State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

Delaware Department of Education
Exceptional Children Resources Office

State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
84.323A

Submitted on August 31, 2012

Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant

Table of Contents
Abstract.... i
Introduction and Welcome to the Reader... 1
Needs.... 3
Delaware Demographics.. 4
Graduation and Dropout Rates.... 4
Academic Performance....... 6
Suspension/Expulsion Data..... 6
Least Restrictive Environment Data.... 8
Parent Involvement Data..... 8
Communication Needs ........ 10
Summary. 11
Significance...... 12
Significance of Proposed Framework.... 12
Significance of Implementation Strategies. 14
Significance of Initiatives.. 16
Goal 1 ..... 16
Goal 2 ......... 20
Summary... 24
Project Design. 26
Goal 1. 28
Goal 2. 39
Personnel..... 48
Delaware Department of Education Staff. 49
Consultants....... 52
Evaluation ......... 54
Adequacy of Resources.. 55
Delaware Department of Education Staff..... 55
Parent Information Center of Delaware ........ 56
Center for Disabilities Studies........... 57
Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc. ....... 59
Management Plan....... 61
Advisory Board...... 61
Management Team........ 62
Time Line/Person Loading Charts 64
Evaluation... 77


Table of Tables

Table 1: Student Demographic Data.......... 4
Table 2: Reading and Math Data........ 6
Table 3: 2010-11 Communication Level Data......... 10
Table 4: Goal 1 Loading Chart....... 64
Table 5: Goal 2 Loading Chart....... 64
Table 6: Management Plan Goal 1, Objective 1...... 65
Table 7: Management Plan Goal 1, Objective 2....... 66
Table 16: Evaluation Plan Goal 1, Objective 1...... 80
Table 26: Stage of Implementation Assessments...... 93


Table of Figures

Figure 1: Delaware Education Support System....... 13
Figure 2: Delaware SPDG Framework...... . 27

Table of Charts

Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates........... 5
Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates......... 5
Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data....... 7
Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions...... 7
Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates.... ........ 8
Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education programs.... 9
Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data.... ....... 9
Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All Their Goals on Their
Child's IEP Were Accomplished. ............
10

Appendix A
Acronyms..............
99
References.............
101
Sample LEA Commitment Form..........
103
Logic Model..............
105
Implementation Driver Assessments............
107

Appendix B
Support Letters............
115

Appendix C
Resumes.............
134


PAGE # REQUIREMENTS
48
(a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ
and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in
project activities. (See Section 606 of IDEA)
48, 55 - 60

(b) Applicant must describe steps to ensure equitable access to, and
participation in, its program for students, teachers, and other program
beneficiaries with special needs. (See Section 427, GEPA)
Budget
Narrative
(c) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a three-day
Projects Directors meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of the
project.
Budget
Narrative
(d) The applicant must budget $4,000 annually for support of the State
Personnel Development Grants Program Web site currently administered
by the University of Oregon (www.signetwork.org)
55-56
(e) If a project receiving assistance under this program authority maintains
a Web site, the applicant must describe how they will include relevant
information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-
recognized standard for accessibility
Significance &
Project Design
12 - 47
(f) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional development
practices that will increase implementation of evidence-based practices and
result in improved outcomes for children with disabilities;
Project Design
26 - 47
(g) Provide ongoing assistance to personnel receiving SPDG-supported
professional development that supports the implementation of evidence-
based practices with fidelity
Project Design
26 - 47
(h) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoing
professional development to personnel, including to personnel in rural
areas and to other populations, such as personnel in urban or high-need
local educational agencies (LEAs)
Needs &
Significance
3 - 25
(i) State Personnel Development Plan that identifies and addresses the
State and local needs for the personnel preparation and professional
development of personnel, as well as individuals who provide direct
supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities
Budget
Narrative
Support Letters

(j) Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher
education, parent training and information centers, or community parent
resource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State Personnel
Development Plan
Budget
Narrative
1
(k) Not less than 90 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grant
for any fiscal year for the Professional Development Activities

Delaware 2012 State Personnel Development Grant (CFDA 84.323A) Abstract

The Delaware Department of Education is proud to submit our 2012 SDPG proposal to the
Office of Special Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education. The proposal has
been a collaborative effort, involving partners from the Governors Advisory Council for
Exceptional Citizens; the Parent Information Center; representatives from the University of
Delawares School of Education, Center for Teacher Education, and Center for Disabilities
Studies, as well as Delaware Technical and Community College; LEA Special Education
Directors and Coordinators; and DDOE staff from the Exceptional Children Resources office,
the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, the College and Workforce
Readiness Branch, and Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development.
Based on the needs identified in DEs ESEA Flexibility Request; the FFY 2010 State
Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR); and data gathered through
stakeholder meetings with the groups mentioned above, two goals were established:
Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities,
through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional
strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs.
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of
students most at risk of dropping out of school, through the use of
sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as
enhanced professional development to educators and related staff.
In developing this proposal, we followed the framework utilized in DEs ESEA Flexibility
Request. Goal 1 activities will have a statewide focus on developing the capacity of staff and
administrators in LEAs identified as Priority or Focus based on state assessment scores. Goal 1
activities will likely impact all students as teachers instructional capacity increases, but specific
focus is on those students scoring at the lowest range of DEs state assessment and alternate
assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Goal 2 targets PD to build the capacity of
LEAs to provide the supports necessary for students most at risk of dropping out of school due to
social and/or behavioral challenges.
We have used the SPDG Performance Measures and implementation science strategies to
develop this proposal. All activities were considered and developed in the context of the key
elements of competency, organizational, and leadership drivers necessary for successful
implementation. Information gained from iterative improvement cycles will be used to inform
and improve the implementation of effective practices.
The expected outcomes of the DE SPDG proposal are to (1) increase reading and math
proficiency rates as outlined in the DE ESEA Flexibility Request and SPP Indicator 3, (2)
increase graduation rates and decrease dropout rates as projected in the DE ESEA Flexibility
Request and SPP Indicators 1 and 2, (3) decrease suspensions and expulsions (SPP Indicator 4),
and (4) improve the degree and quality of parent school engagement (SPP Indicator 8).
1

INTRODUCTION & WELCOME TO THE READER
Thank you for reviewing the Delaware Department of Educations (DDOE) 2012 State
Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) proposal. Our proposal is a collaborative effort across
DDOE offices and branches, our OSEP-funded Parent Information and Training Center, the
Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS) at the University of Delaware (UD), and a number of
LEAs. Our goals are (1) to increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities,
through the implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies and (2) to
increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of dropping out
of school, through sustainable, evidence-based academic, social, and behavioral practices.
As required by Absolute Priority 1, our proposal emphasizes the use of evidence-based
professional development (PD) practices as demonstrated by the structure of our project design.
All objectives are aligned with implementation drivers specifically linked to the SPDG
performance measures. We have designed processes to gather implementation and intervention
fidelity data and will use those data to improve project efforts and inform all stakeholders on
SDPG efforts. We will incorporate technology into our PD though the development of online
resources and online meeting facilitation.
Addressing Priority 2, our efforts are linked to DEs Race to the Top plan, our ESEA
Flexibility Waiver Request, and the OSEP State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
Report. State and local needs have been identified in each of these plans. Our focus on improving
teacher effectiveness to increase student achievement in high need, Priority and Focus, LEAs
will support each plan. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, we have included the required
SPDG partners in developing this proposal, and they will be active contributors in the
implementation of this SPDG. It is expected that virtually 100% of SPDG resources will be spent
on activities directly related to PD.
2

For DE, applying for the SPDG Competitive Priority is a given. The Race to the Top grant
provided impetus for the adaptation of Component V of our teacher evaluation system which is
related to student growth. Full implementation of the revised teacher evaluation begins fall 2012
with growth measures used for the 2012-2013 appraisal system. Three measures inform
Component V: (1) DCAS scores, (2) external (standardized assessments) and internal (educator
developed assessments approved by DDOE) assessments, and (3) teacher established growth
measures. We will gather data from DCAS reading and math assessments, as well as working
with administrators in participating LEAs to obtain the results from the other measures beyond
DCAS to inform ongoing PD. We will be able to examine student DCAS growth data
immediately and school-level data as it becomes available.
As we discuss in greater detail in the Project Design section of this proposal, an initial step in
all proposed PD is a needs assessment so that PD is linked specifically to LEA and teacher
needs. Part of our planning with each LEA will be a careful examination of longitudinal student
DCAS data and additional school-level measures indicating areas of growth or stagnation. The
needs assessment process concludes with an LEA-specific PD action plan for implementing and
sustaining a SPDG practice. As part of our ongoing evaluation process, we will seek input from
teachers on how well the PD is meeting their needs for improving student achievement.
Findings and plans on the use of data will be shared first with our advisory board as
discussed in our Management Plan section. As findings might change the scope of the DE
SPDG, we will stay in regular communication with our OSEP SPDG Project Officer.
Thank you for taking the time to read our proposal.

