• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Appendix






Title: Related services research agenda
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090864/00001
 Material Information
Title: Related services research agenda
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Rapport, Mary Jane K.
Publisher: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, College of Education, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00090864
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

SUMMIT-CP-PUB5 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Preface
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Main
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Appendix
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
Full Text







Related Services Research Agenda
Prepared for the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education




by
Mary Jane K. Rapport
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
JFK Partners





July 2004
(COPSSE Document No. OP-1)


IDEAs
WthatIork


Center on Personnel Studies in


Education


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


http://www. copsse.org









CENTER ON PERSONNEL STUDIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER

INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCH GROUP, LONG BEACH, CA

COPSSE research is focused on the preparation of special education professionals and its
impact on beginning teacher quality and student outcomes. Our research is intended to inform
scholars and policymakers about advantages and disadvantages of preparation alternatives and
the effective use of public funds in addressing personnel shortages.

In addition to our authors and reviewers, many individuals and organizations have contributed
substantially to our efforts, including Drs. Erling Boe of the University of Pennsylvania and
Elaine Carlson of WESTAT. We also have benefited greatly from collaboration with the National
Clearinghouse for the Professions in Special Education, the Policymakers Partnership, and their
parent organizations, the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.


The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, H325Q000002, is a cooperative
agreement between the University of Florida and the Office of Special Education Programs of
the U. S. Department of Education. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of other organizations imply
endorsement by them.
Recommended citation:
Rapport, M. J. K. (2004). Related services research agenda (COPSSE Document No. OP-1).
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.


IDEAs
thatWork
U. S. Office of Special
Education Programs


Additional Copies may be obtained from:
COPSSE Project
P.O. Box 117050
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-0701
352-392-2655 (Fax)

There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however
please credit the source and support of the federal funds when
copying all or part of this document.







CONTENTS


Introduction and M ission.................................................... 4

D ev e lo p m e n t o f R es e a rc h A g e n d a .......................................................................................................4

Proposed Research Agenda.................................................... 8

APPENDIXES

Appendix A. COPSSE Special Education Services Research Design Panel
Convened February 6 -7, 2003, in Washington, DC, and May 7- 9, 2003, in
Jacksonville Beach, FL .................................9

Appendix B. Questions from Research Design Panel Meetings..............................11

Appendix C. Research Design Panel Meeting Schedules...................................13

Appendix D. Special Education Services Policy Summit August 19, 2003 in
Washington, DC, Participants and Schedule ................................ ............... 17

Appendix E. Proposed Research Questions and Ratings ................ ..............20








INTRODUCTION AND MISSION

Like most other service systems with large infrastructures, education must grapple with the
challenges of locating, hiring, and retaining high quality personnel. School personnel spend
many hours every day in the classroom with children and so play a central role in student
outcomes. Each day district- and building-level administrators are called on to face a myriad of
personnel issues-issues that become increasingly complex when the students have special
learning needs. To provide a free, appropriate public education for these students, special
education teachers are joined by related service providers, paraprofessionals, and school
administrators. Despite rapid development of special education practice, there continue to be
many unanswered questions about personnel and how their preparation affects the quality of the
services they provide.

The work of the Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE) is focused on
improving our understanding of the preparation of school personnel who work with students with
disabilities. The Center is currently supported by a cooperative agreement between the U. S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and the University of
Florida, with subcontracts to several other research groups (see www.copsse.org). The mission of
the Center is to synthesize the literature on supply and demand, professional preparation, and
certification and licensure of special education teachers and related service providers; to identify
key unanswered questions; and to undertake a program of research designed to answer these
questions. The developmental work in teacher preparation is complete, and research is underway.
Current initiatives include:

a beginning teacher quality study that seeks to link initial preparation to student
outcomes
a study of the relative costs of preparing special educators through various routes
development of an index of alternative route programs in special education across
the U. S.
an analysis of the School and Staffing Survey data to link initial preparation and
beginning teachers' efficacy and preparedness.



DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AGENDA

The questions these studies address derive from the COPSSE teacher education research agenda.
Syntheses on 10 teacher preparation topics were prepared, and synthesis authors were asked to
identify critical questions unanswered by existing research. The first step in developing the
research agenda involved integrating potential research questions from the 10 syntheses. This list
was presented to a Research Design Panel (RDP) comprised of methodologists, teacher
education scholars, and special education scholars. The RDP helped us organize our findings into
four guiding questions. We parsed these questions into sets of more specific research questions,
which we presented to a summit of policymakers and representatives from practitioner
organizations-the target audiences for our work. At this summit, we asked participants to add
important questions missing from our list, to suggest revisions and clarifications to our questions,
and then to rate all of the questions in terms of their importance to the constituencies they
represented. With this process, we identified a set of 11 questions that has guided our teacher
education research.

