinations in the high-need/low resource school districts than in other school districts.
  

• As indicated in Chart 4, lower percentages of students with disabilities passed the Regents examinations in English and Math in the high-need/low resource school districts, compared to other school districts.

As illustrated in Chart 5, there is a need to increase the diploma rate of students with disabilities in high-need/low resource districts earning high school diplomas.

• The diploma rate of students with disabilities in the high need/low resource school districts was 48.5 percent, significantly below the rate of 80.3 percent in other schools.

It is an objective of the State Education Department that 80 percent of students with disabilities will graduate with a high school diploma, which include local high school Regents and High School Equivalency diplomas. In 1998-99, the statewide goal was achieved in the combined performance of students with disabilities in other than the high-need/low resource school districts.

Note: These percentages include only students with disabilities who completed high school.  Students who dropped out are not included.

• Students with disabilities in wealthy districts (low-need/relative to resources) earn high school diplomas at a significantly higher rate than students in districts with higher need/relative to resources.

There is a need to decrease dropout rates, particularly in high-need/low resource districts.

Another objective of the New York State Education Department is to decrease the number of students who drop out before earning a high school diploma or credential. In 1998-99, the dropout rate for students with disabilities was 6.8 percent, representing an increase of 1.2 percentage points from the previous year’s rate of 5.6 percent.

• The dropout rates for all students (combining general education students with students with disabilities) for the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-1998 school years were 3.6 percent, 3.4 percent, and 3.5 percent respectively.

• There is a significant difference between the dropout rate for students with disabilities in the high-need/low resource districts and other school districts: 9.7 percent as compared to 3.4 percent.

There is a need to decrease classification rates in some districts.

There is a significant difference in the rate at which students are classified as needing special education services in the two types of districts. In 1998-99, 11.8 percent of all school-age students in New York State were identified as students with disabilities.

• A greater percentage of the high-need/low resource school districts classify 15 percent or more of school-age students as having disabilities (24.4%), compared to other school districts (7.5%).

VESID’s goal is that students with disabilities will be integrated with their nondisabled peers throughout their educational experience. This goal is consistent with the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education.

• A smaller percentage of school-age students with disabilities were educated in separate educational settings in 1998-99, continuing a three-year downward trend. However, more than twice the percentage of students with disabilities were educated in separate settings in New York State than the national average.

In 1998-99, 8.9 percent of students with disabilities were educated in separate site programs. At these sites, students with disabilities have no opportunities to interact with their nondisabled peers. Students in separate sites in New York State include those in approved private schools, Special Act School Districts, State-operated and State-supported Schools, in larger city separate sites, and those in BOCES separate site programs. Nationally, in 1997-98 (latest data available), only 4.1 percent were educated in separate settings.

This problem is not statewide in scope. In some regions, the large majority of students with disabilities are educated in settings with nondisabled students, while in other areas there are high percentages of students with disabilities educated at separate sites as indicated in Map 1.

Map 1
Public and Private Special Class Placements at Separate Sites
for Each BOCES Region and New York City

                  High-Need Districts             Other Districts

• As indicated in Chart 7, more school-age students with disabilities were educated in separate education settings in the high-need/low resource school districts (8.4 percent), compared to other school districts (7.0 percent) during 1998-99.

Disproportionality of Ethnic and Language Minority Students

TOP
In 1999, the New York State Legislature and Governor enacted legislation that addressed some of the major issues the Board of Regents identified as critical to improving special education services in New York State. Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 included provisions specific to students with disabilities that required the State Education Department to:

• Identify school districts with high rates of identification, low rates of declassification, high rates of placements in separate sites and significant disproportionality, based on race and ethnicity, in identification and placement in particular settings of students with disabilities, and
• Work with the identified school districts to verify such rates, determine underlying causes and, if necessary, require the development of a corrective action plan.

A brief summary of the prominent findings of the surveys the districts completed follows.

Classification - The statewide average classification rate in 1998-99 was 11.8 percent. Eighty-six school districts were identified as having classification rates of 15 percent or higher.

Preschool Declassification - Forty-six school districts were identified as having low declassification rates of five percent or lower for preschool students with disabilities.

School-Age Declassification - Eighty-two school districts were identified as having low declassification rates of 1.5 percent or lower for school-age students with disabilities.

Separate Educational Settings - The 1998-99 statewide average rate of placing school-age students with disabilities in separate education settings was 8.9 percent. The 1997-98 national average was 4.1 percent (latest year for which data are available). One hundred seventeen school districts were identified with a rate of ten percent or higher of placing school-age students with disabilities in separate education settings.

Disproportionate Representation in Identification – Two hundred eighteen school districts were identified with an overrepresentation, based on race and ethnicity, in the identification of school-age students as students with disabilities or in the identification of students having particular disabilities.

Disproportionate Representation in Placement of Preschool Students with Disabilities – Six school districts were identified with an overrepresentation, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of preschool students with disabilities in separate settings

Disproportionate Representation in Placement of School-Age Students with Disabilities – One hundred three school districts were identified with disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of school-age students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

For the purpose of this grant submission, VESID developed a scoring mechanism (see Appendix C) to compare district performance across the Key Performance Measures. The report was based on 1997-98 data and utilized measures that were slightly different from but substantially equivalent to the current measures discussed on page 15. The individual scores for each key performance measure were added to provide a composite score for each district. The composite scores were then plotted in a scattergram by N/RC. Chart 8 provides a graphic representation of the scores on the performance measures for the 642 public K-12 school districts in New York State by Needs/Resource Category. The y-axis indicates total composite scores where 10 is the low range and 65 is the high range. The x-axis represents the six Needs/Resource categories described on page 9-10. The points plotted within each N/RC group are the composite scores for the districts in that group.

Chart 8
Click here to see a more legible chart.

Several trends are supported by these data:

• Districts in the Low-Need category tend to perform significantly higher in the key performance measures.
• Districts in the average-need category tend to score lower than low-need districts and higher than urban/suburban/rural poor districts.
• There is significant score distribution in all categories except big cities.

The Education Department developed a methodology for weighing disproportionality based on race and ethnicity that examined multiple factors such as classification and placement trends across disability types by race and ethnicity. The analysis yields disproportionality "points" in which a point score of one indicates a single area of concern with a margin of disproportionality difference under 25 percent from normal population distributions for that district; higher scores indicate more complex factors and higher margins of disproportionality than expected. The highest point score was 23 for New York City. The districts identified through this methodology are also categorized by Need/Resource Category.

When the overall district performance on the Key Performance Measures are compared to the disproportionality data, a very significant trend emerges. Disproportionality in high-need districts (N/RC categories 1,2,3,4) appears to be highly related to overall poor performance on Key Performance Measures. Disproportionality in low-need districts does not correlate with performance on KPMs. This suggests that there may be a different set of factors affecting disproportionality in low-need and some average districts that would require different strategies.

Using an overall composite score of 35 or under on Key Performance Measures as an indicator of districts in need of improvement compared to the number of districts with disproportionality "points" of one or more by N/RC category, the following characteristics emerge:

• All Big Cities and 78 percent of Urban/Suburban poor districts have issues relating to disproportionality. There appears to be a strong correlation between disproportionality and poor performance across Key Performance Measures.
• Only 10 percent of rural poor districts demonstrated disproportionality issues, but 65 percent of those districts also displayed overall poor performance on Key Performance Measures.
• Eighteen percent of average need districts demonstrated disproportionality issues but 36 percent of those also displayed poor performance characteristics.
• Thirty-seven percent of low-need (wealthy) districts demonstrated disproportionality issues with very low (five percent) overlap with performance concerns. Note: The average composite score for wealthy districts with disproportionality issues is 44 with seven districts in the 50+ range (exemplary level).

Significance for Systems Change

TOP
The data presented suggest three separate profiles for school districts, each with different outlooks for systems change.

