Ohio Consortium to Improve the Teaching of Students with

Disabilities

October 23, 2008

Ohio’s Inter University Special Education Forum

Dublin, Ohio

My vision is that we create the kind of educational system where all students reach higher levels of

achievement… no matter where they live…no matter what their

background.

Susan Tave ZelmanSuperintendent of Public Instruction

◙ OVERVIEW

◙ INTRODUCTIONS

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

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

◙ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

◙ INTRODUCTIONSStephen Kroeger, Ed.D

Special Education Program CoordinatorUniversity of Cincinnati

Stephen.Kroeger@UC.EDU

Richard Welsch, Ph.DAssistant Professor

The University of Toledorichard.welsch@utoledo.edu

Linda Morrow, Ph.D. Robert Osgood, Ph.D.Professor of Education Assoc. Dean Acad. Affairs

Muskingum Collegelmorrow@muskingum.edu

Catherine D. Keener, Ph.D.Assistant Professor

Wright State Universitycatherine.keener@wright.edu

◙ FRAMEWORK

Ohio is taking a unique approach to redesigning special education

teacher preparation programs to improve services and results for

children with disabilities.

◙ FRAMEWORK

ODE is partnering with IHEs statewide as a member of the

Ohio Consortium to Improve the Teaching of Students with

Disabilities

◙ FRAMEWORK

The Consortium builds on the work of the Ohio Special Education Task

Force and was inspired by the OSEP grants awarded to several teacher preparation programs in Ohio in 2007 and again in 2008.

◙ FRAMEWORK

Special Education Pre-serviceTraining Improvement Grant

(CFDA 84.325T)

5 Domains of 84.325T• Domain 1: Improvement on Meeting

Licensure Standards • Domain 2: Improvement on Organizational

Structure and Instructional Delivery• Domain 3: Improvement on Curriculum and

Course Content• Domain 4: Improvement on Student Support• Domain 5: Program Evaluation

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 1: Improvement on Meeting Licensure Standards

• At least 2 academic content areas• Middle school guidelines & Praxis II• Beginning and advanced content courses• Collaboration with A&S and TE programs

• HQT Toolkit aligned with the criteria of local schools• Ohio Consortium Statewide collaboration

• 15 IHEs were present at the last meeting 9/24/08• 4 IHEs with Federal Grants• 7 IHEs with ODE SPED Grants

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 2: Improvement on Organizational Structure and

Instructional Delivery

• Moving from a discrete to integrated program• Co-enrollment in content, methods courses, and

field placements• Co-teaching/planning of university coursework• Pilot research project in co-teaching contexts• Action Research Project among programs• Changes are designed to survive the long-term

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 3:Improvement on Curriculum and Course Content

• Program curriculum – explicit focus on EBP• Analyze course syllabi –

• Improving curriculum to include EBP• IRIS modules aligned with courses• Cultural Diversity – increase urban placements

from 33% - 50%• Course sequence changes

• More advanced content courses later in program• Introductory courses earlier in program

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 4:Improvement on Student Support

• Course advising guides specific to content areas• Training days:

• Analysis of Student Work & TWSM• Co-Teaching, Analysis of Student work

• Integrated field experiences• Internship seminar –

• Integration of content & pedagogy• Professional cohort• Induction and retention – ODE innovations

◙ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

DOMAIN 5: Program EvaluationDomain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4

C. disposition report

Fluency w/EBP, teaming, etc. (CAL)

Mentor program evaluation

C. disposition progress reports

C. performance based on Praxis 3

Evaluation of systems & case studies (TWS)

Faculty evaluation program

C. evaluation of U.S.

C. evaluation of program

C. Evaluation of field experience

Employer, program evaluation

C. evaluation of program items

Employer eval U.S. evaluation of field placement

Superintendent survey

C. follow-up survey

Educator Impact Rubric

U.S. contact log Course evaluations

C. evaluation of field experience

C. tech use I. tech use Community perceptions

TQP Mentor nominations

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

Add text here

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

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

DOMAIN 1: Improvement on Meeting Licensure Standards

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

• Integrated training opportunities• Literacy courses• Middle-grade curriculum (co-teaching)