AI







Issue Briefs


In identifying special education services research agendas, as we describe in this report, we used
a similar process. We first contracted with authors to develop nine disciplinary Issue Briefs.
Disciplines, which were identified at a Kick-Off Conference in March, 2000, are listed below. In
their papers, authors were asked to address supply and demand, professional preparation, and
certification and licensure. Their papers were reviewed by scholars in the disciplines and revised
until reviewers' concerns were addressed. The Issue Briefs, in full length and executive summary
versions, are available at www.copsse.org (by following the Publications and Issue Briefs links
from the home page). Issue Brief disciplines include:

School Administration
Special Education Administration
Teachers of Students Who Are Visually Impaired
Teachers of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Paraprofessionals
Audiology
Occupational Therapy
Physical Therapy
Speech Language Pathology


Policy Briefs

Policy Briefs based on the Issue Briefs also are available on the website (by following the
Workforce Watch link). Several of the Policy Briefs specifically address issues of greatest
importance to the special education services:


An Insufficient Supply and a Growing Demand for Qualified Special Education
Personnel: What State Policymakers Should Know (Policy Brief #16)
An Insufficient Supply and a Growing Demand for Qualified Special Education
Personnel: What School Districts Should Know (Policy Brief #17)
Paraprofessionals: What You Should Know About Ensuring a Highly Qualified
Workforce (Policy Brief #20)
An Insufficient Supply and a Growing Demand for Qualified Related Service
Personnel: Are School Districts Prepared? (Policy Brief #21)


Research Design Panel (RDP) Activities

Like synthesis authors, Issue Brief authors were asked to identify key questions from gaps in the
existing literature. These questions became the raw product with which RDPs developed agendas
for the preparation of related service providers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and teachers of
students with sensory impairments (i.e., hearing and vision). These agendas were presented to
policymakers for feedback and modification.

In February of 2003, the Center convened a RDP composed of approximately 30 researchers,
related services personnel trainers, and practitioners.







The RDP was organized into three subgroups:


Related Service Providers (audiologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists,
speech and language pathology therapists, and paraprofessionals)
Sensory Impairments Teachers (teachers of students with hearing and visual
impairments)
Administrators (special education administrators and general education
administrators).
For a complete list of the RDP participants, see Appendix A.

The purposes of the panel were to:

identify critical unanswered research questions related to supply and demand,
professional preparation, and certification and licensure
identify potential funding sources for such research
develop a plan for initiating and sustaining a strategic effort to obtain funding for
such research
determine how COPSSE might support this plan.


The panels were reconvened for a second meeting in May of 2003, where they began to build
consensus on research agendas that addressed the most critical issues in their disciplines.
Questions were ranked by importance and feasibility, and lists of key questions were created.
(Lists for related service providers, sensory impairments teachers, and administrators are in
Appendix B. Appendix C includes other items related to the work of the RDPs, including: (a)
the agenda for February 6-7, 2003, RDP meeting in Washington; (b) notes from the wrap-up
session at the Washington RDP meeting; and (c) the agenda for the May 7-9, 2003, RDP in
Jacksonville Beach, FL).


Final Research Agenda Development

Questions from the RDP meetings were refined for clarity and then presented at a Policy
Makers' Summit in Washington, DC, in August of 2003. The Summit was co-hosted by
COPSSE and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Joanne Cashman
of the Policy Makers' Partnership at NASDSE helped plan and run the Summit. The Washington
Summit brought together organizations with a vested interest in special education services and
the preparation of special education service providers. The Summit participants included
representatives from the RDPs, state department officials, professional organization
representatives, and practitioners. A complete list of Summit participants and the agenda for the
meeting may be found in Appendix D.

Before the Summit, the decision was made to separate paraprofessional training from the related
service preparation group. RDP discussions had made clear that paraprofessional training issues
were distinct, and the addition of this group brought to four the number of panels. Two panels
met concurrently during each of two breakout sessions, so each person attending the Summit had
the opportunity to participate in two of the four subgroups.







In ranking the importance of the research questions, participants were instructed to:

reflect on the concerns of their constituencies
edit questions for clarity
propose additional questions.