Profile 1 - Includes the Big Five Cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, New York City, Yonkers), urban and suburban poor districts, and rural poor districts where there are both overall performance and disproportionality issues. In these districts/schools, it appears that the contributing factors for both performance and disproportionality are related and can be addressed through intensive personnel development efforts based on identified district needs, sustained in-district training and technical assistance, coordination of resources, availability of financial assistance to support personnel development, and long-term presence of support systems. These strategies, in combination with other departmental and legislative initiatives to address teacher recruitment and retention, provide a high potential for systems change over the period of this grant.

Profile 2 - This group includes low performing average need and wealthy districts that also display disproportionality issues. Many of the root causes in these districts are associated with turnover of key personnel and lack of continuity and leadership during these transitions. These districts usually have the resources to provide adequate professional development and planning activities, but require technical assistance and leadership to help resolve their issues. The probability for long-term systems change is high.

Profile 3 - This group includes high performing average and wealthy districts with significant disproportionality issues. These districts have resources and the capability to support students with disabilities in the general curriculum. They also tend to have a more stable workforce and leadership. The factors contributing to disproportionality could be significantly different from those in the previous two profiles and may involve cultural or community beliefs, attitudes, and related subjective factors not targeted by the strategies associated with this grant. The probability for long-term systems change in these districts is unknown at this time and is not a target of the grant.

The implications for New York’s State Improvement Grant are presented in Chart 9.

Click here to see a more legible chart.

In Chart 9, a reference score of 35 was selected as a cut-off between those districts demonstrating satisfactory progress and those needing to improve performance. Another reference point of 50 was selected to identify those districts that should be benchmarked as possible models for replication. A third reference is the N/RC groups where N/RC 1, 2, 3, 4 are poorer districts with less available resources than N/RC 5 and 6. Shaded areas A, B, and C in Chart 9 represent these groups.

• The districts represented by shaded area A that also have disproportionality issues (Profile 1) are the primary targeted districts for intensive support through the State Improvement Grant (this includes approximately 45 districts in the first cohort).

• The districts represented by shaded area B that also have disproportionality issues (Profile 2) will be identified for technical assistance through existing State resources and grant activities but are considered to have adequate resources to improve performance scores. Therefore, additional resources will not be directly provided to these districts.

• The districts represented by shaded area C are benchmark districts that will be used as possible models for study and replication, and linked with low-performing districts.

The distribution of districts demonstrating a need for improvement on key performance measures and disproportionality are important considerations in determining the deployment of strategies associated with the State Improvement Grant. Map 2 shows the statewide distribution of districts by county scoring 35 or below on the composite scores of Key Performance Measures. Map 3 shows the statewide distribution of districts where "disproportionality" was identified as an issue. These distribution patterns will be addressed in Section 3 of the application (Project Design – page 46).

As previously indicated, New York is addressing several major needs using a variety of legislative, regulatory, and fiscal initiatives. However, the primary needs of improving educational performance in high-need, low-performing districts and improving disproportionality in these districts are issues that can be addressed through personnel development and are, therefore, appropriate targets for this SIG application.

Map 2

Map 3

TOP
The performance gap for students with disabilities and disproportionality are the primary focus of this SIG grant. Analysis indicates a significant correlation between these issues in poor districts and suggests that the contributing factors (root causes) could be addressed through intensive personnel development efforts. The inability of school districts to effectively address the following areas contributes to the performance issues and disproportionality:

1. Use of Data. "Schools that understand the needs of their clientele – the student – are more successful in implementing changes and remain more focused on the implementation." Bernhardt, 1998 The second edition of Results - The Key to Continuous School Improvement (Schmoker, Michael, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999) emphasizes that school improvement is not a mystery or even dramatic, but rather the careful and planned process of evaluating local data and using the results to identify appropriate goals for improvement. New York's SIG project will provide training and follow-up support regarding the use of data at the district, school, and classroom levels to appropriately plan, implement, and continuously evaluate school improvement efforts.
2. Effective reading and math programs. Extensive research over the past several years has emphasized the need for well-articulated and communicated district policies regarding English Language Arts, Reading, Mathematics, Science, and other core curricular areas. For example, the use of a balanced approach for reading is well documented and supported by the New York State Education Department; however, not all districts/schools have adopted a policy on reading or have communicated a policy for teachers. In addition, there is a national concern related to the "unacceptable" performance of U.S. students in the areas of mathematics and science. According to Before it’s too late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Sciences Teaching for the 21^st Century, U.S. students are not performing up to international standards established by the National Assessment of Educational Programs. The study suggests a number of strategies to improve math and science performance for students. The key element is well-trained, well-prepared instructional staff. Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor, Co-Directors of the School Mental Health project at UCLA, report in Addressing Barriers to Student Learning: New Directions that classroom-focused enabling is the first step to see whether there are ways to address a problem within the classroom and perhaps with added home involvement. The emphasis is on enhancing classroom-based efforts to enable learning by increasing teacher effectiveness for preventing and handling problems in the classroom. New York's SIG project will provide training and follow-up support on best practices relating to reading, math, and other core curriculum areas at the classroom level.
3. Turnover rate of teachers and other key personnel. A recent study conducted by the State University of New York at Albany, under contract with the State Education Department, confirms many of the intuitive assumptions about teachers and teaching in New York State. Poor districts have a difficult time attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers. Poor districts use more teachers with temporary licenses (uncertified) and have lower salary structures than average or wealthy districts. In addition, new teachers entering the field are leaving at the alarming rate of 50 percent within six years. A related issue is Chairpersons and members of Committees on Special Education, New York's Individualized Education Program development teams, where turnover rates approach 50 percent annually in some areas. While the SIG grant will not address teacher recruitment and retention issues associated with union and contract negotiations or terms of employment, it will address new teacher induction programs in targeted districts and the coordination of preservice and ongoing professional development as a strategy to support and ultimately retain new teachers. The project also intends to decrease the impact of turnover on key positions (CSE Chairpersons and members) by providing regularly scheduled training on a variety of topics on a regional basis.
4. Availability of supports in general education. There are numerous projects across the country that have demonstrated the value of appropriate prereferral strategies in reducing inappropriate referrals to special education and consequent classification. In a recent (unpublished) evaluation study of a project entitled "7-SHARE" (Supporting and Helping to Affect Regional Education) in New York's southern tier, it was demonstrated that the long-term use of instructional support teams in each building of the seven participating districts could have a dramatic impact on referral rates and halt what was a rapidly escalating classification rate in the region. New York's SIG project will provide training and follow-up support on best practices related to prereferral strategies.

• planning occurs one child at a time;
• supports and services are provided in family and community settings;
• parents and professionals are a team;
• focus on student strengths;
• services are culturally competent; and
• care is unconditional.

5. Use of appropriate evaluation tools, techniques, interpretations of results. There is ample evidence provided by New York's Chapter 405 Report and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that many districts do not have appropriately trained personnel to effectively evaluate language and ethnic minority students. This results in inappropriate classifications, inappropriate placements, and overall misunderstanding of the needs and strengths of individual students, all of which contribute to both performance issues and disporportionality. New York's SIG project will provide training and follow-up support on best practices related to cultural diversity and appropriate evaluation of language and ethnic minority students. VESID is aware that Individualized Education Plan development is often problematic in low-performing districts, due in part to high turnover rates and lack of adequate time and training for existing personnel to address the issues in the preceding six factors. VESID is also aware that the quality of IEP's in New York's schools will be cited by OSEP in its final monitoring report of a 1999 site visit. New York's SIG project will provide training and follow-up support on IEP development and implementation at the local district level. By focusing on the characteristics of a quality IEP process, the training and support will address fundamental factors that are contributing to both performance and disproportionality problems including evaluations, present levels of educational performance, Least Restrictive Environment, testing modifications, assistive technology, participation in general education curriculum and testing programs, transition, annual goals and benchmarks, special considerations, and placement options. Most important will be the use of IEP training to reinforce IDEA's conceptual shift of special education as a service in the general education setting rather than a place.

Likelihood for Systems Change or Improvement

TOP
New York's State Improvement Grant is designed to stimulate systems change and improvement through a variety of integrated strategies and resources.