• Redesign field experiences

• Increased reliance on web-based learning

• Workshop/professional development in core content

DOMAIN 2: Improvement on Organizational Structure and

Instructional Delivery

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

• University Core • Prescribed focus on core content/subjects

• Pre-professional education and English/LA coursework

• Integrated training• Special education licensure coursework

• Evidence-based practices, quality field experiences• Professional development activities to meet needed HQT status

• Based on the job assignment

DOMAIN 3:Improvement on Curriculum and Course Content

◙ THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

DOMAIN 4:Improvement on Student Support

• Core Content Specialists

• Job-embedded mentoring and content knowledge (Spring term)

• Content Knowledge workshops (Summer)

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Add text here

Competence and Collaboration in Teaching Students with Disabilities – 84.325T

2008-2013

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year One• Network w Cohort I & II Ohio IHEs • Network w Cohort I & II IHEs nation wide –

• 22 in Cohort I (2007)• 20 in Cohort II (2008)

• Work with Ohio Consortium • Facilitate series of seminars for other private and/or smaller IHEs in Ohio

•Regional meetings fall 2008 and spring 2009 • Develop web-based communication networks that will extend beyond the project

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Year One, Cont.• Identify EBP, plan internal PD for faculty implementation• Engage current stakeholders and expand stakeholder base• Collaboratively re-design our undergraduate and graduate IS: M/M licensure programs with

•A&S faculty, •regional educators, •parents of students with disabilities, •current candidates and alumni

• Continue to pilot co-teaching practices in selected Muskingum teacher education courses• Pilot co-teaching professional development for regional teachers

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

Stakeholder CollaborationProject Steering Committee – 11 membersMeets Monthly: Math and science faculty, teacher education faculty (general and special education), field experience coordinator, parent of a student with a disability (also faculty), district superintendent and alumnus, New Albany High School intervention specialist and alumnus

Project Advisory Panel – additional 11 membersMeets Quarterly: Regional directors of special education (SST and ESC); ODE personnel from offices of educator preparation and special education; English and social science faculty; teacher education program advocates; Muskingum teacher education candidate; additional parent, special education teacher, and school administrator

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

• Complete re-designed program approval steps• Implement re-designed program• Identify field experience/student co-teaching sites

• Currently using• Interested in using

• Recruit and prepare mentor teachers • Focus on EBP and co-teaching

• Recruit college supervisors• Knowledge and skills to assess candidates

• Deepen content preparation to meet HQT requirements

Year Two

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

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

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

• Continue to network and collaborate with Cohort I, II and III IHEs and Ohio Consortium

• Continue marketing and recruitment efforts • Ensure all retention initiatives are in place• Assess candidates in field and clinical practice

placements• Continue professional development offerings, e.g.,

“Differentiation through co-teaching”• Offer revised courses with stipends provided for

faculty involved in co-planning and/or co-teaching initiatives

Years Three through Five

◙ MUSKINGUM COLLEGE

• Revise PII review offerings• Make revised content coursework available to

regional teachers still seeking HQT status in specific content areas

• Meet regularly with steering committee and advisory panel for feedback, recommendations, etc.

• Evaluate and analyze data from project activities• Gather exit data on candidates who have completed

all program requirements

Years Three through Five, Cont.

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Program Revision/Expansion• Middle Childhood – 2 Core Content Areas• Special Education – Pedagogical Skills

Ohio Consortium – Statewide Collaboration

DOMAIN 1: Improvement on Meeting License Standards

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Unit Collaboration Committee• College of Education/Human Services (CEHS)• College of Science/Mathematics (COSM)• College of Liberal Arts (COLA)

Cohort Model Delivery• 20-25 Preservice Teacher Candidates• 10-15% - CLD

DOMAIN 2:Improvement on Organizational

Structure and Instructional Delivery

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Revise/Expand Program Curriculum• Analyze/Integrate Syllabi

Seminars – IRIS (STAR) Modules• Co-Teaching• Response to Intervention (RTI)

DOMAIN 3:Improvement on Curriculum and Course Content

◙ WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Recruitment/Retention•Student Cohorts•Early Field Experience

Mentoring•Cooperating Teachers

•Content Areas•Intervention Specialist

DOMAIN 4:Improvement on Student Support

◙ QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

???