Summit participants then rated the importance of these newly created questions along with the
questions from the original list generated at earlier RDP meetings. Ratings were tabulated by
subgroup, and means and standard deviations were calculated for each question. To control for
ratings differences across groups, we then computed z-scores.1 For the means, standard
deviations, and z-scores for all questions from the four design panels, see Appendix E.

We set a break point (z > .72) to identify in roughly equal numbers the most important questions
for each of the four panels, and we revised these questions for clarity. We then sent the original
list of questions, the Summit statistics, and the new lists with z-scores to RDP participants. They
were asked to review and approve the edited and abbreviated lists. This step assisted in providing
further verification that the questions emanating from the Summit and the post-Summit analysis
continued to represent the essence of the groups' knowledge and thoughts about critical
unanswered questions. Based on feedback from the group, few additional minor revisions were
made. Generally, the RDP participants were pleased with the results of our revisions.

We are confident that the sets of questions we present below fairly and completely represent the
concerns of the policy, research, education, and practice communities.


























1 For example, a question with a mean score of 4.2 and a standard deviation of .0862 was one of
a set of 12 questions with a mean of 4.045. Thus, the Z-score represents the difference between
4.2 and 4.045 (= 0.155) divided by the standard deviation (.155 + .0862 = 1.798).










PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA

Paraprof,' .sionals

1. What are effective models for using paraprofessionals to deliver services to students with
disabilities?
2. Within each model of service delivery, what does a paraprofessional need to know and be
able to do?
3. What constitutes effective preparation of paraprofessionals as measured by satisfaction,
use of evidenced-based practices, and retention?

Relatetld Service Providters

1. What are the common factors in service delivery models that lead to positive student
outcomes?
2. Which evidence-based or effective practices lead to positive outcomes for students and
families?
3. How does effective preparation affect professionals' ability to implement effective
related services practices?
4. How does effective related services preparation affect student and family outcomes?

Teachers l'Stuments with S.'ensor Inlipirnents

1. What is effective practice in educating students with sensory impairments?
2. What models of preparation have the biggest impact on teachers' knowledge and skills?
3. What models of preparation have the biggest impact on student outcomes?

A- tninistrators

1. What are the factors influencing the attrition and retention of administrators?
2. To what extent are administrators prepared to meet the needs of all students?
3. What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in schools and school districts
(LEAs) that have an impact on the performance of teachers responsible for instruction?
4. What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in schools and school districts
(LEAs) that have an impact on outcomes for high- and low-achieving students?
5. What comprises the content, organization, and structure of an exemplary administration
program?







APPENDIX A. COPSSE Special Education Services Research Design
Panel Convened February 6 -7, 2003, in Washington, DC, and May 7- 9,
2003, in Jacksonville Beach, FL

Participant's Name University or Organization Role of Meetings
Facilitator Attended
or DC = 2/03
Recorder FL = 5/03

Related Service Providers Group (including Paraprofessionals)
Paul Sindelar University of Florida Facilitator Both
Pam Williamson University of Florida Recorder Both
Susan Effgen University of Kentucky Both
Diane Eger Diacomm Consulting, Inc. Both
Michael Giangreco University of Vermont Both
Mary Jane Rapport University of Colorado Both
Karen Spencer Colorado State University Both
Yvonne Swinth University of Puget Sound Both
Kathleen Whitmire American Speech and Hearing Assoc. Both
Nancy Waldron University of Florida Both
Susan Gorin National Assoc. of School Psychologists DC
Leslie Jackson American Occupational Therapy Assoc. DC
Jeri Longemann Northwestern University DC
Teri Wallace University of Minnesota DC
John Bemthal University of Nebraska Lincoln DC
Michael Curtis University of South Florida DC

Teachers of Students with Sensory Impairments
Vivian Correa University of Florida Facilitator Both
Lisa Langley University of Florida Recorder Both
Donna Mertens Gallaudet University Both
Susan Spungin American Foundation for the Blind DC
Harold Johnson Kent State University DC
Ann Corn Vanderbilt University DC
Susan Easterbrooks Georgia State University FL
Rosanne Silberman Hunter College of CUNY FL

Administrators
James McLeskey University of Florida Facilitator Both
Vince Connelly University of New Hampshire Recorder 1 DC
Michele Gill University of Central Florida Recorder 2 FL
Mary Lynn Boscardin University of Massachusetts at Amherst Both
Jean Crockett Virginia Tech Both
Michael DiPaola The College of William and Mary Both
Carl Lashley University ofN. C. at Greensboro Both
David Bateman Shippensburg University DC
Chriss Walther- University of Kansas FL
Thomas