3

NEED FOR PROJECT
This section provides the data and analyses of the data that have driven the development of
the DE SPDG proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to facilitate the greater use of evidence-
based practices and resources in DE schools and districts to improve upon statewide needs
related tograduation rates and achievement gaps. Quantitative data from the DEs ESEA
Flexibility Request (http://tinyurl.com/DE-Flexibility) and FFY 2010 State Performance Plan
(SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) (http://tinyurl.com/DE-2010-SPP-APR) as well as
qualitative data gathered through stakeholder meetings held in May and J une 2012 were used to
inform our study of state need.
DDOE staff convened five stakeholder groups to discuss state needs and to propose strategies
for overcoming these barriers. Two meetings were held with DOE staff, one with staff from the
Exceptional Children Resources (ECR) office and a second with staff from the Teacher and
Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College & Workforce Readiness
Branch. The meetings served to gather input from the offices leading the implementation of LEA
interventions and supports based on the ESEA flexibility waiver. An evening meeting was held
with representatives from the Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens and the
Parent Information Center, Delawares PTI. Representatives from the UDs School of Education,
Center for Teacher Education, and Center for Disabilities Studies, as well as Delaware Technical
and Community College also provided input. Data from each of these meetings were synthesized
for common themes and potential strategies. This analysis was shared with LEA Special
Education Directors and Coordinators, who recommended priority strategies to be used to
increase the academic performance and graduation rates for students with disabilities. Our
resulting two goals are:
4

Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the
implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with
the greatest academic needs.
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at risk of
dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral
practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and related staff.
Delaware Demographics
Delaware has three counties, 19 LEAs, 22 charter schools, and 210 total schools (which
includes the charter schools and 17 special schools). Based on 2010-2011 Accountability
determinations, 66 schools (or 32%) have been identified as needing School Improvement. DEs
relative small size is challenged by the diversity of the state. The northern part of the state
borders large economic centers and is impacted by the benefits and challenges involved with
larger urban communities. The southern part of the state is rural, sparsely populated, and faces
the benefits and challenges of other rural communities. Almost half of DEs students qualify for
Free/Reduced Lunch programs. Student demographic data are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1: Student Demographic Data
Count White
African-
American
Hispanic Other EL
Low
Income
Special
Education
130,610 49.4% 31.8% 13.0% 5.7% 5.3% 45.9% 13.6%
Graduation and Dropout Rates
After a three year decrease in the graduation rates of students with disabilities, there has been
a steady increase in graduation rates over the last three years. However, the discrepancy in
graduation rates between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since
2006. In 2006-07, as part of a statewide high school redesign, Student Success Plans (SSP)
became a graduation requirement in DE for all students from 8th through 12th grades. The SSP
5

focuses on student long-range planning for postsecondary pursuits, the identification of courses
leading to those goals, and supports that will assist in high school completion and preparation for
careers. The data in Chart 1 provide support for the effectiveness of this process.

Delawares dropout rates for students with disabilities followed a similar pattern to state
graduation rates for the same group between FFYs 2007 and 2009, with rates moving in the
desired direction. However, the dropout rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY
2009 and 2010 (see Chart 2). As reported in DEs FFY 2010 SPP APR, the primary cause of this
increase in dropout rate from 1.3% to 6.7% was believed to be economic-related, as many of
these individuals dropped out of school in an attempt to assist their families financially. This
time period coincides with the economic recession and high unemployment rates. DDOE is
working collaboratively with community and adult service agency partners to expand initiatives
to combat the current dropout rate.

0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Chart 1: Delaware Graduation Rates
Special Education
All Students
Discrepancy between
Groups
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Chart 2: Delaware Drop Out Rates
Special Education
All Students
6

Academic Performance
Delaware implemented a new statewide assessment system (Delaware Comprehensive
Assessment System DCAS) in 2010-12, so only baseline data are available at this time. On
average, students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their
nondisabled peers. These baseline results were used as part of our ESEA Flexibility Request to
calculate the 2016-17 targets that are designed to result in a 50% reduction in the percent not
proficient for each group by content area (see Table 2). Targets for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,
2014-15 and 2015-16 were determined by increasing the targets in equal increments from the
baselines to the 2016-17 targets. These rigorous targets require specific, evidence-based
practices, implemented in a scientific manner to obtain the desired results.
Table 2: Reading and Math Data
Subgroup
2011
Baseline
Targets
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
ELA
All 64.0 67.0 70.0 73.0 76.0 79.0 82.0
English Language Learners 41.4 46.3 51.2 56.1 60.9 65.8 70.7
Students with Disabilities 29.7 35.6 41.4 47.3 53.1 59 64.9
Economically Disadvantaged 51 55.1 59.2 63.3 67.3 71.4 75.5
Math
All 64.2 67.2 70.2 73.2 76.1 79.1 82.1
English Language Learners 48.9 53.2 57.4 61.7 65.9 70.2 74.5
Students with Disabilities 30.2 36.0 41.8 47.7 53.5 59.3 65.1
Economically Disadvantaged 52 56.0 60.0 64.0 68.0 72.0 76.0
Suspension/Expulsion Data
For the 2009-2010 academic year, no LEAs were identified with a significant discrepancy in
the rate of suspension for greater than 10 days for students with disabilities when compared to
7

the number of students without disabilities. Of the states 37 LEAs, two LEAs which exceeded
the states relative difference were excluded from the calculation due to an n size below 15.
Chart 3: Trends in SPP Indicator 4 Data

While there were no discrepancies in suspension/expulsion rates between students with
disabilities and their nondisabled peers, the unduplicated count of student with disabilities
suspended or expelled has not changed significantly since 2005. As shown in Chart 4, after four
years of 20% increases and decreases in the number of suspensions/expulsions, there was a
decline between 2008 and 2009 (partly explained by a change in measurement in 2008), to just
below the 2005 amount. This was stabilized in 2010. These data suggest there is a persistent
problem of a large group of students missing too much instructional time.
Chart 4: Raw Number of Suspensions/Expulsions

8

Least Restrictive Environment Data
DEs LRE data is promising on one hand, as the amount of time students with disabilities
spend in a general education setting continues to grow, while the amount of time students spend
in resource and segregated classrooms has steadily decreased (see Chart 5). Yet, approximately
40% of students with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than
20% of the school day. Compounding this barrier is the finding that the number of students
educated in separate settings has increase slightly since 2005. These are often the students who
are most at risk for low academic performance, to be suspended or expelled, and to drop out.

Parent Involvement Data
Parent satisfaction data reported in DEs FY 2010 SPP APR were positive overall, but there
is still room for improvement. The return rate for this reporting period was only 12.6%, so it is
difficult to say these responses are representative of all DE parents. This return rate is lower than
last years return rate of 17.3%. Keeping in mind that the low response rate makes generalization
difficult, overall, parents reported high satisfaction levels, with 86% of parents responding that
they were very or somewhat satisfied with their childs special education services in FFY 2009
and 2010 (see Chart 6). When parents were asked if they had an opportunity to be an active
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Chart 5: Delaware LRE Rates
Inside Regular Class >80%
Insider Regular Class <79% &
>40%
Inside Regular Class <40%
Separate Setting
9

participant in their childs IEP meeting, 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, with the
large majority strongly agreeing. Parents responded that their childs IEP provided necessary
services to meet IEP goals at a rate of 87 - 89%. Approximately 86% of the respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services
and results for children, although half of these respondents agreed, rather than strongly agreed.
These data are presented in Chart 7. However, when parents were asked if their childs IEP goals
were accomplished, only 58% reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met
(see Chart 8 on the next page). So, overall parents reported high levels of satisfaction with each
item, except how well the IEP goals were accomplished.

