Webinar on the OSEP

1

• Webinar on the OSEP
• Self Assessment and Site Review
• Process for
• State and Multi-State Deaf-Blind Projects
• October 29, 2004

2
Today's topics include

• Additional information and clarification on
  the...
• Nomination and selection of reviewers
• Self-assessment and site review process
• Strategies for obtaining and using stakeholder
  input
• Using data to address the grant priorities and
  providing outcome data
• Discussion of State examples
• Questions and Answers

3
Sharing today by

• Charles Freeman, OSEP
• Richard Zeller, WRRC
• D. Jay Gense, Oregon Department of Education
• Ella Taylor, NTAC

4
Special thanks to

• Tanni Anthony, Colorado
• Nancy Hatfield, Washington
• Donna Gilles, Florida
• Larry Rhodes, Missouri
• Karen Goehl, Indiana
• for their willingness to share their examples!

5
Specific criteria for reviewers

• Cannot be a project director, coordinator, family
  specialist or any staff member of a funded
  State/Multi-state project
• Experience in deaf-blindness and technical
  assistance, with some knowledge of evaluation
  (Preference will be given to those nominees with
  grant management experience)

6
Specific criteria for reviewers Continued

• Available for travel during April, May, June and
  July
• Willingness to sign a conflict of interest
  statement
• No fiduciary conflicts with an assigned state

7
Reviewer nominations are requested from the
field

• Prior to making a recommendation, the
• nominee must be contacted to verify
• The nominee meets the criteria
• They are available (April through July)
• Agrees to the consulting fee (1200.00, plus
  travel)
• Commit to training (2 Webinars)

8
Reviewer recommendations are requested to be sent
to

• By email to Charles Freeman at OSEP
• Charles_Freeman_at_ed.gov
• No later than
• January 1st, 2005

9
More on the self-assessment and site review
process

• Self-assessment and site review activities will
  target the approved work scope and goals of the
  project
• Plans for addressing slippage should be
  provided to the reviewers
• Reviewers will verify the consistency of their
  findings across one another

10
More on the self-assessment and site review
processContinued

• Reviewers will identify and provide to OSEP the
  top three strengths and areas for improvement for
  each project
• The reviewers site visit report will be presented
  to the project Director prior to their leaving
  the site
• Additional, non-selected states desiring a
  review, may be included in the site-review
  process dependent upon review team availability

11
More on the self-assessment and site review
processContinued

• Reviewer fees are 1,200.00 per state, plus state
  approved travel expenses
• Expenses for Advisory Board and stakeholders are
  allowable reimbursements
• Costs are the responsibilities of the selected
  states

12
Training for reviewers

• All reviewers will be required to
• participate in two web-based trainings
• facilitated by NTAC
• The first Webinar will address the evaluation
  instruments and criteria
• The second will address consistency across
  reviewers and states

13
Materials to be sent to the review team

• The following should be sent to each review
• team member, minimally three weeks prior
• to the review
• All self-assessment data and materials
• All supporting data and materials
• A copy of your funded proposal
• Your previous years Performance Report

14
One last reminder

• The self-assessment and site evaluation is an
  OSEP activity
• Please dont retype
• the form!

15
Nextlets talk about strategies for obtaining
and using stakeholder input

• Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board
• Continuous Focused Monitoring and the use of
  multiple stakeholders
• Using outside facilitator's in the
  self-assessment process

16
Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board

• Value of stakeholder representation
• In any self-assessment
• From an accountability perspective
• For reflecting on quality
• For reflecting on process

17
Using stakeholders and your Advisory Board

• Value of broad representation
• Dont limit to those who consistently agree
• The voice of dissent is valuable!

18
Gather broad representation

• Parents
• Students
• Administrators
• Teachers and other service providers
• Other agency partners
• ORPTI
• Oregon Commission for the Blind
• Other SEA efforts

19
Continuous Focused Monitoring and the use of
multiple stakeholders

• Oregons perspective
• Stakeholder representatives in Oregons CIMP
• Improvement planning and the APR

20
Using outside facilitator's in the
self-assessment process
21
Using data to address the grant priorities and
providing outcome data

• Effort actions carried out by the project
• Satisfaction data
• Numbers of participants
• Effect impact of the actions on stakeholders
  (families, children, service providers, etc.)
• What outcome resulted from the activity?
• Child change data
• Service provider implementation
• Family implementation
• Systems change

22
Reporting effect data some possibilities

• RFP Priority (a)(1) Identify and support
  activities to enhance state capacity to improve
  services
• As a result of participation in the states
  Directors of Special Education meetings, new
  policies for incorporating children who are
  deaf-blind into the states alternative
  assessment system have been developed.
• RFP Priority (a)(4) ensure providers have
  skills
• As a result of the workshop, 80 of service
  providers indicate they will develop and
  implement a functional behavior plan with
  children in their classrooms.

23
Reporting effect data some possibilitiesConti
nued

• RFP Priority (b)(2) Maintain needs assessment
  information to assess the critical needs of
  these children.
• An analysis of DB census data indicated a
  substantial increase in children identified with
  Ushers Syndrome. As a result, we have initiated
  five regional workshops to assist service
  providers in addressing the unique learning needs
  of this population.
• RFP Priority (b)(3) assessing current needs of
  the state.
• Based on TA requests from families seeking
  information about Cochlear Implants, we have
  added a field to our state DB census to determine
  the number of children this impacts. In the
  future, this data will be used to help guide our
  TA delivery.

24
Reporting effect data some possibilitiesConti
nued

• RFP Priority (c) Develop and implement
  procedures to evaluate the impact of program
  activities on services and outcomes for children
• Six months after the communication workshop, 70
  of service providers reported an increase in the
  receptive communication of children with
  deaf-blindness. (CHILD CHANGE)
• Ten families received one-on-one technical
  assistance in Person Centered Planning as a
  transitions tool. Five families used the PCP
  during their childs educational transition into
  the elementary school. (IMPLEMENTATION)

25
Okso now, lets look at some Project examples

• Priority
• (a) (1) from Missouri
• (b) (1) from Colorado
• (a) (2) from Indiana
• (a) (4) from Washington
• (a) (5) from Florida

26
Questions and Answers

• Please refer to the WORD document sent for the
  previous Questions and Answers
• New questions
• will be added and sent via the DB listserv

27
(No Transcript)