Observers from the Center to Inform Personnel Preparation, Policy, and Practice in Early
Intervention and Preschool Education
Deb Bubela University of Connecticut FL
Laurie Dinnebeil University of Toledo FL
Bonnie Keilty University of Connecticut FL
Vicki Stayton Western Kentucky University FL

Project Officer
Helen Thorton Office of Special Education Programs __DC








APPENDIX B. Questions from Research Design Panel Meetings

Related Services (including Paraprofessionals)
What constitutes effective cross-disciplinary practices consistent with federal
mandates (IDEA and NCLB)?
o What do trainers and practitioners believe to be effective practices?
o About which practices is there consensus?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of effective practices?
How does the implementation of these effective practices affect professionals'
satisfaction, performance, and retention?
How does the implementation of these effective practices affect student and family
outcomes?
For each related service discipline, what constitutes effective initial preparation for
school-based practice?
What do IHE faculty and entry-level practitioners believe to be effective
preparation?
About which practices is there consensus?
To what extent do professional preparation programs offer effective preparation?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of effective preparation?
How does effective preparation affect professionals' ability to implement effective
practices? Does it affect satisfaction and retention?
How does effective preparation affect student and family outcomes?

Sensory Impairment Teachers
What is the impact of NCLB on teacher preparation, accountability, and quality?
What are the relative benefits of models of teacher preparation as measured by
student outcomes?
What models of preparation are efficacious in preparing teachers:
o with general curriculum content knowledge?
o who are language proficient ASL and English (also, English Language
Learners)
o with knowledge of educational and medical technology applications (e.g.,
cochlear implants, optical devices)
o to work with interpreters and teacher assistants
o to work with students with MH
o to assess the learning of students based on data-driven decision making
What is the economic impact of providing special education services for students
with sensory impairments?
What is the impact of school finance policy upon the availability of program
options?
What are the factors that influence supply and demand of teachers and related service
(in sensory impairment)?
What are the models of ARC and how effective are alternative routes to
certification?
What factors emerge as reasons why SEAs and LEAs do or do not ensure FAPE for
students with sensory impairments in providing appropriate personnel?
What is the supply and demand of leadership personnel in sensory impairments?
What is the capacity for conducting research in sensory impairments?

1 1







Administrators
How do national and state policies support the preparation of highly qualified
administrators?
To what extent are administrators prepared to meet the needs of all students?
What is the content, organization, and structure of exemplary administration
preparation programs?
How is the creation of exemplary programs facilitated by national and state
standards?

State level: What kinds of state training and support are provided to new special
education directors?
Local: What are the sources of preparation and support for new special education
directors?
What are the sources of preparation and support for new principals?
What are the factors influencing administrator attrition and retention?

What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in schools that have an impact on
outcomes for high- and low-achieving students?
What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in schools that have an impact on
the performance of teachers responsible for their instruction?
What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in school districts that have an
impact on outcomes for high- and low-achieving students?
What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in school districts that have an
impact on the performance of teachers responsible for their instruction?

What dimensions of school context influenced by the principal have an impact on
outcomes for high- and low-achieving students?
What dimensions of school context influenced by the principal have an impact on the
performance of teachers responsible for their instruction?
What dimensions of district context influenced by the district-level administration
have an impact on outcomes for high- and low-achieving students?
What dimensions of district context influenced by the district-level administration
have an impact on the performance of teachers responsible for their instruction?

How is leadership for special education distributed across multiple personnel?
What are the implications for:
o Setting direction?
o Developing people?
o Developing the organization? (legal compliance and program management)
How is the distribution of special education administration leadership tasks related to
resource allocation?

How do state-level structures influence policy development and resource allocation
for the delivery of services to students with disabilities at the local level?
How do state-level structures influence interventions and increase outcomes for
students with disabilities?
What is the relationship between state-level structures and the recruitment and
retention of administrators and teachers of students with disabilities?








APPENDIX C. Research Design Panel Meeting Schedules

COPSSE Special Education Services Research Design Panels, February 6-7, 2003,
Melrose Hotel, Washington, DC



Purposes
1. To identify critical unanswered research questions related to supply and demand,
professional preparation, and certification and licensure in 10 special education service
disciplines
2. To identify potential funding sources for such research
3. To develop a plan for initiating and sustaining a strategic effort to obtain funding for such
research
4. To discuss how best COPSSE might support this strategic plan.