6%
8%
33%
53%
5%
8%
36%
51%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not at all Satisfied Somewhat not
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Chart 6: Satisfaction with Child's Overall Special Education
Programs
FFY 2009
FFY 2010
97%
89%
86%
97%
87%
85%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I had the opportunity to be an
active participant in my child's
IEP meeting.*
IEP provided services,
supports, & accommodations
necessary to meet goals.*
School seeks my involvement
for improving services and
results for my child.*
Chart 7: Parent Satisfaction Data
FFY 2009 FFY 2010
10

Communication Needs
Much of our focus in this proposal is to provide PD to help LEAs address the needs of
students scoring at the lowest range of both the DCAS and the Delaware Comprehensive
Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1). With the DCAS-Alt1, many of the
lowest performing students are students with significant communication needs. Table 3 shows
the percentage of students in each of the communication levels, based on self-report data from
the 2010-2011 alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.
Table 3: 2010-11 Communication Level Data
Communication Level Percent
Abstract 54.4
Concrete 38.3
Pre-symbolic 7.3
Approximately 7% of DE students in the alternate assessment do not have a reliable means of
communication and as a result, are not able to fully engage in the general education curriculum.
In addition, the students reported to be Concrete symbolic still need additional communication
supports in order to make continued growth toward fully Abstract communication. The DE
Deaf-Blind project has provided some PD related to communication assessment, but the PD was
58% 58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FFY 2009 FFY 2010
Chart 8: Percent of Parents Reporting That Almost All or All
Their Goals on Their Child's IEP Were Accomplished
11

limited to students with deaf-blindness and did not reflect all students with communication
barriers. As we will discuss in the Significance section, we will work with Dr. Kearns and
Kleinert from the University of Kentucky, to replicate a PD model developed through the current
KY SPDG so that LEAs can meet the communication and academic needs of students with
significant communication needs.
Summary
Our goals are to improve the academic and social/behavioral outcomes for students most at
risk of low performance in the DCAS and DCAS-Alt1. While the graduation rate for students
with disabilities has increased over the last three years, the discrepancy in graduation rates
between typical students and those with disabilities has not decreased since 2005. The dropout
rate for students with disabilities doubled between FFY 2009 and 2010.
Students with disabilities were half as likely to be proficient in ELA and Math as their
nondisabled peers, with only approximately 30% of students with disabilities scoring proficient
or higher in these subjects. This problem is compounded when approximately 40% of students
with IEPs are educated outside of the general education classroom more than 20% of the school
day. Adding to this is the finding that the number of students educated in separate settings has
increased slightly since 2005. SPP data related to parent satisfaction with services found overall
satisfaction with parent engagement and relations with their childs school, yet only 58%
reported that all or almost all of their childs IEP goals were met.
To address these needs, in the next section we discuss the proposed evidence-based strategies
that will be used to insure that a higher percentage of students with disabilities, particularly those
in Priority and Focus schools, are more proficient in ELA and Math, and graduate from high
school, college and career ready (CCR).
12

SIGNIFICANCE
Delawareans pride themselves as early innovators, creating significant solutions to difficult
problems throughout history. Delaware was one of the first Race to the Top states in 2010. This
section describes the strategies that will be used to insure that there is systematic improvement in
the needs identified in the previous section, particularly increasing graduation rates, decreasing
dropout rates, and increasing proficiency in reading and math for students most at risk for not
achieving. This section is divided in two parts. We begin by providing a rationale for the
significance of the professional development framework we will use to achieve our proposed
outcomes. Then we provide evidence for the significance of the initiatives we have proposed.
Significance of Proposed Framework
Professional Development Delivery
Delaware is known for the ability to collaborate, meaningfully engage and solicit
input among the many constituencies, including teachers and their representatives,
not only because of size, but because of the common goal of improving student
outcomes. This has been the case for many decades and continues with the current
leadership as evidenced by the development of the Delaware Education Plan in
2009, the Race to the Top award in 2010 and the ongoing revisions to the statewide
teacher evaluation system. This application followed that same path of engagement
and because of this engagement the proposal evolved and reflects a commitment to
putting in place processes that support students graduating college- and career-
ready. Delaware ESEA Flexibility Request (p.10)
In developing this proposal, we followed the DEs ESEA Flexibility Request framework.
Concurrently, we carefully reviewed our SPP. Specific attention was given to looking at existing
13

activities in both plans to either avoid duplication, or to provide to additional resources to
ongoing work. Evidence of this strategy was our stakeholder meetings with staff from the ECR
office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College &
Workforce Readiness Branch, to make sure a collaborative theme was present from day one of
proposal development, continuing through implementation, evaluation, and refinement.
Figure 1: Delaware Education Support System

Following the lead of the ESEA Flexibility Request, SPDG PD activities will focus on
selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE personnel already
working with those schools. DE has identified 10% of the states lower performing Title 1
Statewide Technical Assistance Sessions (All LEAs)
Topics may include success planning, goal setting, and alignment, monitoring, resource
allocation, building leadership capacity (including building collaboration between
general ed, special ed, and EL), curriculum alignment, or DPASII.
Focused Technical Assistance Sessions
(LEAs in Moderate or Higher)
Topics may include school climate, assessment, interventions, or
time utilization.

Targeted Support TA and Reporting
(LEAs in Advanced or Higher)
Targeted DOE staff support to identify & prioritize
needs, realignment of DOE resources to support
prioritized needs, & quarterly Success Plan reporting.

1 to 1 Support, TA & Monitoring
(LEAs in Intensive)
One on one support from DOE staff to
identify & prioritize needs,
realignment of DOE resources to
support prioritized needs, & quarterly
monitoring.

Minimal Support Moderate Support Advanced Support Intensive Support
14

schools with the largest achievement gaps in ELA and Math as Focus schools. Approximately 15
schools annually will be identified as Focus schools. Five percent (8 schools) of DEs lowest
performing schools will be identified as Priority schools based on statewide assessment data.
As shown in Figure 1 (on the previous page), the DDOE has developed a tiered method of
professional development, focusing most resources on schools and LEAs in greatest need.
Minimal and moderate levels of support and professional development are available to all
schools. The Priority and Focus schools require advance and intensive support and will be the
focus of DEs SPDG efforts. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within
the first year and will include additional Focus LEAs based on identified needs within Year 2.
Over the course of the grant, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as
determined through the accountability system.
Significance of Implementation Strategies
We have used an implementation science framework to develop the project design discussed
in the next section. SPDG Performance Measure #1 was designed to make sure evidence-based
professional development was being practiced in SPDGs. Five specific drivers (four competency
drivers and one organizational driver) have been identified as crucial to successful professional
development: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment and Facilitative
Administrative Support/Systems Intervention. All proposed objectives and activities have been
organized to address these drivers. The goals of this proposal have been carefully considered in
developing activities within each of the driver domains.
To insure the drivers do not operate in isolation, feedback and feedforward loops are
necessary to facilitate ongoing improvement in the implementation of effective practices. These
loops will be developed so that practice informs policy (PIP) and policy enables practice (PEP).
15

PIP cycles begin with the collection and analysis of implementation and intervention fidelity
data, that is then shared with all stakeholders, particularly those in a position to influence policy
(DDOE). PEP cycles operate in the opposite direction, with information flowing across state,
regional, and local personnel so that all SPDG participants are knowledgeable and skilled in the
implementation of SPDG activities.
The work of the State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence-Based Practices project
(SISEP) has suggested that increased innovation fluency can be enhanced through the
development and use of practice profiles. Practice profiles are a process for identifying the
critical components of an innovation or intervention. Each critical component identifies a gold
standard of implementation, acceptable variations in practice, and ineffective practices and
undesirable practices. We will use practice profiles as a tool for evaluating how well each
intervention is implemented, as another tool to insure a strong focus on fidelity of
implementation (how the PD is provided) and fidelity of intervention (to what the degree is the
intervention being used properly in schools).
Last, to make sure an evidence-based approach to PD is used, we plan to use Dunst and
Trivettes (2009) Participatory Adult Learning Strategy (PALS) as a model for training and
coaching. PALS addresses three aspects of adult learning: planning, application, and deep
understanding. During the planning stage, the training topic is introduced and illustrated so the
learner is aware of the strategies to be introduced and understands the applicability of the
strategies to their work. In the application stage, participants have the opportunity to practice the
new strategies, as well as thinking through how to evaluate the implementation of the strategy.
Last, deep understanding requires reflection and mastery.