• Targeted Districts and Participation Agreements - The SIG targets the Big Five Cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, New York City, Yonkers) and selected districts in need of improvement based on the key performance measures identified in the Needs Section and the disporportionality data. Each district signed a participation agreement and will receive a two-year grant at $50,000 per year to support professional development linked to district needs and to link districts with highly effective practices. At least 10 percent of each district’s grant must be used to support the involvement of Institutions of Higher Education personnel in the District's Professional Development Team, and at least five percent dedicated to parent organizations to support home-school collaboration efforts. District results are evaluated based on improvements in student performance and disproportionality data. A new group of districts will be rotated into the project every two years. This component is supported by IDEA discretionary funds beyond SIG funds.
• Regional School Support Centers (RSSCs) - New York State is divided into ten planning areas called Joint Management Teams (JMTs) (See Map Appendix D), each with a Regional School Support Center (RSSC) funded through multiple sources of federal and State funds, including IDEA discretionary money. The RSSCs are a joint initiative between general education and special education and are intended to assist low-performing districts and schools to close the performance gap in achievement by assisting the district/school with data analysis and planning, identifying appropriate goals and benchmarks, and coordinating a variety of resources from numerous program areas. Each RSSC employs a special education professional responsible for coordinating special education components and training and will support leadership personnel in the targeted SIG districts.
• Higher Education Support Center - VESID has established, with IDEA discretionary funds, a Higher Education Support Center at Syracuse University. The purpose of the Center is to work with Institutions of Higher Education representatives identified to participate on SIG targeted district teams and with the Regional School Support Centers to coordinate efforts to improve new teacher induction programs and to improve the link between preservice and inservice education programs. The Higher Education Support Center also functions as a liaison with the higher education community by sponsoring a task force which promotes inclusive teacher education programs, and will provide ongoing professional development on SIG related topics (see below) for the Institutions of Higher Education community.
• Specific Personnel Development initiatives to address root causes for poor performance and disproportionality. This is the key component and the focus of New York's SIG application. The infrastructure and process for school improvement are reflected in the components identified above. The content, skills, and knowledge required for systemic change that is needed within the infrastructure follow. The main strategies are:

• Establish three SIG Support Teams. Each team would support one of the designated areas: 1) Long Island and Lower Hudson; 2) New York City; and 3) Upstate (Northern, Central, and Western New York).
• Each team would provide up to 20 days of on-site in-depth training and support for each targeted district based on the district’s identified needs and expected outcomes/benchmarks. The on-site training would be coordinated through the RSSC based on the districts/building's overall CSPD plan.
• Each team would be responsible for delivering research-proven regional training for each JMT area (by borough for New York City) on the following topics:

• Use of district/school data to analyze root causes and plan goals/benchmarks.
• Best Practices to address overrepresentation.
• Best Practices in Reading and Literacy development.
• Best Practices in Math.
• Coordination of Mental Health initiatives.
• Strength-based principles for student planning (such as Child and Adolescent Service Support Program).
• Behavioral Interventions.
• Best Practices for home-school collaboration.
• Best Practices for prereferral interventions.
• Best Practices for IEP development.
• Best Practices for evaluation of language and ethnic minority students.
• Cultural diversity.
• Other topics as needed.

• Each topic would be developed to include in-depth follow-up materials that would be utilized on-site for job embedded training by the SIG team.
• The Regional Training is primarily for targeted SIG districts but would be open to all LEAs, State agencies, Institutions of Higher Education, and parent organizations.
• Each topic (module) and related materials would also be provided to the higher education community through the Higher Education Support Center for use in teacher training programs.

In summary, this SIG will leverage systems change and improvement because it is designed so that:

specific needs of the State are addressed at the root cause level;

• existing infrastructure is utilized for delivery and support;
• districts/schools most in need of improvement are targeted, yet non-targeted districts/schools and State agencies are provided the opportunity to benefit from the effort;
• specific professional development related to needs is delivered at regional and local levels;
• evaluation of outcomes is based on identified benchmarks; and
• it deploys over 75 percent of SIG award to professional development.

Section 3
PROJECT DESIGN

TOP
Overview

The New York State Education Department is applying for $1,800,000 per year for five years under the IDEA 2000-2001 State Improvement Grant competition. The State Education Department will supplement the anticipated award with $3,605,000 annually from IDEA Part B discretionary funds. The intent of the project design is to improve student performance and indicators of disproportionality in districts in need of improvement through intensive professional development activities designed to address root causes associated with poor performance and disproportionality. A related goal is to improve the quality of teacher training programs by providing intensive training on the same topics. For the purposes of this grant application, districts in need of improvement fall into two categories:

• Targeted participating districts are low-performing districts that also have disproportionality issues that are in needs/resource categories 1-4 (poor districts). Targeted participating districts have a signed participation agreement and receive additional IDEA discretionary funds to support personnel development activities at the local level.

• Targeted non-funded districts also are low-performing districts with disproportionality issues but do not have a signed participation agreement and do not receive additional funds to support professional development activities.

These are the average and wealthy districts with the resources to support their own professional development activities. The distinction between these two groups is relevant to the goals, objectives, and activities supported by the grant.

New York’s State Improvement Grant has three primary goals directly related to needs discussed in section 1.

Goal 1 – Intensive training programs and follow-up training/support will be available to targeted participating and non-funded districts to address specific root causes associated with the need to improve key performance measures and disproportionality.

Goal 2 – Districts and schools targeted for SIG activities because of a need for improvement in key performance measures and disproportionality will demonstrate improvement in key performance measures and indicators of disproportionality.

Goal 3 – Faculty at institutions of higher education with teacher training programs are knowledgeable about the research-proven processes, instructional strategies, intervention strategies, and related factors that contribute to improvements in key performance measures and disproportionality that teachers entering service in schools are expected to know, and incorporate such information and skills in teacher training programs.

New York has recently established an infrastructure and process for addressing districts in need of improvement that plays a critical role in this SIG. This infrastructure and process was presented in previous SIG submissions as New York’s strategy for system change. New York’s commitment to the principles and strategies outlined in previous submissions is evidenced by the fact that the State moved forward with partial implementation and now has the programs and processes either in place or in preliminary implementation stages to support this SIG. The primary difference is that New York acknowledges that infrastructure and processes do not necessarily bring about systems change. In order to bring about systems change, New York must utilize its infrastructure to address and attack the fundamental root causes contributing to poor performance and disproportionality. The reviewer is provided with an overview of New York’s infrastructure and school improvement processes as a basis for understanding how the SIG will be deployed.

Infrastructure
TOP

• Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) Network and Local District Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Plans. New York allocates approximately $14 million per year to a network of 42 centers located in each Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES*) area and in the Big Five Cities. SETRCs provide professional development in accordance with the CSPD plans developed by each district in their region. Eighty percent of each SETRC’s effort must be directed toward single-district efforts to ensure that professional development activities are tailored to the unique needs and expected outcomes of the district. Each SETRC is required to prioritize its efforts to target those districts most in need of improvement based on local district data. Additionally, the SETRC network serves as New York’s quality control for local district CSPD plans. In New York, the CSPD is a required plan for IDEA flow-through funds are only approved if SETRC signs off on the quality of the CSPD plan

*BOCES are intermediate service units providing vocational and technical education, special education, administrative, and information technology services to constituent districts.

• Regional School Support Centers. As indicated in Section 2, each Joint Management Team region hosts a Regional School Support Center (RSSC) jointly funded through five sources:

• Title I School Improvement;
• Comprehensive School Reform Act;
• New York State Effective Schools Program;
• Goals 2000; and
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In total, just under $6 million was allocated to the establishment of this program in 2000, with continuation funds for an additional two years. The RSSC concept evolved from discussions between VESID and the Education Department’s Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC) regarding the need to more effectively coordinate services at the regional level, and to leverage increased impact through the braiding of resources. The Department expects to continue the RSSC project beyond the initial three years.