Thursday, February 6


Reception
Plenary Session
Meeting and Project Overviews
Welcome
Introduction of Executive Summaries
Related Services
Administration
Sensory Impairments
Dinner


Paul Sindelar
Helen Thornton
Paul Sindelar
Mary Jane Rapport
Carl Lashley
Harold Johnson


Friday, February 7
am
8:00 9:00 Continental Breakfast
9:00 10:30 Identification of Key Unanswered Research Questions
10:30 am 12:00 Rank Ordering by Importance and Feasibility
pm
12:00 1:00 Working Lunch
1:00 2:30 Identification of Potential Funding Sources and Key Individuals to
Individuals to Involve in the Process of Securing Funds
2:30 4:00 Strategic Planning: Next Steps
4:00 Wrap Up and Adjournment


pm
5:00 6:00
6:00 7:30


7:30







Although the design panels will meet separately, all three will follow the same agenda, defined
by a set of tasks each panel is charged to complete. The disciplines represented on each design
panel are listed in the table below.
Panel Participants Meeting Facilitator
Room
Related Services Audiology William Penn Paul Sindelar
Occupational Therapy
Paraprofessionals
Physical Therapy
School Psychology
Speech/Language Pathology
Administration School Administration Clifton James McLeskey
Special Ed. Administration
Sensory Impairments Deaf and Hard of Hearing Cabot Vivian Correa
Visual Impairments


Questions for Reflection
In preparation for the meeting, we encourage you to read the Issue Briefs on the COPSSE web
site (www.copsse.org) and to begin to consider these questions that your panel will be asked to
answer.

1. What questions related to supply and demand, professional preparation, and certification
and licensure have been answered by previous research in your discipline? What
questions have not?
2. Which of these unanswered questions would you consider to be most important to
address through research?
3. Which of these unanswered questions seem most feasible to address through research?
4. What funding sources are available to support such research?
5. Who else needs to be "at the table" in seeking research funding?
6. What can be done to initiate and sustain this process?

Wrap-up of Breakout Sessions

Related Services Personnel (OT, PT, SLP, audiology, paraprofessionals, school
psychology) Mary Jane Rapport
The group finished with six questions. They are not rank ordered.
1. To what extent do preparation programs provide the knowledge and skills needed by
RSPs and paraprofessionals for successful employment in schools? (congruence)
2. What are the unique, defining characteristics of preparation that enable RSP and
paraprofessionals to work effectively in all schools?
a. Curriculum support
b. Mentoring
c. Diversity/cultural competence
d. Department partnerships
e. LEA expectations
f IHE/School partnerships
g. Collaboration
1 A







3. What is the impact of RSPs and paraprofessionals on appropriate student outcomes?
4. To what extent are trainers using evidence-based practices? Why or why not?
5. To what extent are RSPs and paraprofessionals being prepared in evidence-based
practices for data-based decision making?
6. What school/working conditions support implementation of evidence-based practices?
a. Effective induction, continued professional development
b. Attrition/retention

Sensory Impaired Harold Johnson
1. What is the impact of NCLB on teacher preparation, accountability, and quality?
2. What are the relative benefits of models of teacher preparation as measured by student
outcomes?
Assumes a field-based component
3. What is the economic impact of providing special education services for students with
sensory impairments?
a. Perhaps these students, with a proper education, can contribute more
meaningfully to society
4. What are the factors that influence supply and demand of teachers and related service (in
sensory impairment)?
a. Personnel preparation
b. Alternative routes to certification
c. Recruitment
d. Retention
e. Subsections
i. Recruitment of diversity
ii. Roles of paraprofessionals
iii. Role of interpreters
5. What factors emerge as reasons why SEA and LEAs do or do not ensure FAPE for
students with sensory impairments in providing appropriate personnel?
6. What is the supply and demand of leadership personnel in SI?
7. What is the capacity for conducting research in SI?
a. Teach/Service vs. Research
i. We are so busy teaching that we spend little time on research

Administration Carl Lashley
1. What do instructional leaders do to improve a school so that outcomes for students with
disabilities and teachers are enhanced?
2. What are the correlates of schools in which students with disabilities achieve at high
levels of performance in academic and learning/social growth?
3. What is the role of instructional leadership in special education school improvement?
4. What are the dimensions of instructional leadership that impact students with disabilities
and teachers:
a. Roles and responsibilities
b. Outcomes
c. Issues and practices
d. Gaps in knowledge base