16

Significance of Initiatives
Keeping students engaged and performing well are essential strategies in keeping any student
in school and on track to graduate. Lower performing students as a result are often at risk for
dropping out. We have proposed a number of strategies to increase student engagement and
performance as methods for keeping students with disabilities in school and successful. Most of
our strategies are targeted at LEAs with the highest needs, providing professional development
on the use of sustainable, evidence-based academic, social, and behavioral practices to improve
school and post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. PD will focus on strategies to
support students who are performing the lowest on the DCAS state assessment.
implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students
with the greatest academic needs.
Activities under Goal 1 focus on developing academic IEP goals that are linked to the CCSS,
implementing the Strategic Instructional Model from the University of Kansas, and increasing
the capacity of LEAs to support students with challenging communication needs.
Developing Academic IEP Goals Tied to the CCSS
This proposal provides the support for DE to move forward in two areas related to IEP
development. First, DDOE has traditionally used a compliance protocol to ensure LEAs are
addressing the IDEA-required IEP and secondary transition requirements for students with
disabilities. Through the SPDG initiative, a more comprehensive tool will be developed to better
address student results and reflect best practices.
The adoption and implementation of the CCSS necessitated new consideration of the IEP
development process to ensure that IEPs adequately reference the standards for both instruction
17

and assessment. Well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core
content and evidence-based instructional strategies, must also identify the necessary supports,
modifications, and accommodations. PD will focus on the use of the CCSS as a framework with
the IEP detailing the student-centered plan that provides access to the curriculum to promote
academic success. This change in focus will require sustained PD, particularly in training on the
CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities.
During the first six months, DOE staff and key stakeholders will review foundational
materials in order to establish a training curriculum. Materials include Courtade and Browders
(2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core Standards and Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process
to Creating Standards-Based IEPs. Holbrooks seven-step process is designed to develop IEPs
aligned with state academic grade-level content standards. Each step is followed by guiding
questions for the IEP team to consider in making data-based decisions. This process can help
school personnel to: (a) consider each students strengths and needs to develop goals focused on
closing the gaps between the students levels of academic achievement and grade-level
standards; and (b) use data to make decisions, including selecting the most appropriate
assessment option. The goal is to support IEP teams to develop documents that, when
implemented, provide access to the general curriculum and enable students to demonstrate
academic achievement linked to grade-level content.
Current federal policy requires that alternate achievement standards be linked to grade level
content that promotes access to the general curriculum. The Courtade and Browder text provides
a clear framework for aligning academic state standards and IEPs for students with moderate and
severe intellectual disabilities. It promotes overall ELA and math skill development, self-
determination skills, assistive technology, and real life activities to increase active, independent
18

responding and to give meaning to academic concepts. These IEP improvement activities set the
stage for the next objective, professional development on evidence-based instructional strategies.
Evidence-Based Instructional Strategies
In recent years, training and coaching has been provided on the use of evidence-based
practices such as co-teaching, differentiation, accommodations, and universal design for
learning. Professional development was provided by DOE staff as co-teaching, differentiation
and UDL related to previous SPDG goals. Additionally, PD on co-teaching has been an initiative
of specific LEAs with PD provided by LEA staff and outside consultants. Professional
development and technical assistance related to accommodations, particularly for the state
assessment, has been on-going.
SIM is based on three interrelated components: Learning Strategies, Content Enhancement
Routines and Teaming. Learning Strategies are used by students to help them understand
information and solve problems. Learning strategy instruction focuses on making the students
more active learners by teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to
solve problems and be successful. The Learning Strategies Curriculum is divided into strands, or
categories of skills. Strands focus on (1) how students acquire information, (2) what helps
students study information once they acquire it, and (3) helping students express themselves.
Other strategies focus on reading, math, writing, studying & remembering information,
improving assignment & test performance, effectively interacting with others, and motivation.
Content Enhancement Routines are used by teachers to teach curriculum content to
academically diverse classes in ways that all students can understand and remember key
information. Content Enhancement is an instructional method that relies on using powerful
teaching devices to organize and present curriculum content in an understandable and easy-to-
learn manner.
19

Some Content Enhancement Routines help teachers think about and organize content, then
present it in such a way that students can see the organization. Others help teachers explain text,
topics, and details. A third group helps teach complex concepts so students gain a deep
understanding and develop a shared vocabulary for talking about important information. A final
group of routines help students complete work in the classroom.
SIM posits that altering the poor performance of underachieving students occurs only when
teachers are well supported in their work and when teachers carefully team with others on behalf
of those students who struggle to succeed. SIM provides a number of supporting programs and
materials designed to improve communication and teaming both within the classroom and within
the larger community. Teaming can help provide a sustained, well-coordinated, and well-
orchestrated balance of curriculum content, skills, and strategies. Teaming involves general and
special educators, administrators, parents, physicians, counselors, coaches, and other individuals
or agencies that have contact with the student in some way. Bringing this group into the teaming
environment helps ensure a consistent message to the student as he or she continues to pursue
academic success.
Communicative Capacity
To achieve greater access to both curriculum and assessment, an increase in capacity must
occur in order to meet the needs of students with significant communication disorders. This need
and subsequent strategies have received increased attention in the last few years. A recent 19-
state symposium on communication was held by the National Center and State Collaborative,
one of two national consortiums funded by OSEP to develop new alternate assessment systems,
with corresponding professional development activities. DDOE staff attended the symposium as
a NCSC Tier II state.
20

Two data collection tools will inform our communication intervention. At the state level,
questions from the Learner Characteristics Inventory (LCI) (Kearns, Kleinert, and Towles-
Reeves, 2006) will be added to a student questionnaire that will be completed for all students
participating in the DCAS-Alt1, Delawares alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards. The LCI is designed to enhance the demographic data collection for the test. The
students who participate in the DCAS-Alt1 represent a highly diverse population with varying
levels of communication and other complex characteristics. This information will be useful both
for state policy makers examining assessment participation, but will also allow us to determine
which LEAs are working with students who have complex communication needs.
The Communication Matrix (Rowland, 2004) is an assessment tool designed to specify how
an individual is communicating and to provide a framework for designing communication goals.
First published in 1990, it has been revised in 1996 and 2004 with an online format added in
2011. Its intended use is for educators and speech-language pathologists to determine the
expressive communication skills of children with significant communication needs. Students
with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication Matrix to
determine IEP strategies addressing their communication needs. The Matrix is currently being
used in DE, so it is familiar to many teachers and SLPs.
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students most at
risk of dropping out of school, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and
behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to educators and
related staff.
Similar to Goal 1, Goal 2 addresses three types of PD activities. First, we focus on the
development of IEP goals that address behavioral and social needs. Second, we will work with
21