The primary mission of the RSSC program is to close the performance gap in educational achievement for low-performing districts and buildings. Similar to SETRC, the RSSC targets schools most in need of improvement from both a general and special education perspective; it then provides intensive support to those districts/schools. As with all effective school improvement programs, the RSSC guides targeted districts through a local planning process that examines district/school data, determines root causes, identifies appropriate strategies (including professional development) to address the root causes, establishes realistic goals, benchmarks and sets timelines for improvement, and evaluates results.

The RSSC are also responsible for the identification of best practices within each region for the purpose of providing technical assistance to those districts in need of improvement.

A particularly powerful strategy of the RSSC is its responsibility to deploy only those resources and programs needed by a particular targeted district. This responsibility is linked to the RSSC’s task of establishing a Comprehensive Regional School Improvement Plan in which all programs and providers serving the region, including other State agencies with responsibilities for students, agree on coordination and collaboration strategies for the region. The need for such a plan was in response to the recent proliferation of numerous State and federally-funded programs, all intended to help districts in need of improvement. In some cases, the availability of these programs created more of a distraction and deterrent to school improvement than an aid. The importance of the RSSC’s role in working with the district and various providers to ensure an appropriate match between need and intervention cannot be overstated.

The staffing of each RSSC includes an Executive Director, an Effective Schools Specialist, and at least a 1.0 FTE Special Education Coordinator funded through IDEA . The Special Education Coordinator’s primary responsibility is to work in partnership with the SETRC network in targeted participating districts and targeted non-funded districts identified for the State Improvement Grant program.

TOP
The concept of identifying specific districts in need of improvement and providing those districts with resources to implement systems change activities originated in a prior submission of the State Improvement Grant. The strategy was in reaction to both the frustration of previous unsuccessful attempts to effect change in some districts, and recognition that in many cases, the will or desire to improve involved an investment in time and resources that some districts could not commit. The district selection process for SIG participation involved the following principles:

• Districts selected for participation must be in need of improvement based on Key Performance Measures and (new for 2001) disproportionality.
• Districts selected must also be in a "Poor" needs resource category. All five major urban areas are automatically eligible.
• Each selected district must also be targeted under general education school improvement initiatives to ensure coordination across systems.
• Each selected district must submit a signed participation agreement and, eventually, a detailed CSPD plan and project proposal that identifies needs for the district, root causes, goals and benchmarks for improvement, and an implementation strategy for its professional development plan.
• Each district will submit a grant application for $50,000 per year for two years to support and provide the professional development plan, and to evaluate the outcomes of the plan based on identified benchmarks.
• Each targeted district must utilize at least ten percent of its grant to support the participation of an IHE representative in both the planning process and the delivery of personnel development activities, and at least five percent of its allocation to support the participation of a federally funded Parent Training and Implementation Center or a parent organization for the purpose of supporting home-school collaboration efforts.
• Each JMT area was to select two participating districts based on the criteria above; an additional five districts were added to the Long Island JMT due to intensity of need in that region.
• Each of the Big Four cities will select at least two schools for participation.
• In NYC, seven community school districts will each identify at least two targeted schools for participation.
• In total, for the 2001 SIG submission:
• 15 LEAs, including three Large Cities, are targeted in the upstate JMTs.
• 12 LEAs, including one Large City, are targeted in the Long Island, Mid-Hudson JMTs.
• 7 Community School Districts in NYC are targeted. Total of 34 districts targeted representing $1,700,000 in IDEA discretionary grants per year.

A list of targeted participating districts, signed participation agreements, and a January 2001 memorandum outlining specific requirements are included in Appendix E.

TOP
As indicated in Section 2, a Higher Education Support Center was established in 2000-2001 at Syracuse. The Center has several major functions that relate to the goals in this SIG submission:

• The Center works directly with each RSSC to identify and support the IHE representatives selected for each targeted participating district. This responsibility includes providing training to IHE faculty representatives on key processes and procedures used by school districts for data analysis, planning, goal setting/benchmarking, and implementation and evaluation of school improvement efforts.
• The Center organizes and supports a Higher Education Task Force that actively seeks to include additional IHEs in commitments to move toward inclusive teacher education preparation programs that incorporate the requirements for both special education and general education in a single program.
• The Center maintains a website targeted to both the IHE community and the school community regarding highly effective practices for inclusive programs in New York State.
• The Center will assume additional responsibilities to provide training to IHE personnel (see Goal 3 – page 58) on the topics associated with root causes under this SIG, and to work with RSSCs, IHEs, and targeted districts to explore strategies to link preservice and inservice programs for new teachers in a seamless system.

TOP
Goal 1 – Intensive Training Programs and follow-up training/support will be available to targeted districts to address specific root causes associated with the need to improve key performance measures and disproportionality.

Objective 1.1. By September 1, 2001, an RFP or grant-amendment authorization will be issued to establish three State Improvement Grant Teams (SIG Teams) to serve:

• New York City,
• Long Island and Mid-Lower Hudson (3 JMTs), and
• Upstate (6 JMTs).

Each SIG Team will be staffed by at least four professionals with certification, content expertise, and experience in the topics identified under "Root Causes." (See Section 2, page 36) By November 1, 2001, each team shall be staffed and operational. Each team represents 880 person days of service per school year.

Objective 1.2. By February 1, 2002, training modules representing a one-day introductory program will be developed or compiled for each of the 12 "Root Cause" topics identified on page 44. Each SIG Team shall take the lead in developing four modules. Additional follow-up materials for intensive in-district training shall be developed and maintained over the life of the project.

Objective 1.3. By February 1, 2002, the SIG Teams shall provide a training and orientation program to RSSC and SETRC personnel on identifying the root causes addressed by the SIG during local district planning activities and how to incorporate such needs in local CSPD plans. Such training for SETRC/RSSC personnel shall be updated and conducted annually.

Objective 1.4. Beginning February 1, 2002, each team shall schedule, conduct, and evaluate regional training programs for each module/topic by JMT Region or NYC Borough as follows:

1. New York City Team – two sessions per borough;
2. Long Island and Mid-Hudson Team – two sessions per county on Long Island; two sessions per JMT for Mid-Hudson area; and
3. Upstate Team – one session per JMT; two for North Country/Mohawk Region.

(Note: 250 person days are allowed for Regional Training.) The training modules shall be continuously updated to reflect current research-proven knowledge and the regional presentation schedule repeated annually.

Objective 1.5. Beginning February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, each team shall provide up to 20 person days on-site training (job embedded) for targeted participating districts (up to 300 person days per team) on needs identified as root causes in the district’s CSPD plan. Such training shall be coordinated through the RSSC and SETRC and will serve the following number of targeted participating districts:

1. NYC Team: seven community school districts with two or three schools each (total 14-21 schools),
2. Long Island/Mid-Hudson: 12 districts (7 on Long Island, 2 in Mid-Hudson JMT, 2 in Lower-Hudson JMT, and the City of Yonkers), and
3. Upstate: 15 districts (2 per JMT, plus the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse).

Objective 1.6. Beginning February 1, 2002 and annually thereafter, each SIG Team shall provide up to 250 person days in-district training for targeted non-funded districts or State agencies with responsibility for students with disabilities on needs identified as root causes in the district’s or agency CSPD plan. Such training shall be requested and coordinated through the RSSC and SETRC, in collaboration with VESID. Each RSSC region served by the SIG Team shall be allocated an equivalent amount of time.

Objective 1.7. Beginning February 1, 2002, and thereafter as appropriate, the training modules and follow-up training materials shall be provided to the Higher Education Support Center for use with the higher education community (see Goal 3 – page 58).

Goal 2 – Districts and schools targeted for SIG activities (participating and non-funded) will demonstrate improvement in key performance measures and indicators of disproportionality.

Objective 2.1. Target districts selected.

2.1.1. – Funded districts

Group A – 2000-2001, 2001-2002 – These districts are identified in Appendix E and were selected based on performance and disproprotionality data. An additional five districts are in the process of selection for the Long Island/Lower Hudson region.

Group B – 2002-2003, 2003-2004 – These districts will be selected in the spring 2002 for project participation in September 2002.

Group C – 2004-2005, 2005-2006 – These districts will be selected in the spring 2004 for project participation in September 2004.