COPSSE Special Education Services Research Design Panels, May 7-9, 2003,
Sea Turtle Inn, Jacksonville Beach, FL

Wednesday, May 7h
pm
6:00 Welcome and Introductions
6:15 COPSSE Overview: Policy Summit Process
7:00 Charge to the Panels
Develop concrete, researchable questions with implications for policy and
practice
Develop plan for disseminating the Issue Briefs and the research agendas
Continue to strategic planning, maintain a log of good ideas
7:15 Dinner



Thursday, May 8th
am
7:00 Continental Breakfast
8:00 Whole Group Session
Recapitulations
Related Services-Mary Jane Rapport
Administration-Carl Lashley
Sensory Impairments-Vivian Correa
Synthesis-Mary Jane Rapport
9:30 Break
9:45 Convene in Panels
pm
12:00 Lunch Buffet
1:30 Reconvene in Panels
3:30 Adjournment
Dinner on your own



Friday, May 9th
am
7:00 Continental Breakfast
8:00 Panel Work Continues
10:00 Break and Room Checkout
10:30 Whole Group Session
Reports from the Groups
Next Steps: Format for the Policy Summit
12:00 Adjournment








APPENDIX D. Special Education Services Policy Summit, August 19,
2003, in Washington, DC Participants and Schedules

Participant's Name and Affiliation
Sharon Adams-Taylor, American Association of School Administrators
Eileen Ahearn, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Betty Beale, Auburn University Montgomery, Southeast Regional Resource Center
Elaine Bonner-Tompkins, Council of Chief State Officers, Center for State Assistance
Mary Lynn Boscardin, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Dee Braley, State Directors of Special Education, West Virginia
Bob Brick, Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights
Martha Brooks, Exceptional Children and Early Childhood Group
Mary Beth Bruder, University of Connecticut
Fred Brown, National Association of Elementary School Principals
Pat Burgess, Virginia Department of Education
Ollie Cantos, American Association of People with Disabilities
Joanne Cashman, Policymaker Partnership at National Association of State Directors of Special
Education
Roseanne Clausen, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Iva Corbett, Chelsea School
Vivian Correa, University of Florida
Margie Crutchfield, Council for Exceptional Children
Fred DeMay, NY State Education Department
Laurie Dinnebeil, University of Toledo
Tom DiPaola, Rhode Island Department of Education
George Dowaliby, Connecticut State Department of Education
Stan Dublinske, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Penny Earley, George Mason University
Susan Easterbrooks, University of Georgia
Diane Eger, Diacomm Consulting, Inc.
Ruth Epprecht, Dunn Loring Center
Ted Feinberg, National Association of School Psychologists
Nancy French, University of Colorado at Denver
Max Freund, George Washington University
Paula Goldberg, Parent Advocacy Coalition for Education Rights
Barbara Hanft, The American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.
Isadora Hare, Health Resources and Services Administration
Mariana Haynes, National Association of State Boards of Education
Mary Hodges, Dunn Loring Center
Leslie Jackson, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.
Terry L. Jackson, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Dan Laitsch, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Kim Lewis, Maryland State Department of Education
Norma Lopez-Reyna, University of Illinois
Richard Manzier, Council of Exceptional Children
Paul Marchand, Association of Retarded Citizens
Maureen McGuire-Kuletz, George Washington University
James McLeskey, University of Florida
Donna McNear, Rum Rivers Special Education Cooperative
1 7







Colleen McNerney, Council for Exceptional Children, IDEA Partnership
Jean Miller, Interstate New Teacher Assistance and Support Consortium
Steve Milliken, Director of Special Education, Westside Community Schools
Justin Moore, American Physical Therapy Association
Mary Podmostko, Institute for Educational Leadership
Gaylen Pugh, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Luann Purcell, Fort Valley State University Council of Administrators of Special Education
Patti Ralabate, National Education Association
Mary Jane Rapport, University of Colorado
Kristin Reedy, Northeast Regional Resource Centers Learning Innovations at West Ed
Ellen Romett, Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
Jamie Ruppmann, Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps
Mironda Shepard, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Dave Shreve, National Conference of State Legislators
Joe Simpson, Council of Chief State School Officers
Paul Sindelar, University of Florida
Connie Smith, Office of Special Education Programs and Services
Judy Smith-Davis, University of Illinois at Chicago
Steve Spector, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Mary Summers, Salt Creek School District #48
Mike Thew, Eastern York School District
Lisa Thomas, American Federation of Teachers
Helen Thornton, Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Dept. of Education
JoAnn Turner, Mamie D. Lee School
Terri Wallace, University of Minnesota
Fran Warkomski, Pennsylvania Department of Education
Karen Weston, University of Missouri
Larry Wexler, Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Dept. of Education
Stephanie Wood-Garnett, Council for Exceptional Children