the DE PBS Project to further develop the capacity of Delaware schools to implement intensive
PBS and other interventions for students with challenging behavior and/or diagnosed mental
health needs. The last activity focuses on developing the capacity of LEAs to implement social
skills training to students at risk of dropping out.
Developing Behavioral IEP Goals
Similar to developing clear, well-developed academic IEP goals as we discussed related to
our first goal, writing clear, measurable behavioral IEP goals is equally important. The IEP
behavioral goals are necessary for identifying appropriate and necessary supports to allow
students to achieve their goals. This is the foundational activity for Goal 2, setting the stage for
work around Tier 3 behavioral interventions and social skills training. Professional development
on behavioral goal setting will be delivered as part of training on academic IEP goals. Bateman
and Herr (2006) provide a quality reference for developing IEP goals, starting with present level
of performance, developing measureable and meaningful goals and objectives, how to project
annual goals and track performance. In addition, we will utilize Writing Measurable Functional
and Transition IEP Goals by Herr, Bateman, and Kinney (2012) to focus on behavioral and
social goals.
Intensive Behavioral Interventions
The DE PBS Project has provided training on Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR, Dunlap et al.,
2010) to five LEAs in DE. PTR is a five-step process. Each component has its own evidence
base. The steps are teaming, goal setting, functional assessment, intervention, and evaluation. At
the heart of the intervention are Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Support
Plans. The U.S. Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences funded a study of
Prevent-Teach-Reinforce to determine if the intervention was more effective than control
conditions (business as usual) in decreasing severe problem behaviors and increasing pro-social
22

and academic skills of students. Results from this study found statistically significant decreases
in problem behaviors and increases in social skills (as measure by the Social Skills Rating
System), as well as increases in time spent engaged in academics for students receiving the PTR
intervention (Iovannone et al., 2009).
A functional behavior assessment is a set of strategies used to determine the underlying
function, or purpose, of a behavior, so that a Behavior Support Plan can be developed. FBA
consists of isolating and describing the problem behavior, identifying antecedent events that
influence the behavior, developing a hypothesis of the behavior, and testing the hypothesis.
Professional development on FBAs and BSPs will be included as part of the PTR process, as
well as part of targeted training in LEAs with this need.
Many states implementing positive behavioral support initiatives have struggled in providing
high quality PD on Tier 3 behavioral supports. Students with extreme behavioral or emotional
challenges require comprehensive interventions. These students often have significant clinical
problems that are chronic, hard to change, and often threaten other students, teachers, and others.
Examples of Tier 3 interventions include school-based mental health services, comprehensive
wraparound or system of care services, individual counseling/behavioral therapy, relaxation
therapy, desensitization, cognitive-behavioral strategies (e.g., Second Step), etc. In year 1, DOE
staff and stakeholders will prioritize Tier 3 intervention strategies for implementation with
Priority and Focus LEAs.

23

DE Social Skills Project
Many students identified as needing behavioral interventions need training to address deficits
in social cognition. A meta-analysis of 55 studies researching the outcomes of social skills
training for children on the autism spectrum found that programs held in typical classroom
settings were more likely to result in positive changes than programs held in other settings.
Generalization of the constructs taught is necessary for students to learn and internalize the
necessary social skills. Presently, few educators receive training in social skills interventions as
part of their undergraduate and graduate school training. The responsibility for professional
development in this area often falls to LEAs, with limited resources to implement the necessary
social skill interventions (Belini et al., 2007). Research through the Arkansas SPDG (2009)
found that social skills instruction was an essential component for teaching students the
cognitive-behavioral steps needed to master interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict
resolution, and coping skills.
DDOE, in conjunction with CDS staff, developed a Social Skills Pilot in 2009-10. Schools
volunteer to participate and nominate one or two group facilitators per school. The facilitators
receive professional development, materials and consultation on implementing groups that teach
social cognition and communication skills. The groups are based upon the Social Thinking
curriculum developed by Michelle Garcia Winner. Before individuals are able to use social
skills, they must be able to take the perspective of others and recognize that these viewpoints can
be different from their own. Typical social skills programs focus only on teaching discrete social
skills (e.g., how to initiate conversations) and often students are not able to generalize the skills
learned in the group to real social situations outside the group. The social cognitive approach
seeks to develop a students ability to understand how others think and feel and how his or her
24

behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to promote positive
social interactions and develop friendships. Fifteen schools in four districts have participated in
the pilot project.
Summary
From the start of proposal development, our intent was to make sure all professional
development was aligned with DEs strategies outlined in our ESEA Flexibility Request and
SPP. To do so, we have worked closely with staff from the Exceptional Children Resources
office, Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit, and the College &
Workforce Readiness Branch to design this proposal. Most of our work will focus on supporting
selected schools within Priority and Focus LEAs, in conjunction with DDOE and other personnel
already working in these LEAs. We have used an implementation science framework to develop
this proposal, with information loops (PIP and PEP cycles) designed, involving data collection,
reporting, and sharing of results. These activities will insure that all PD and evidence-based
interventions are implemented as designed, and with the results expected.
The significance of our interventions is as important as the significance of our PD processes.
We will use a variety of foundational materials by Courtade and Browder as well as Bateman
and Herrto support our PD efforts related to IEP goal development. The connection of IEPs to
the CCSS is timely and critical. SIMs three interrelated components: Learning Strategies,
Content Enhancement Routines and Teaming have a strong research base and have been used by
other SPDGs. A focus on Tier 3 behavioral interventions will provide LEAs with the necessary
strategies for keeping students with complex behavior needs in their home schools, in classrooms
taught by highly qualified content teachers. DE, as a Tier 2 member of the NCSC, was able to
attend a recent 19-state symposium to learn and inspire our work in providing evidence-based
25

communication interventions. The DE Social Skills Project, based on the Social Thinking
curriculum (Garcia Winner), allows students to better understand how others think and feel, and
how their behavior impacts the thoughts of feelings of others. Students then learn skills to
promote positive social interactions and develop friendships. The initiatives related to IEP
development, academic and behavioral tiered interventions as well as communication and social
skills provide a network of support to LEAs as they prepare students for academic success.

26

QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN

This section presents the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved for our two goals. A
listing of each activity associated with each objective, as well as when it will be accomplished
and who will perform the work, is included in Table __ in the Management Plan section.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will
successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program
of training in the field.
(v) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other
appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to
improve teaching and learning & support rigorous academic standards for students.
The criteria above have been discussed in the Needs and Significance sections. As discussed
in the Significance section, our SPDG activities are connected to existing state priorities and are
implemented to support existing programs. We also link to other agencies including Prevention
and Behavioral Health Services, the DE PIC (PTI), the DE Deaf-Blind Project, our University
Center on Excellence on Developmental Disabilities (CDS), and other related agencies so there
is a coherent and sustained PD infrastructure. Our work is designed to build the capacity of
personnel teaching in Priority and Focus schools.
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed
project are clearly specified and measurable.
(iv)The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge
from research and effective practice.

27

Figure 2: Delaware SPDG Framework
GOAL 1
ACADEMIC
PROCESS DRIVERS
GOAL 2
BEHAVIORAL

IEP Development
(Standards-based
Goals)

Obj 4: Performance Assessment

Obj 3: Coaching

Obj 2: Training

Obj 1: Selection

IEP Development
(Behavioral Goals &
Supports)

Intensive Tiered
Supports
(Academic)

Intensive Tiered
Supports
(Behavioral/
Social)
Communication Skills

Social Skills
Our framework contains two goals, both focused on improving student outcomes through PD
to low performing LEAs to build their capacity to support students with the most intense
academic and behavioral needs. Each goal begins by building a strong foundation, with IEPs
developed with well-written academic and behavioral goals. The academic IEP goals are to be
linked to the CCSS. Building on the foundation, we will implement evidence-based targeted
strategies (SIM and PBIS advance tiers interventions) to improve student academic and
behavioral outcomes. Augmenting these practices are communication and social skill
interventions, also designed to impact student outcomes. So, within each goal is a continuum of
strategies designed to improve student achievement and behavior. There is also a continuum and
connection of strategies across the two goals. IEP training will address both academic and
O
b
j
.