2.1.2. – Nonfunded districts

Nonfunded districts will be selected on the basis of need (performance and disproportionality) in consultation with VESID, RSSC, SETRC, and other stakeholders as appropriate.

Objective 2.2. By September 1 of each year, and annually thereafter, each participating district shall have an approved CSPD plan that is based on district/school data relating to key performance measures, disproportionality measures, and other indicators of performance. Such plan shall specify areas in need of improvement; root causes for those needs; appropriate goals and benchmarks to indicate satisfactory progress; strategies to address the identified needs including personnel development initiatives, involvement by the SIG Team to address root causes, and linkages to effective programs; and evaluation procedures based on key performance and disproportionality measures. Such plan shall be developed in consultation with the RSSC and SETRC.

Objective 2.3. Beginning September 1 and annually thereafter, each targeted district implements the school improvement strategies associated with its approved CSPD plan as a condition of SIG Team involvement.

Objective 2.4. By July 31 of each year and annually thereafter, each targeted district completes an evaluation of program outcomes based on completion of performance and disproportionality goals and benchmarks established in its plan and evaluation guidelines provided by the SIG Evaluation Contractor. Such evaluation results are to be provided to the VESID, RSSC, SETRC, SIG Teams, and SIG evaluation contractors for use in local planning and statewide evaluation efforts.

Goal 3 – Faculty at institutions of higher education with teacher training programs are knowledgeable about the research-proven processes, instructional strategies, intervention strategies, and related factors that contribute to improvements in key performance measures, and disproportionality that teachers entering service in schools are expected to know, and incorporate such information and skills in teacher training programs.

Objective 3.1. By September 1, 2001 and annually thereafter, each targeted SIG district/school will utilize ten percent of its SIG allocation to support the participation of an IHE member on its professional development team. An agreement meeting the terms specified in the January 2001 field memorandum (Appendix E) will be in place.

Objective 3.2. By October 15 of each year, the Higher Education Support Center will provide/coordinate training on local school district planning processes (CSPD development, identification of root causes, goals and benchmarks, implementation of professional development initiatives, evaluation) for Institutions of Higher Education faculty representatives designated for targeted districts. Such training shall also address the roles and responsibilities of RSSC, SETRC, and SIG Team personnel and the development of effective induction programs for new teachers.

Objective 3.3. Beginning April 1, 2002, the Higher Education Support Center shall arrange for the dissemination of the training modules developed by the SIG Teams to the higher education community. Such dissemination may involve presentations at NYSATE and NYACTE (see page 6) conferences, regional training provided by SIG Team members, and electronically through the Center’s web site with download capability for the modules.

Objective 3.4. Beginning September 1, 2001, the Higher Education Support Center shall maintain a web site on effective practices associated with LEA-IHE partnerships, inclusionary (blended) teacher preparation programs, and effective research-proven educational practices associated with the root causes addressed by New York’s SIG.

Objective 3.5. Beginning September 1, 2001, and three times a year thereafter, the Higher Education Support Center will convene New York’s Task Force on Quality Inclusive Educational Programs to further promote the goals of the SIG and the Higher Education Support Center within New York’s higher education community.

Objective 3.6. Beginning August 31, 2002, and thereafter, the Higher Education Support Center shall submit an annual evaluation of the outcomes of objectives 3.1 through 3.5 according to the evaluation plan in section 7.

TOP
New York SED Hiring Practices

The New York State Education Department has long had a policy regarding recruitment and appointment of staff that is based on equal opportunity for all persons. All appointments are approved by the Department’s Office of Diversity, Ethics, and Access. All contractors or sub-grantees are required to have an equivalent recruitment and hiring policy in effect.

VESID’s strong commitment to this policy is emphasized by the establishment of a Recruitment and Outreach Unit charged with the responsibility of identifying individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals with disabilities, who qualify for Civil Service titles that VESID traditionally uses. The Recruitment and Outreach Unit assists potential candidates to access the Civil Service examination process in order to be placed on appropriate State Civil Service lists.

Qualifications of Key Project Personnel

TOP
State Education Department

The State Education Department will maintain two primary levels of involvement with the project: 1) Leadership/Management; and 2) Professional Support:

1. Leadership/Management

2. Professional Support

Project Director – A 1.0 FTE professional-level position of Project Director (Grade 26 Associate) will be established to meet the unique needs of this project and will be maintained for the duration of the grant. The incumbent is responsible for daily operations, oversight of all activities associated with the project, and for coordinating initiatives across program areas. The unique characteristics of a successful candidate include:

1. Certification in special education and experience as a special educator and administrator.
2. Experience in the development, delivery, and evaluation of training programs.
3. Experience in State-level policy and program development initiatives associated with professional development, network implementation, and quality assurance.
4. Experience with the major infrastructure components identified for this SIG (SETRC, RSSC, Higher Education Support Center).
5. Experience in the development, implementation, and evaluation of district-level CSPD plans, professional development plans, or equivalent.
6. Demonstrated leadership ability.

Recruitment for this position will be targeted toward individuals who have been traditionally under-represented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. Additional support to the Project Director and Management will be provided by VESID and will include the Team Leaders of the Lifelong Services Team and the Professional Development Teams and their staff.

Matthew Giugno, an Associate with the Professional Development Team, will be assigned at .25 FTE to work with the Project Director on implementation activities. Mr. Giugno has extensive professional development experience and project management experience. He has co-directed New York’s Statewide Systems Change grant since 1990 and has developed, conducted, and evaluated numerous professional development training programs for VESID. Mr. Giugno’s SIG-specific strengths are his extensive background and involvement in VESID’s initiatives for higher education, including the establishment of the Higher Education Support Center at Syracuse University, and his extensive background in developing and packaging training materials for distribution through turnkey providers. Mr. Giugno’s resume is in Appendix F. Secretarial and clerical support will be provided at no cost to the grant through existing resources.

TOP
The three field-based SIG Teams will be recruited and hired by host Regional School Support Centers, in accordance with local policy and assurances for affirmative action and equal opportunity required by the State. Each team shall be staffed by professionals demonstrating characteristics 2, 4, and 5 described under the Project Director description (page 63) and one position each with certification and/or experience as a:

• Special education/general education teacher,
• Reading specialist/literacy development specialist,
• Bilingual specialist/bilingual evaluator, or
• Pupil Personnel Services professional with specialization in parental involvement, mental health coordination, and strength-based planning.

Collectively, the team shall represent the expertise, knowledge, and skills to effectively provide training and follow-up on the areas associated with "Root Causes" in Section 2 (page 36) of this application.

TOP
Adequacy of Support

The resources of the New York State Education Department will be available to the Project Director and staff and, through the Director, to the field-based SIG Teams. Technology, including desktop and notebook computers, LCD and DLP projection units, and video teleconferencing are available at VESID regional offices and are at the disposal of project staff. All New York State Education Department offices are fully computerized, linked via UNISYS mainframe computer, with remote log-in capabilities. Thus, communication among all project staff, management, field-based personnel, targeted districts/schools, and infrastructure components (RSSCs, SETRCs, Higher Education Support Center) will be readily available.

The host sites for the three SIG Teams are Regional School Support Centers that were selected based on similar institutional and networking capabilities.

TOP
The major partners involved in the implementation of the proposed project are the three host Regional School Support Centers where the SIG Teams will be located, the Higher Education Support Center at Syracuse University, and the targeted participating districts. Additionally, each targeted participation district will involve an Institution of Higher Education, a Parent Center and other State agencies as appropriate, in district-based professional development activities.

With the exception of the additional group of districts from Long Island which are in the selection process, a signed participation agreement is available (Appendix E) for each district in the first cohort of districts. Similar agreements will be required for each new group of districts.

The Regional School Support Centers (RSSC) were established to support high-need, low-performing districts through coordination of resources and targeted professional development. The SIG Teams are viewed as a much-needed tool by the RSSCs to address root causes for low-performance and disproportionality in targeted districts. The RSSC commitment to the SIG strategies is emphasized by the letters of support from the District Superintendents and Executive Directors of the RSSCs (Appendix A).

The Higher Education Support Center at Syracuse University was established specifically to support the goals and activities of this SIG proposal. The Center is operational and is initiating activities with RSSCs, targeted districts, and participating Institutions of Higher Education. Letters of support from Syracuse University, the organizations representing teacher training programs in New York (NYCATE and NYACTE) and a sampling of Institutions of Higher Education that will be working directly with targeted LEAs are included in Appendix A.

Additional letters of support from the federally-funded Parent Training and Information Centers indicating their support of the SIG proposal and their willingness to work with targeted districts are also included in Appendix A.

TOP
The New York State Education Department is applying for $1,800,000 per year for five years under the IDEA 2000-2001 State Improvement Grant competition. The State Education Department will supplement the award with $3,605,000 per year from IDEA discretionary funds to support the activities and infrastructure described in this grant and provide administrative in-kind support. The following budget narrative describes SIG grant expenditures and New York State Education Department expenditures.

TOP
Project Director Position – The Project Director position is a Grade 26 Associate hired by the Education Department for the duration of the grant. Salary, fringe and mandated indirect costs are $113,850 for 2001-2002, with three percent annual increases calculated through the end of the project period.

Required Project Director’s Meetings – Each year, $3,000 is included for mandatory and discretionary project director’s meetings in Washington and related in-state travel.

SIG Teams

TOP
Each year, $1,600,000 is budgeted to support three teams of four professionals each. The budget provides $600,000 for the Long Island/Lower Hudson Team, $500,000 for the New York City Team, and $500,000 for the Upstate Team. The higher budgeted amount for the Long Island/Lower Hudson Team reflects the higher personnel costs and program costs for these regions compared to the rest of the State. It is expected that professional staff in the New York City and Upstate regions will be compensated in the $50,000 to $60,000 range (base salary), whereas comparable staff on Long Island will be compensated in the $80,000 range. It is expected that the funding for each team will provide an actual budget of between $75,000 and $100,000 to cover development and packaging of training modules and follow-up materials, scheduling and conducting regional training on each module in each JMT, providing intensive in-district support, and travel. Each sponsoring agency for the SIG Teams will be required to submit a detailed staffing and project plan, including a budget showing specific program costs.

Project Evaluation

TOP
The amount of $83,150 (or 4.6 percent of the SIG) is budgeted annually for project evaluation utilizing an Evaluation Contractor determined through RFP. The evaluation strategy is presented in Section 7 of this grant.

TOP
IDEA requires that 75 percent of each SIG award be used to support staff development activities. New York’s proposal exceeds this requirement. The three SIG Teams are budgeted at $1,600,000, or 89 percent of the requested SIG award of $1,800,000. It should also be noted that VESID imposes the same 75 percent training requirement on LEAs funded for SIG participation with IDEA discretionary money. As described in the Project Design section, each team represents 880 work days of which 800 (90 percent) are allocated for regional training (250 days), in-district training for funded, targeted districts (300 days) and in-district/agency training for non-funded targeted districts/agencies (250 days).

TOP
The following items represent VESID’s supplemental funds and in-kind support allocated specifically for SIG goals and objectives.

• Targeted participating districts – Districts identified for participation in the SIG receive $50,000 per year for two years to implement personnel development plans. Thirty-four districts are targeted for Year 1 for a total of $1,700,000. At least ten percent of this allocation must be subgranted to an institution of higher education with a teacher training program (totaling $175,000 per year) and at least five percent of this allocation must be subgranted to a Parent Training and Information Center (totaling $87,500 per year). Additional districts may be added at a later date depending on availability of funds.
• Higher Education Support Center – The Support Center is budgeted at $225,000 per year to carry out the activities associated with this grant. Additional funds are being pursued to expand the capability of the Center to provide training and support to additional districts and Institutions of Higher Education.
• Regional School Support Centers – Annually, $1,680,000 is budgeted for RSSCs to work directly with targeted districts. Each RSSC is required to utilize $20,000 of its allocation to identify exemplary practices and to match those practices to districts in need of improvement. The remaining allocation supports Center personnel and training activities.
  

TOP
VESID in-kind contributions include:

• All costs associated with VESID Senior Managers;
• All costs associated with Advisory Committee meetings, including travel and related expenses for participants;
• All costs associated with other VESID professional staff assigned to the project (i.e., .25 FTE for Matthew Giugno); and
• All costs associated with support staff.

TOP
In consideration of New York’s experience in operating statewide training networks and redirecting those networks to have maximum impact on low-performing districts, this SIG and the strategies associated with the SIG represent a relatively low-cost yet high-impact approach to systems change. The fact that the strategies build off an existing infrastructure and supplement ongoing reform initiatives further enhances cost-effectiveness.

TOP
The Education Department and its partners are fully committed to the ongoing systemic change represented by this grant and are prepared to continue with these strategies. The New York State Education Department has demonstrated its commitment and support for the concepts and strategies imbedded in this SIG by proactively moving forward with critical infrastructure components prior to submission of the grant. The Department will continue to identify and support low-performing schools after the fifth year of funding, and will seek funding to continue the Higher Education Support Center and SIG Teams.

TOP
Defined Responsibilities, Timelines, Milestones

As indicated in Section 4, Quality of Project Personnel, VESID will assign management and professional staff to the project as needed to ensure project success.

TOP
Fredric DeMay, Senior Project Manager, is allocated at .25 FTE to this project and will assume responsibility for the following activities upon notification of grant approval:

• Initiate internal personnel procedures to post and recruit for the position of Project Director. It is expected that this process will be completed and an appointment made by October 1, 2001.
• By August 1, 2001, issue a memorandum to inform all constituents of the intent, goals, activities and outcomes associated with the SIG.
• Contact the SIG Team host sites to prepare grant/contract amendments for the establishment of SIG Teams, provide technical assistance to sites during the development of their grant amendments, and approve amendments as submitted. It is expected that this activity will take place between notification and the actual start date of the project (September 1, 2001) in order to allow SIG Team host sites to actively recruit for team members prior to the beginning of the school year/project year.
• By August 15, 2001, in consultation with VESID SIG Leadership Team, review, modify if needed and approve SIG project workplan developed by project staff.
• Develop a multimedia presentation on the intent, goals, activities and outcomes of the SIG. Contact and schedule presentations with appropriate constituent groups and organizations.
• Develop, in collaboration with the Project Director, a one-day training program for SIG Team members providing detailed information on the SIG program, SED’s infrastructure components, and the evaluation model for the SIG. This training shall occur after the teams are identified but no later than November 1, 2001.
• Convene meetings of the VESID Leadership Team and SED Leadership to discuss overall coordination of SIG activities with other VESID and Department initiatives. These meetings shall occur by September 15, 2001 and quarterly thereafter.
• Meet with Project Staff weekly during initial implementation phases.

Professional – Project Director

TOP
Matthew Giugno, Associate, is assigned to the SIG at .25 FTE and will act as interim Project Director until that position is filled. The Project Director will be assigned to VESID’s Lifelong Services Team and will report directly to the Supervisor of that team. The Lifelong Services Team is responsible for all external networks such as Special Education Training Resource Centers, Independent Living Centers, Regional School Support Centers, and related programs and maintains detailed workplans for each project. Mr. Giugno is currently assigned to VESID’s Personnel Development Team which has responsibility for the development and delivery of training programs. Upon appointment of a Project Director, Mr. Giugno will have primary responsibility for activities and functions associated with the Higher Education Support Center. The following responsibilities are assigned to the Project Director and professional staff.

• By August 1, 2001, develop, in collaboration with the VESID Lifelong Services Team, a detailed workplan including activities, tasks, expected outcomes and responsibilities for implementation of the SIG.
• By August 1, 2001, develop detailed job descriptions and expectations for SIG Team members to provide to SIG Team host sites.
• Develop, in collaboration with the Senior Project Manager, a multimedia presentation on the SIG and a one-day training program for SIG Team members.
• Beginning in August 2001, in collaboration with the Senior Project Manager, contact and schedule presentations with appropriate constituent groups and organizations.
• By September 1, 2001, contact each funded targeted district to review the intent, goals, activities and outcomes associated with the district’s participation agreement.
• By November 1, 2001, and by September 1 of each year thereafter, receive, review and discuss with targeted LEAs, SETRC, RSSC and representatives the CSPD, personnel development plans, goals, benchmarks, evaluation strategies and budget for each targeted, funded district.
• By November 1, 2001, ensure that a development format and schedule for all training topic modules and follow-up training is in place across the three SIG Teams. Review and approve all modules and materials prior to use in the field.
• By February 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, ensure that a comprehensive regional delivery schedule for all training modules is in place and disseminated to all constituent groups including State agencies, parent groups and other interested parties.
• By February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, ensure that a schedule for intensive in-district follow-up training is developed and provided for each targeted funded district.
• By November 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, compile, in collaboration with VESID leadership and RSSC Executive Committee, a list of targeted, non-funded districts/schools in need of training through the SIG.
• By February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, ensure that a schedule for in-district follow-up is developed and provided for targeted, non-funded districts.
• By August 31, 2001, and annually thereafter, compile and summarize individual district and statewide evaluation data as per procedures presented in Section 7 of the SIG (Evaluation).
• By October 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, coordinate activities with targeted, funded districts and the Higher Education Support Center to ensure that each target district has an appropriate agreement and contractual arrangement in place with an Institution of Higher Education.
• By October 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, coordinate activities with targeted, funded districts, RSSCs and Parent Training and Information Centers to ensure that each target district has an appropriate agreement and contractual arrangement in place with a Parent Training and Information Center or other appropriate parent organization.
• By February 1, 2002, and annually thereafter, coordinate activities with the Higher Education Support Center to ensure that Institutions of Higher Education representatives on LEA teams are provided training on LEA planning processes and that SIG training modules are provided to the Institutions of Higher Education community.
• By September 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, coordinate activities with the Higher Education Support Center to ensure that all activities described in the Project Design section – Goal 3 are addressed.
• By October 15, 2001, and biannually thereafter, schedule, plan and convene meetings of a SIG Advisory Board.

TOP
As part of project management, the Department will establish a SIG Advisory Panel to provide guidance on all activities and outcomes associated with the project. The panel will represent the diversity of the State and will include constituents from all interest groups associated with the SIG, including required partners. The Panel will meet biannually and will include representatives from the following groups/ organizations.

TOP
The project evaluation will provide evidence and information related to each of the major factors framing the project within each of the three contexts for the initiative: the target districts, the regional, and the state levels. The evaluation will be framed by a Logic Model structure for the project which includes Project Goals, Project Objectives, Project Resource Inputs, Project Activities and Strategies, Outputs of Activities and Strategies, Intermediate Outcome Indicators, and End Outcome Indicators. The Project Goals and End Outcome Indicators will form the parallel "bookends" for both the project and the evaluation. Evaluation methodology will not only focus on project activities and outcomes, but on how these multiple factors loop back to the goals and objectives of the project.

The methods themselves, providing both quantitative and qualitative information, will be based on sound and accepted research protocols and will be conducted by an objective outside organization, Syracuse University. Project goals and objectives will generate the evaluation questions to be addressed; generated methods will be determined through contexts provided by the project inputs, activities, and strategies; effectiveness data will be determined by the project’s intermediate and outcome indicators as well as quality criteria related to performance and delivery. As the State Logic Model and State Work Plan ( Figures 1 and 2) demonstrate, the delivery of project services is at the same time linear and integrative. Resources and activities affect multiple outcomes and objectives. The evaluation data reported to the State will of necessity take these contexts into account.

For the evaluation of the SIG project, a logic model was developed (Figure 1). This presents the theoretical underpinnings of the program and how it is intended to bring about end or long-term outcomes. The logic model is comprised of components dedicated to describing the project’s goals, objectives, resources materials (inputs), activities/strategies, outputs of activities/strategies, intermediate outcome indicators, and end outcome indicators.

The concepts in the logic model are interrelated. In studying the model, one can see that the goals and objectives are reflected in the model, and as the activities are implemented they are expected to first bring about the outputs. Over time, the activities and outputs are expected to bring about the intermediate outcomes. And after more time has elapsed, the forces of the intermediate outcomes should combine and produce the end-outcomes, which are directly related to the original goals of the project.

It is important to note the outcomes are a result of the combined forces listed in the previous columns. The activities combine to produce the outputs. The outputs combine to produce the intermediate outcomes. And the intermediate outcomes combine to produce the end outcomes.

As the layout of the logic model suggests, the activities/strategies must take place first. The second types of changes we can expect to see are the outputs, then third, the intermediate outcomes, and lastly the end-outcomes. Because these types of events are expected to come in a general order, the evaluation will follow that order. For example, the evaluation will first examine the outputs and the intermediate outcomes indicators that are expected to be impacted more quickly (such as knowledge). Following this examination, the more complex intermediate outcomes, such as change in behavior, will be examined. And while the evaluation team will design a tracking system to examine the end outcomes, final impact (end outcomes) are not expected to emerge until after the program has been fully implemented and some time has elapsed.

Databases will be established for each of the factors studied within the evaluation. A tracking system will be established for studying incremental growth within each of the activity and outcome components. A statistical package will be employed to document growth and to provide correlational information for reporting summatively and formatively to the districts, the region and State and federal levels.

The following are the proposed evaluation methodologies for:

• Project Activities and Outputs
• Intermediate Outcomes
• End Outcomes

TOP
Regional training. The first sets of activities and outputs that will take place are the compilation or development of 12 regional training modules. These materials will focus on the root causes of overrepresentation and/or poor student performance and will contain best practices in reading, literacy, math, mental health, student planning, behavioral interventions, home-school collaboration, prereferral interventions, IEP development, evaluation of language and ethnic minority students, and cultural diversity. These documents will be developed by the SIG team, which will be comprised of subject matter experts. The first step of the evaluation has been built in by the team structure. As the documents are being researched and compiled/developed, the individuals in the team will work as metaevaluators to help ensure that the documents contain information expected to be most useful and of highest quality.

In addition, before the materials are used to train, they will be piloted with a group of people who represent the intended audience of the regional trainings. Factors of appropriateness, quality, and value will be investigated. The results of the pilot test will be used to modify the regional training modules.

During the regional trainings, an additional layer of formative evaluation will be built into the process. Participants during the first trainings will be asked to provide detailed feedback about the quality and usefulness of the training and distributed materials. This will be conducted by surveying the participants and possibly follow-up phone interviews. Based on the evaluative feedback, the SIG team will improve the materials during additional time that will be allotted between the first and second trainings for each of the 12 regional modules.

In addition to surveying the first participants of the regional training, a standard evaluation form will be completed by all training participants throughout the duration of the project. The survey results related to knowledge, appropriateness, quality, and value will be continuously monitored by the SIG team to maintain the integrity of the project. In addition, these forms will be reviewed by the OPD evaluation team on a quarterly basis. The evaluation team will look for recommended areas of improvement and will alert the "management" of any problem areas that do not appear to be remedied over time.

In-depth training. Just as with the materials for the regional training, additional in-depth training materials will be developed for each of the modules that focus on the root causes of overrepresentation and poor student performance. The input of these sessions will be monitored using the same survey to assess their knowledge of the content gained through the training. These will also highlight best practices in reading, literacy, math, mental health, student planning, behavioral interventions, home-school collaboration, prereferral interventions, IEP development, evaluation of language and ethnic minority students, and cultural diversity. These documents will also be developed by the SIG team. The first step of the evaluation of these materials has been built in by the team structure. As the materials are being researched and compiled/developed, the individuals in the team will work as metaevaluators to help ensure that the training materials contain information expected to be most useful and of highest quality.

Before the materials are used to train, they will be piloted with a group of people who represent the intended audience of the in-depth trainings. Information will be gathered on factors of knowledge, opportunities, quality and value. This information, in combination with applicable feedback from the evaluation of the 12 regional training modules, will be used to modify the in-depth training materials.