COPSSE / National Association of State Directors of Special
Education Policy Partnership: Special Education Services Policy
Summit, August 19, 2003 Agenda


August 19
am
8:00 Continental Breakfast
9:00 Opening Session
Paul Sindelar, COPSSE Overview
Joanne Cashman, Session Overview
9:45 Break
10:00 Concurrent Sessions
Sensory Impairments, Joanne Cashman
Administration, Stephanie Wood-Garnett
pm
12:00 Lunch
Presentation of Policy Briefs, Cynthia Warger
1:00 Break
1:15 Concurrent Sessions
Related Services, Joanne Cashman
Paraeducators, Colleen McNerny
3:15 Wrap-up and Next Steps








APPENDIX E. Proposed Research Questions and Ratings


Paraprofessional Group Questions z-score mean s.d.
What is it that a paraprofessional needs to know and do? 1.99 4.59 0.87
What are the range of effective models for using 1.85 4.53 0.80
paraprofessionals for delivering services for student with
disabilities and the relationship of those different models to
LRE, access to GE curriculum, etc.?
What constitutes effective initial preparation for 1.51 4.39 0.60
paraprofessionals?
How does the implementation of these effective practices 1.13 4.23 1.15
affect satisfaction, performance, and retention of
paraprofessionals?
How does effective preparation affect paraprofessionals' 0.86 4.12 0.91
classroom practices?
To what extent do preparation programs offer effective 0.55 3.99 0.78
preparation for paraprofessionals?
What works best to create/nurture effective teamwork among 0.44 3.95 0.77
paraprofessionals, teachers (gen. and SPED), related
services, and parents?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of 0.29 3.88 0.93
effective paraprofessional practices?
What are the motivators for people who are in the system to 0.12 3.81 0.40
make the next step? (from paraprofessional to classroom
teacher)
How does effective preparation affect paraprofessionals' >0.00 3.76 1.09
classroom practices?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of -0.12 3.71 0.92
effective preparation of paraprofessionals?
How could/do paraprofessionals contribute to an increasing -0.41 3.59 1.00
supply of qualified teachers, especially teachers of color?
What is the impact/cost of turnover? -0.48 3.56 0.73
What other contextual factors influence the satisfaction, -0.48 3.56 0.73
retention of paraprofessionals?
Does effective preparation affect the satisfaction and -0.55 3.53 0.875
retention of paraprofessionals?
How does the implementation of these effective practices -0.55 3.53 1.07
affect student and family outcomes?
What is the cost benefit analysis of ineffective -0.79 3.43 1.02
paraprofessional education?
What are the relationships between the training that teachers -1.51 3.13 1.15
get and performance of paraprofessionals?
What is the relationship between effective practice by -1.99 2.93 1.10
paraprofessionals and teacher satisfaction, performance, and
retention?









Related Services Group Questions z-score mean s.d.
What are the common factors in models that lead to positive 1.61 4.83 0.41
student outcomes?
Which evidence-based or effective practices lead to positive 1.52 4.78 0.67
outcomes for students and families?
How does the implementation of these effective practices 0.81 4.4 0.70
affect student and family outcomes?
How does effective related services preparation affect 0.56 4.27 0.91
student and family outcomes?
How does effective preparation affect professionals' ability 0.53 4.25 0.89
to implement effective related services practices? Does it
affect satisfaction and retention?
For each related service discipline, what constitutes effective 0.43 4.20 0.92
initial preparation for school-based practice?
What impact do different certification, licensure 0.30 4.13 0.99
requirements have on recruitment/retention?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of 0.15 4.05 0.50
effective practices in the delivery of related services?
To what extent do professional preparation programs offer 0.06 4.00 1.07
effective preparation for related services providers?
What fosters and detracts from the implementation of -0.32 3.80 0.63
effective preparation of related services providers?
How does the implementation of these effective practices -0.77 3.56 0.88
affect satisfaction, performance, and retention of related
service personnel?
What do IHE faculty and entry level practitioners believe to -0.77 3.56 1.13
be effective preparation for related service professionals?
What does the research tell us about supporting inter- -0.77 3.56 0.88
professional collaboration?
About which related services practices is there consensus? -1.55 3.14 0.90
How can families have input into preparation programs? -1.81 3.00 1.58