5
:

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

D
r
i
v
e
r

28

behavioral goals. It is quite likely that many students who will benefit from SIMs intensive
academic interventions will also be impacted by an LEAs implementation of strong Tier 3
behavioral interventions. As displayed in Figure 2, the initiatives described in the Significance
section are organized under Goal 1 and Goal 2. The Process Drivers described in the center
column outline the objectives used to organize the Project Design section.
Linking the two goals is a system that addresses SPDG Priority 1 an effective and efficient
system for delivery of PD, as well as the first SPDG Performance (GPRA) Measure (described in
more detail on page 14 in the Significance section). The organization of activities within each
goal was developed within an implementation science context, as operationalized within SPDG
Performance Measure 1. So for each goal, we describe how personnel providing PD and LEAs
receiving PD will be selected; how training and coaching will be delivered, by whom, and with
what accountability; what performance measures will be put in place to gather data for
accountability and program improvement purposes; and how organizational capacity and
leadership will be nurtured to sustain the proposed work.
implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students
with the greatest academic needs.
This goal focuses on providing professional development within identified Priority and Focus
LEAs through the ESEA flexibility requirements, targeted to improving the academic
achievement of students scoring the lowest on the general assessment (DCAS), as well as
students whose communication needs are limiting their performance in the alternate assessment
based on alternate achievement standards (DCAS-Alt1). Professional development will be
provided by DDOE staff and partners at the Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS).
29

Three streams of PD are planned for Goal 1. First, we will focus on the quality of IEPs,
making sure there are well-developed academic goals with linkages to the CCSS. Next, we will
implement the KU Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) as targeted and intensive interventions for
low performing students. Our third stream focuses on increasing the capacity of LEAs to support
students with the most significant communication challenges.
The first eight months of Year 1 will focus primarily on planning, curriculum and instrument
development, fine tuning of the evaluation plan, and relationship building/strengthening. This
will put us in position for kick-off training events in the summer and fall of 2013. Professional
development will be targeted at schools within identified Priority and Focus LEAs. We expect to
work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year and introducing additional
LEAs across the three streams based on identified needs. As the grant continues, we will work
with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through the accountability system.
Outcome 1: To improve the quality of IEPs in specifying academic goals necessary for
students to access the Common Core State Standards.
As Delaware moves forward in implementing the CCSS, insuring that students with
disabilities are provided academic instruction linked to these standards is essential. This begins
with well-developed IEPs, with specific goals that link back to academic core content. A focus
on standards-based IEP development will help to ensure that IEP goals are aligned with the
CCSS and will be a new initiative within DE as PD on standards-based IEPs has not been
conducted in the past. The adoption of the CCSS makes it imperative for IEPs to have
established goals and benchmarks, linked to the CCSS, and to assess students academic
performance, as one measure of CCR. This change in focus will require sustained PD,
particularly in training on the CCSS and what that means for students with disabilities.
30

Outcome 2: To increase the use of evidence-based instructional practices by school
personnel.
To increase the graduation rate and decrease the dropout rate of DE students, it is essential
that students receive the highest quality instruction, based on the use of evidence-based
instructional practices, so that they are academically proficient and engaged in school. Students
most at risk of failing academically are often those that need specialized instructional strategies
to learn the core content. We will adopt the Kansas Universitys SIM as our primary
intervention. SIM is discussed in greater detail on page 18 of the Significance section.
Outcome 3: To increase the communication capacity of students with communication
disorders.
National and state data clearly show that there are too many students who cannot
communicate sufficiently to participate fully in instruction and state assessment systems; yet
effective communication systems have not been identified for many of these students or there is
insufficient capacity to support the use of the communication systems. Our proposed
communication activities draw from lessons learned by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at the UK, who
are just completing a similar initiative through the KY SPDG. Quantitative and qualitative data
demonstrated the impact of this PD on student, team, and school outcomes.
Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to high needs
schools and high needs students.
To sustain the three PD activities just described, it is necessary to develop and support an
infrastructure that can sustain this work after the funding period is over. Delaware has a wealth
of coaching excellence across the states IHEs, CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent
31

organizations. We will develop and support a PLC designed to provide on-going support around
IEP development, the use of evidence-based instructional practices, and communication support.
These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following
five objectives.
Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic and
communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving
PD. (Selection Driver)
This objective focuses on (1) the selection of individuals responsible for providing
professional development, (2) the selection and commitment of LEAs to participate in the
professional development, and (3) the selection of interventions and the degree to which they are
determined to be evidence-based.
During the first quarter of Year 1, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who
will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP academic goals, SIM, and
communication supports for students with disabilities. PD providers, primarily DDOE and CDS
staff will be assessed in relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training
for any new PD providers and benchmarks for coaching feedback. The competencies will be
reviewed by the program developers for each intervention we are adopting (Holbrook/Courtade,
University of Kansas, University of Kentucky) to ensure the validity of the process. Areas of in
need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the trainer/coaches
PD Plan. Any individuals hired to work on any of the SPDG initiatives will be recruited and
evaluated based on the identified competencies.
Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus
LEAs/schools. LEAs will agree to provide the necessary resources and supports for school staff
32

to participate. A sample letter of commitment with roles and responsibilities all participating
LEAs would agree to is included in Appendix A.
To insure that SPDG PD is based on teachers need, existing data will be reviewed and
discussed among PD providers and participating LEA personnel. Data will include SPP Indicator
13 data, reviews of the degree to which IEP academic goals are linked to the CCSS, annual
student reading and math DCAS data, formative or progress monitoring data, and LCI data. A
review of existing math and reading curricula will also be conducted to ensure they are evidence-
based and are implemented with fidelity. Teachers, administrators, and parents will be surveyed
to determine their knowledge and use of best practice, standards-based IEP, evidence-based
instructional strategies, and degree of knowledge and skills related to communication.
For the communication initiative, LEAs will be recruited based on (1) students
communication needs, as measured by the LCI and (2) recommendations from parents, teachers,
and/or administrators. It is expected we will work with eight to ten communication teams each
year. To make sure the communication initiative is meeting students needs, participating
students with identified communication disorders will be profiled using the Communication
Matrix (Rowland, 2011) to better understand students communication needs. Students rated as
Levels I, II, or III on the Communication Matrix will be identified as potential participants, after
consideration is given by students, parents, and IEP teams. School teams will be identified to
potentially include school and district administrators, related service providers (particularly
SLPs), general and special education teachers, parents, assistive technology specialists, and any
other individuals identified on the IEP. A needs assessment survey will be conducted with each
team to determine existing knowledge and skill base. The needs assessment data will be used to
develop individual LEA action plans to guide their PD.
33

Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency
of DE teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, & other community
members to support students academic and communication needs. (Training Driver)
We will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS) method of training (Dunst
and Trivette, 2009), discussed on page 15 in the Significance section to ensure all training uses
adult learning principles and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant
knowledge and skills will be collected and analyzed, how PD providers will be trained, coached,
and observed, and the data that will be used to improve trainer skills and the content of training
is described below.
Academic IEP Goals Linked to the Common Core State Standards
We have researched various tools for training and coaching on IEP development and will use
Holbrooks (2007) Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPs and Courtade and
Browders (2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core State Standards as professional
development tools for improving the degree to which IEPS have strong academic goals, linked to
the CCSS. Both were discussed in greater detail in the Significance section (see page 16).
Training topics will include identification of student needs, crafting goals aligned to the CCSS,
and selection and implementation of appropriate services, accommodations and modifications.
Prior to DE SPDG staff providing any training, they will review the Courtade and Browder and
Holbrook materials and will consult with the authors if determined to be necessary to ensure
fidelity with the training curriculum. Training fidelity tools and processes will be discussed in
the Performance Appraisal section. Training data will be tracked and used to improve future PD.

34

SIM Training
During the first six months of the project, a cadre of trainers from the DDOE, CDS, and local
LEAs will receive training from the University of Kansas SIM staff. Training will be driven by
local needs, with the appropriate SIMs strategies taught. Training will follow the SIM training
protocols to ensure fidelity to the model. A state-wide kick off training for all participating LEA
personnel will occur each summer. A mid-year booster training will be provided to allow school
personnel to come together to share what they have learned and challenges they face. After the
initial training and careful reviews of LEA needs data, a professional plan will be developed to
guide future training and coaching opportunities. The PD schedule over the course of the grant
is:
Year 1 PD will be delivered to four Priority LEAs, with one to two school teams
(grades 4 10) from each LEA.
Year 2 Ongoing training and coaching with initial cohort of schools. Implementation of
strategies within one classroom in each school.
Year 3 Expanded implementation across a grade or grade band; continued coaching;
identify potential staff for further PD.
Year 4 Expand implementation across schools. Provide PD for additional LEA staff.
Year 5 Expand PD across schools using trained staff within LEA.
Communication Training
DE SPDG staff will receive training from Drs. Kearns and Kleinert to ensure that fidelity of
implementation and intervention occur. Prior to implementation, a kick-off training will be
conducted each summer with new LEA teams. PD will be team-based, with teams supporting
one or more students from a school or LEA. Training topics will include use of the
35

communication matrix, assistive technology, and strategies to support communication. Trainers
will include CDS consultants, DDOE staff, and personnel from the DE Assistive Technology
Initiative. The DE trainers will be coached and supported by Drs. Kearns and Kleinert at U.K.
The kick-off training will conclude with student action plans developed for each student team. A
one day mid-year booster will be held to address common topics across teams and to update
action plans as necessary. Training data will be reviewed to inform future training events.
Parent/Family Training
Concurrently, the PIC will conduct a parallel set of trainings informing parents and families
of students in LEAs being served about standards-based IEPs connected to the CCSS, evidence-
based instructional strategies, and interventions for increasing students communicative
competence. The DE PIC will offer workshops addressing communicative needs focusing on
strategies to support the students at home. Training materials will be developed in conjunction
with DDOE and CDS staff. The training will likely be provided through formal workshops,
Lunch & Learn webinars, individual family consultations, and further training of PIC staff.
Members of the DE Leadership team will participate in parent/family workshops as necessary.
Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support
strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver)
Following the guidelines of SPDG Performance Measure #1, this section describes the
accountability process for the development and monitoring of coaching, and the feedback to be
provided to coaches. The multiple sources of information that will be used to provide feedback to
coaches, is also discussed. Two levels of coaching will be used to ensure strategies are
implemented with fidelity. At the state level, experts (state coaches) in the areas of developing
strong academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS, SIM, and communication supports will provide
36

guidance and support to LEA coaches. The LEA coaches will serve as coaches to personnel in
their districts who are implementing Goal 1 activities. Participating LEAs will have developed
LEA PD plans at the completion of their initial training; outlining the training, coaching, and any
other resources needed to successfully implement the Goal 1 activities in their schools. LEA
coaches will develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful coaches for
teachers, administrators and staff in their districts.
A coaching fidelity checklist will be developed for each initiative, based on the PALS model.
This checklist will be used with state/LEA coaching, as well as coaching conducted within the
LEA. State coaches, in conjunction with LEA personnel, will collect intervention fidelity data,
the degree to which academic IEP goals, SIM, and the communication interventions were
implemented as designed. Existing SIM instruments will be used to assess SIM fidelity. For the
IEP and communication components, fidelity instruments will be developed through the use of
the practice profile process.
At monthly coaching meetings between state and LEA coaches, up to four sources of data
will be available for review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the LEA PD plan, the
coaching fidelity protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will necessarily be
available or reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches and LEA PD
plans will be expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face, through Skype,
web-conferencing software, and or phone.
Coaching specific to the communication component will take place between state coaches
and LEA teams via monthly webinars and/or phone calls to facilitate parental involvement.
Coaching calls will follow the fidelity protocol discussed previously. Short videos will be filmed
at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the intervention period, demonstrating the use of a
37

particular strategy for the month, to be reviewed by the team as part of the monthly call. Data on
the impact of SDPG coaching and student communication improvements will be reviewed on an
ongoing basis to inform future PD.
We will develop and support a PLC designed to expand and provide on-going coaching to
support the implementation of SIM and the communication interventions (both driven by well-
developed academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS) and to support professional development for
LEAs on supporting students requiring advanced behavioral interventions.
Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to
support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment
Driver)
The project evaluator, working closely with the DE SPDG Management Team, will develop
training, coaching, and intervention fidelity instruments during the first two quarters of Year 1.
Each intervention fidelity instrument (IEP development, SIM, and communication interventions)
will be developed in accordance with the evidence-base it is derived from. IEP training and
coaching fidelity protocols will be developed in alignment with the research presented in the
Holbrook/Courtade and Browder publications, and reviewed by the authors. SIM fidelity
instruments are provided by the University of Kansas. Fidelity protocols established by
researchers at U.K. will be used to assess the implementation of communication strategies.
Pre/post training assessments will also be developed during this time.
The DE SPDG Management Team will be responsible for overseeing fidelity measurement
and reporting. Project evaluators will train and coach the state and LEA coaches on the use of
implementation (training and coaching) and intervention (i.e., IEP development, SIM, and
38

communication) fidelity instruments. An easy to use, web-based data management system (using
tools such as SurveyMonkey and Microsoft Access) will be developed.
Data on the implementation of training and coaching will be collected at all trainings and
selected coaching events between the state and LEA coaches, as well as similar events with LEA
coaches and the school staff they are working with. The implementation fidelity instruments will
be developed based on the PALS model. Fidelity data for training events will be collected by
participating members of the DE SPDG Management Team to obtain a diversity of perspectives
on how well training has been implemented. Twice a year, a DE SPDG Management Team
representative will join an LEA coach for a local coaching visit, to validate the ongoing self-
report data from the regional coaches. The monthly coaching protocol will be linked to the action
plan and serve as a fidelity check as to the degree to which PD activities have been implemented.
Other data to be collected and reviewed include DCAS and DCAS-Alt1 annual reading and
math results (SPP #3), reading and math formative data, student communication data (from the
Communication Matrix and student videos), LRE data (SPP #5), IEP SPP Indicator 13 data, and
parent engagement (SPP #8). These data will be collected, reviewed, and analyzed annually. All
participating LEA personnel will be surveyed annual to gather quantitative and qualitative
impact data to inform project management and implementation. These data will be used to
inform the PIP PEP cycles discussed on pages 14 - 15 of the Significance section.
Objective 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to
develop quality academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and
communication interventions in their schools. (Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems
Intervention Driver)
39

SPDG Performance Measure #1 addresses two Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems
Intervention strategies: (1) administrators are trained appropriately on the SPDG-supported
practices and have knowledge of how to support its implementation and (2) leadership analyzes
feedback from staff and makes changes to alleviate barriers and facilitate implementation,
including revising policies and procedures to support new ways of work.
Training modules will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on
implementation of academic IEP goals, SIM, communication interventions, and parent
engagement strategies. As school and district administrators play a large role in IEP
development, this component is critical to successfully sustaining this work. Training will also
address implementation fidelity to support ongoing coaching of teachers, as well as intervention
fidelity so that administrators are more aware of the instructional strategies being implemented.
A particular focus will be on how administrators can support their staff in the ongoing
implementation of these activities. We will also provide guidance to administrators, teachers, and
staff on analyzing data to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP cycles.
The modules will initially be conducted as real time webinars, but will also be archived on
the DOEs website related to special education. The modules will provide overviews of each
initiative, including training, coaching, and evaluation strategies. In addition, administrators will
participate in follow-up online meetings or phone conferences for feedback and discussion.
Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with
behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence-
based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to
educators and related staff.
40