During the in-depth training, the RSSC teams will work with participating districts to develop a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development plan (CSPD) for each district/school. These steps involved with development of a CSPD plan include: 1) identify and prioritize district-specific root causes of overrepresentation and/or poor student performance, 2) set related district goals and benchmarks, 3) analyze their current referral system and teaching practices, 4) suggest and coordinate staff development training based on their root cases, goals, referral and teaching system and practices, and 5) provide support for implementation, evaluation, and modification of the referral and teaching system and practices.

The evaluation team will work with the RSSC teams to develop a CSPD Assessment Form to be used in each selected district. The CSPD Assessment Form, when created and completed by each district, will capture a snapshot of the 1) prioritized root causes, 2) goals and benchmarks, 3) current referral system, 4) teaching practices, 5) suggested new teaching and/or referral system, and 6) suggested plan for coordinating the staff development, including their supportive role in carrying out the plan. The evaluation team will examine each plan (CSPD Form) for soundness in logic, given that the components are to be interrelated. The RSSC’s will be made aware of gaps in logic and will provide suggestions for closing the gaps and modifying the plan when needed.

To evaluate this progress over time, each of the RSSC’s will develop a management plan to help ensure that the RSSC teams have enough time to work with each of the selected districts. The progress will be examined by the "project manager." The project manager will work with the RSSC’s to develop strategies to stay within the timeline. The OPD evaluation team will document these strategies as well as predicted vs. actual progress in the annual report.

The next activity involves the SIG team. They will take the plans (CSPDs) and carry out the recommended trainings for each district a school, providing up to 20 days of on-site training per targeted district. The training process will be evaluated by the participants. They will complete a survey to provide formative feedback to the SIG team regarding their performance, the quality, and the appropriateness of content. The SIG team will use this information to improve future trainings. The impact of the training sessions will be summatively evaluated based on the knowledge, skills, and implementation of the best practices as it relates to the objectives of the training. The methods for evaluating these outcomes will be described in the section Intermediate Outcomes.

Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) and Higher Education Support Center (HESC). To help ensure that best practices and root causes are understood by teachers coming into the system, the Higher Education Support Center (Higher Education Support Center) will be working with professors at institutions of higher education across New York State. These institutions will work as a Task Force to explore ways in which the SIG materials can be incorporated into teacher preparation programs. Targeted school districts will develop contracts with regional IHEs to provide technical assistance in the schools to help with problem solving regarding root causes and implementation of best practices in accordance with each district’s unique needs and plans. HESC will support the IHE efforts by providing a range of technical assistance and resources determined by the needs of IHE faculty members working in targeted school districts. HESC will evaluate the IHE performance in relation to the contracts. In addition, the professors at the IHE’s will be asked to complete a survey that describes the helpfulness of HESC and will ask for suggestions for service improvement.

TOP
Over time, intermediate outcomes will emerge and the evaluation will document and study these outcomes. The indicators to undergo evaluation include: 1) awareness and knowledge of root causes and best practices; 2) evidence of best practices in action, more accurate identification procedures and criteria, more representational placement; 3) district systems change toward reinforcement of practice, reduction of over-representation, and improved student placement; 4) integration of training and curricular revision within higher education teacher preparation programs. Following each regional training session, participants will be surveyed to assess their knowledge of the content presented and disseminated regarding the root causes of overrepresentation and/or poor student performance and the best practices to address these problems. To assess the integration of this knowledge into classroom practice, we will conduct a follow-up survey three months after the regional trainings. We will survey a representative sample of practitioners from each region (who attended the trainings) to determine how much knowledge has been retained and implemented.

In order to develop and sustain long-term change, a district must develop its own capacity to address problems of poor student performance and overrepresentation. The development of prereferral systems, teaching practices and supervision models which reinforce the implementation of best practices is facilitated and/or directed by school administrators with support from the SIG team, the RSSC staff and IHE. Intermediate progress in achieving district identified goals will be monitored by evaluating attainment of benchmarks included in the district’s CSPD plan. Attainment of benchmarks indicates a district is making satisfactory progress whereas non-attainment may indicate a need to modify the district’s intervention strategies. To assess the systems change aspect of this project, we will administer a survey for school leadership to identify policy and procedural changes which have been made to support more accurate identification of special education students, assure and more representational placement of students in special education and to reinforce the use of best practices. A representative sample of practitioners will also be surveyed to determine if there has been widespread participation in the development and implementation of these initiatives.

Institutions of Higher Education are uniquely positioned to support both the work of in-service and pre-service teacher practice in addressing issues of overrepresentation and student performance. Higher Education Support Center will use its website and an annual report to document and disseminate the development of programs within these Institutions of Higher Education and with targeted school districts.

TOP
Lastly, the end outcomes will emerge. These outcomes are the culmination of all that has preceded and relate directly to the three stated goals of the grant proposal. To evaluate the status of the achievement gap that exists between special education and general education students, a two-prong quantitative data analysis is recommended. First, an examination of the performance scores that measure achievement (as described in the Key Performance Indicators) will be conducted to compare scores between these two groups. Then, we will examine performance scores within each population to compare the growth rate for students with disabilities to the growth rate for students who do not have disabilities. This second measure is intended to disaggregate data for future analysis and planning. This same data analysis technique will be used to evaluate the performance gap between students in high and low-need districts.

The measures used to identify problems of disproportionality in the Report on the Implementation of Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 (released by VESID January 2001) will be re-employed in a pre and post-project evaluation model to determine progress in this goal area. These measures examined district’s classification and placement data as reported by the districts on statewide, mandated reporting forms. Additionally, a set of short surveys from the original pre-project instrument will be modified to gather information regarding remedies that districts have implemented to address disproportionality.

TOP
The Office of Professional Development (OPD) and the Department of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation (IDD&E) at Syracuse University will be the primary investigators to conduct the evaluation of the NYSED SIG project. The OPD has a long history of quality evaluation locally, regionally, and statewide for research and evaluation services for significant educational initiatives, including recent evaluation of ten years of VESID’s Systems Change program. IDD&E faculty and specialists have an international reputation for design and for evaluation of complex education initiatives nationally and internationally. The evaluation team will design, develop, and implement an evaluation protocol in collaboration with NYSED project directors that will be based on project contexts, intents, and objectives based on activities. Statistics and reporting will meet criteria important to both federal and State interests, with a special focus on data – qualitative and quantitative – that will result in a validated model for dissemination and use.

State Improvement Grant Logic Model
TOP

Current initiatives funded by IDEA Part B discretionary funds:

• RSSC teams

• Basic Higher Educational Support Center

• Limited number of IHE

Feedback from trained participants regarding regional training module and in-depth training materials .

List of targeted and funded districts

Plans for each district which include:

1. Prioritized root causes
2. Goals and bench-marks
3. Analysis of current referral system

4. Analysis of teaching practices
5. A plan for a new system for teaching and referring Teachers, administrators, and other staff who are trained in best practices by SIG, IHE, and other consultants

A new teaching and referral system that has been evaluated, modified/

Improved IHE Task Force meetings hosted by HESC

HESC website

HESC evaluation report

Increased teacher and staff knowledge of best practices (each district will focus on a select number of best practices)

Increased implementation of best practices by teacher and staff

Increased reinforcement of best practices by system and administrators

More accurate identification of special education students

More representational placement of students in special education settings

Increased potential for districts to develop their own system changes to reduce over-representation

Increased potential for districts to develop their own system changes to improve student performance

Increased awareness within Higher Education regarding the processes used by school districts to address root causes

Increased participation of Institutions of Higher Education in targeted school districts efforts to improve key performance indicators

Integration of SIG training materials into existing pre-service teacher preparation programs at IHE

The proportion of minority students in special education will be reduced so that it is similar to the proportion of minority students in the school districts.

And more minority students are appropriately placed in special education and general education.

A reduced gap in student performance between high need and low-need districts

This plan explains the chronological layout of project’s objectives and activities.