Administration Group Questions z-score mean s.d.
To what extent are administrators prepared to meet the needs 1.58 4.61 0.72
of all students?
What are the factors influencing administration attrition and 1.43 4.52 0.67
retention of administrators?
What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in 1.17 4.36 0.39
schools that have an impact on the performance of teachers
responsible for instruction?
What dimensions of instructional leadership in schools have 0.96 4.23 0.81
an impact on outcomes for high and low achieving students?
What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in school 0.96 4.23 1.15
districts that have an impact on the performance of teachers
responsible for instruction?
What are the content, organization, and structure of 0.86 4.17 0.89
exemplary administration programs?
"1







What are the dimensions of instructional leadership in school 0.73 4.09 0.87
districts (LEAs) that have an impact on outcomes for high
and low achieving students?
What role does inservice, job embedded professional 0.58 4.00 1.11
development for administrators play in the acquisition of
skills that impact the performance of teachers and student
achievement?
What policies at the state/local level are effective at 0.58 4.00 0.93
attracting high quality administrators to high need
districts/schools?
What are the sources of preparation and support for new 0.30 3.83 1.23
principals?
What specific behaviors link to teacher retention and future 0.30 3.83 0.94
outcomes?
How do national and state policies support the preparation of 0.16 3.74 1.05
highly qualified administrators?
What roles do administrators play in the provision of special 0.16 3.74 1.01
education services (e.g., resource allocation, program
management, etc.)?
What are the sources of preparation and support for new -0.20 3.52 1.27
special education directors?
How do state and district policy support or hinder -0.20 3.52 0.99
coordinated systems of professional development for general
education and special education administrators?
To what extent are new administrators familiar with the laws -0.35 3.43 1.04
of special education?
What are effective alternate routes for administrators? -0.35 3.43 1.03
How is the creation of exemplary programs facilitated by -0.41 3.39 0.83
national and state standards?
What is the financial cost of administrator turnover? -0.48 3.35 1.11
How do the universities impact the preparation of -0.61 3.27 1.20
administrators (e.g., alternative certification or superficially
address standard)?
Can the attitudes of administrators toward students with -0.77 3.17 1.19
disabilities be addressed and shaped through training or
some other strategy?
What is the relationship between state level structure and the -0.90 3.09 1.20
recruitment and retention of administrators?
In support of academic achievement, how do we find ways to -1.13 2.95 1.13
enhance administrative leadership in the areas of safety,
mental/physical health and S.E. development?
How do local and state collaboration between outside -1.52 2.71 1.01
agencies impact on the provision of SPED programs?
(Refers to promotion of collaboration by administrator
leadership.)
What kind of SPED backgrounds do administrators of after- -2.83 1.91 0.95
school and supplemental programs have? Are any states
addressing this issue?








Sensory Impairment Group Questions z-score mean s.d.
What models of personnel preparations are effective in 0.75 4.20 0.86
preparing teachers?
What are the relative benefits of models of teacher preparation 0.75 4.20 0.94
as measured by student outcomes?
What models of teacher preparation have the biggest positive 0.75 4.20 0.67
impact on student outcomes?
What does collaboration between GE and SE look like in 0.75 4.20 0.78
providing FAPE for students with sensory impairments?
What are the implications for state policy makers as an 0.75 4.20 0.89
integrated component of every research component?
What are models of evidence-based practices? 0.46 4.14 0.86
What are the factors that influence supply and demand of 0.41 4.13 0.74
teachers and related service personnel in educating students
with sensory impairment?
What are the models of effective communication between 0.12 4.07 0.96
LEAs, SEAs, IHEs regarding preparation, development, and
delivery?
What is the impact of NCLB on teacher preparation, -0.22 4.00 0.85
accountability, and quality?
What are the barriers related to personnel that SEAs and -0.85 3.87 1.06
LEAs face in providing FAPE for students with sensory
impairments?
What are the various economic issues related to preparation of -1.53 3.73 1.10
personnel for students with sensory impairments?
What is the economic impact of having highly qualified -2.16 3.60 0.99
personnel to provide FAPE for students with sensory
impairments?




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs