THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

COORDINATOR

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES

SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY AND PARTNERSHIP

Tel: 518-486-7462

Fax 518-402-3583

 

October 2004
Available in PDF Format for printing

To:	BOCES District Superintendents
	Superintendents of Big Four Cities
	SETRC Professional Development Specialists and Project Directors
	Executive Directors of Regional School Support Centers
	VESID Special Education Quality Assurance
From:	Fredric DeMay
Subject:	Program Update for the Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) Network

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on changes to Standard Operating Procedures for the SETRC Network that will take place concurrent with the new five-year contract.  These changes are the result of ongoing discussions that have occurred within the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and with stakeholders over the past several months and are intended to provide: 1) increased coordination between SETRC Professional Development Specialists (PDS), Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) staff and BOCES District Superintendents or Big Four City Superintendents; 2) increased flexibility in how SETRC resources are directed to districts and schools most in need of improvement; and 3) improved reporting and accountability procedures in recognition of the need to replace the Targeted District Narrative Report (TDNR) process.

It is important to note that these changes are being made in recognition of the continuing evolution of the SETRC program into a performance-based network intended to improve student results and the ongoing need to ensure that SETRC functions within the overall spectrum of school improvement initiatives across the State Education Department (SED).  The SETRC network has outgrown the need for several administrative tools that VESID developed and utilized during the “redirect” of the network to its current model.  Additionally, the emerging importance of collaborative and coordinated efforts across VESID, the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continuing Education (EMSC) and the various technical assistance providers and other stakeholders require new protocols for program planning and management.

Specific changes and rationale are as follows:

The role of SETRC in VESID’s General Supervision strategy and the relationship between SETRC and SEQA.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), every state is charged with the responsibility to ensure local district compliance with the federal mandate.  This “General Supervision” responsibility has traditionally been viewed by VESID as the role of the SEQA offices with a historical focus on Quality Assurance monitoring, on-site reviews, and complaint resolution.  In recent years, VESID leadership has recognized the importance of professional development (PD) and technical assistance (TA) as a dynamic strategy to address program quality and student outcomes under its General Supervision responsibility.  As such, VESID’s Program Development and Support Services (PDSS) Unit, with responsibility for network administration, and the SEQA unit began to view district-specific PD and TA initiatives as part of a continuum of strategies under the State’s General Supervision umbrella.  In some cases a General Supervision strategy could be very structured and intensive (such as a multi-year Focused Review) whereas in other cases it could be less formal (SETRC only).  By considering all district-specific PD and TA to be part of the State’s General Supervision model, the State is able to support many more districts through school improvement efforts. 

Consistent with the SETRC Request for Proposal (RFP), the designation of districts will be the joint responsibility of SETRC and SEQA staff for each BOCES region and Big Four City, with final approval of the District Superintendent or Big Four City Superintendent and SEQA Supervisor.  The Executive Director of the Regional School Support Center is an important stakeholder in the selection of designated districts/schools and should be consulted throughout the process.

We are also requiring each SETRC program to collaborate with the Regional SEQA Supervisor, the BOCES District Superintendents or Big Four City Superintendent and the Regional School Support Center (RSSC) Executive Director to develop a Regional (BOCES or Big Four City) workplan of PD/TA services provided to districts/schools under VESID’s “General Supervision” responsibility.  The Regional SEQA Supervisor will take responsibility for the development of the VESID Regional Workplan.  The workplan will reflect the work of SEQA and the SETRC network as well as the nature of that work in districts/buildings within the territory assigned to each SEQA regional office.  The workplan and any amendments to the workplan designed to address emerging needs must be approved by the SEQA Supervisor in collaboration with the BOCES District Superintendent or Big Four City Superintendent  (or their designee).  The SEQA Supervisor will disseminate the VESID Regional Workplan to BOCES District Superintendents, Big Four City Superintendents, SEQA, PDSS, Office of School Improvement (OSI), SETRC and RSSC Directors.

The 80/20 percent rule will be replaced with collaborative district selection process

The 80/20 rule was originally established to ensure that network efforts were shifted from traditional menu-based, regional training to single district/school initiatives based on the unique needs and goals of that district/school.  The rule required that 80 percent of effort be devoted to single district initiatives with the remaining 20 percent for regional programs.  Over the past several years, we have observed growing acceptance of the concept that professional development must be cohesive with and tactically aligned to priority activities of VESID and EMSC to address schools most in need of improvement and be based on district and school level data-driven planning processes.   Therefore, and in consideration of the collaborative district selection process outlined above, the 80/20 rule can be modified based on regional needs.

What are the implications of this change?  We anticipate that there will be increased flexibility in directing SETRC resources to areas of need, but very little change in actual implementation because the SETRC program will continue to direct its efforts to single district/school initiatives.  The advantage is that local stakeholders (District Superintendent,  Big Four City Superintendent, SETRC, RSSC and SEQA) will not be inhibited by the 80/20 rule when addressing emerging situations that were not anticipated during the initial identification of designated districts.

The Targeted District Narrative Report  will be redesigned and replaced. 

The original TDNR and its evaluation rubric were developed as tools to ensure that the network evaluated and reported outcome data related to interventions provided by SETRC.  In recent years, it has become clear that some SETRC PDS were reluctant to become involved with certain low-performing districts because they were concerned that those districts would not benefit from SETRC involvement, which would reflect negatively on the evaluation rubric.  What was intended to be a program evaluation strategy was perceived as an evaluation of individual SETRC PDS skills.  As a result, some districts or schools that should have been designated for SETRC intervention were not selected.  The need to have evaluation procedures in place that highlight outcomes and results remains a high priority for SED and will remain a requirement for the SETRC network.  However, the actual procedures will be recommended by a SETRC/SEQA workgroup:

·      The BOCES District Superintendent or Big Four City Superintendent (or designee) and SEQA Supervisor will have ultimate responsibility for the selection of evaluation strategies to determine the effectiveness of interventions.  The type of evaluation strategy may vary depending on the level and intensity of intervention provided.  In most cases, the strategy should be data-driven, outcome-based and intended to evaluate the impact of the interventions provided.  VESID will provide or share evaluation strategies as they are developed.

·       VESID will collaborate with EMSC and other stakeholders to develop a standardized and simplified format for summarizing outcomes for reporting purposes.

 It is expected that 2004-05 will be a planning year and 2005-06 will bring full implementation of these changes.  As with previous developments with SETRC and other VESID TA providers, we consider these changes to be evolutionary in nature and responsive to the continually changing environment in which we work.  We look forward to working with SETRC and our stakeholders to implement these changes.

cc:        Rebecca Cort
            James Butterworth
            Daniel Johnson