This goal focuses on students who are frequently removed from the general education
classroom and often are removed from their home school and sent to a separate setting due to
social and behavioral concerns. Objectives and activities proposed are designed to build the
capacity of LEAs and schools to keep students with behavior support needs in their home
schools and in general education programs the majority of the school day. Our four primary
expected outcomes for this goal are:
Outcome 1: Improved quality of IEPs in specifying behavioral goals.
DEs LEAs have struggled to develop quality goals that lead to the outcomes of reduced
suspensions and expulsions, as well as greater amounts of time spent in general education
classrooms. Activities conducted under this objective will be implemented in conjunction with
academic IEP goal development activities for Goal 1 if appropriate to the needs of the LEA and
identified schools. If the needs of the LEA relate to behavioral/social IEP goal development
only, training activities will be conducted related to this area.
Outcome 2: Increased use of evidence-based social support strategies by school personnel.
The second set of activities focuses on a targeted social skills intervention to increase use of
positive, pro-social behaviors. The DE Social Skills Project (based on Winner, 2008) was piloted
by the DE-PBS Project in one LEA during the 2009-10 school year. In the last two years, 15
schools across four LEAs have participated in the Social Skills Project. We will scale up the
implementation of the DE Social Skills Pilot, with a particular focus on middle and high schools.
Through the pilot, facilitators received PD, resources and materials, and on-site coaching and
consultation. School staff also received PD to support the generalization of skills across settings
and how to develop programming and IEP goals related to social skills.
41

Outcome 3: Increased use of evidence-based individualized tiered behavioral supports by
school personnel.
Students who need intensive Tier 3 interventions to support their success in inclusive settings
are the focus of the third activity. Many DE students have complex behavioral and mental health
needs that require more intense, wraparound interventions. These activities require strong
collaborative efforts by agencies such as Delawares Department of Services for Children,
Youth, and Their Families; Department of Health and Social Services; the PIC of DE; CDS; the
DDOE; and LEAs. The DE PBS Project coordinates and provides much of the PD on tiered
behavioral supports in the state.
Outcome 4: To develop a network of coaches to provide ongoing support to school staff
supporting students with intensive social and behavioral needs.
Similar to Goal 1, the objectives below explain how we will develop an infrastructure that
can sustain this work. Delaware has a wealth of coaching excellence across the states IHEs,
CDS, LEAs, schools, private entities, and parent organizations. We will develop and support a
PLC designed to provide on-going support around developing quality behavioral IEP goals, the
DE Social Skills Project, and intensive Tier 3 behavioral supports.
These four outcomes will be achieved through successful implementation of the following
five objectives.
Objective 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD and to define the expectations
and commitment of those receiving PD. (Selection Driver)
Using the practice profile process, we will identify competencies expected of personnel who
will train and coach school and other personnel on developing IEP behavioral goals, the DE
Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral supports for middle and high school students. DDOE
42

staff and other personnel responsible for implementing Goal 2 activities will be assessed in
relation to these competencies. The competencies will serve as training for any new professional
development providers and benchmarks for employee reviews. The competencies will be
reviewed by experts such as Delawares National PBIS Center regional contact, Dr. Lucille Eber.
Areas in need of additional training and coaching will be identified and will be part of the
trainer/coaches PD Plan.
Participating LEAs and schools will be selected based on their status as Priority or Focus
LEAs. We expect to work with a minimum of four Priority LEAs within the first year. As the
grant continues, we will work with additional Priority and Focus LEAs as determined through
the accountability system. Participating LEAs must complete an agreement form established to
demonstrate their commitment to participation in each of the DE SPDG initiatives.
Teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents in participating LEAs and schools
will be surveyed to determine their knowledge and use of behavioral IEP goals, pro-social
interventions, and Tier 3 behavioral supports. Existing student data collected on problem
behaviors will be reviewed. The results of the survey and behavior analysis will help shape the
PD provided. Each LEA will develop a PD action plan, utilizing evidence-based strategies to
address their identified needs.
Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency
of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and
other community members to support students needing social support strategies and
individualized tiered behavioral supports. (Training Driver)
As discussed in Goal 1, we will use the Participatory Adult Learning Strategies (PALS)
method of training (Dunst and Trivette, 2009) to ensure all training uses adult learning principles
43

and is skill-based. Below, we describe how information on participant knowledge and skills will
be collected and analyzed, how PD providers will be trained, coached, and observed, and the
data that will be used to improve trainer skills and the content of training. All state trainers will
attend a two-day training to better inform themselves of the SPDG practices and to receive
training on the PALS training process.
Behavioral IEP Goal Development
Training on developing quality behavioral IEP goals will be provided to all school districts
through the development of online modules, in conjunction with training on standards-based
IEPs with strong academic goals (discussed in Goal 1). These modules will be on the DE SPDG
website. More directed IEP training will also be provided to LEAs participating in the Social
Skills Project and receiving PD on Tier 3 behavioral interventions.
Tier 3 Behavioral Interventions
Tier 3 training will focus on: (1) tiered interventions and supports through PBIS, (2)
functional behavior analysis (FBA) and Behavior Support Plans (BSP), and (3) transition
strategies into general education classrooms. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) is a Tier 3
behavior intervention process for completing Functional Behavior Assessments and developing
Behavior Intervention Plans. There is a formal training component and ongoing coaching
throughout the year.
Functional Behavioral Assessment & Behavior Support Plans A targeted, in-depth
instruction in the process of conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and
Behavior Support Plans (BSP).
44

Person-Centered Planning Participants learn several methods of developing action plans in
this module, including MAPs (Making Action Plans) and PATHs (Planning Alternative
Tomorrows with Hope) and how to determine which tool to use.
Annually, a kick-off training will be conducted each summer with new LEA teams who will
be implementing the Social Skills Project and receiving PD on Tier 3 behavioral interventions.
CDS consultants and DDOE staff will conduct the training. The kick-off training will conclude
with the development of LEA action plans for each LEA team. A one day mid-year booster will
be held to address common topics across teams and to update action plans as necessary.
Social Skills Project
Existing training curriculum will be reviewed (see bulleted items below), while also
conducting research on other evidence-based behavioral practices for this population of students.
All curricula will be reviewed by the same experts who review the PD competencies discussed in
the previous objective. Topics will include interventions based on the Social Thinking approach,
peer mediated learning, video modeling, self-management, and social stories.
Parent/Family Training
Similar to activities in Goal 1, the PIC will conduct a parallel set of trainings informing
parents and families of students in LEAs being served about writing IEPs with well-developed
behavioral goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral interventions. The same
training formats discussed in Goal 1 (formal workshops, Lunch & Learn webinars, individual
family consultations, and further training of PIC staff). Training materials will be developed in
conjunction with DDOE and CDS staff. Members of the DE Leadership team will participate in
parent/family workshops as necessary.
45

Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support strategies
and individualized tiered behavioral supports. (Coaching Driver)
At the state level, experts in the area of social skills and Tier 3 behavior supports will
receive additional training to provide guidance and support to LEA coaches. The LEA coaches
will serve as coaches to personnel in their districts who are implementing Goal 2 activities.
Participating LEAs will develop LEA PD plans, outlining the training, coaching, and any other
resources needed to successfully implement the Goal 2 activities in their schools. LEA coaches
will develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful coaches for teachers,
administrators and staff in their districts.
To ensure fidelity in PD, a coaching fidelity instrument will be developed by the DE SPDG
Management Team. The desired practiced will be modeled in monthly meetings between state
and LEA coaches. Staff from the DDOE, CDS, and the PTI will be available to serve as state
coaches. Other experts will be used as necessary. State coaches will meet with their selected
LEA coaches to review the LEA and Coach PD plans once a month. These meetings will focus
on training and coaching efforts conducted in the participating LEAs. Besides these monthly
formal meetings, ongoing contact between state and LEA coaches will be encouraged through
the use of e-mail and phone.
Regional coaches, working with LEA personnel, will also collect intervention fidelity data,
the degree to which behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, and Tier 3 behavioral
interventions were implemented as designed. These instruments will be developed through the
use of the practice profile process. At monthly state-level coaching meetings, up to four sources
of data will be available for review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the LEA PD
plan, the coaching fidelity protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will
46

necessarily be available or reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches
and LEA PD plans will be expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face,
through Skype, web-conferencing software, and/or phone.
We will develop and support a PLC designed to expand and provide on-going coaching to
support the implementation of the DE Social Skills Project and to support professional
development for LEAs on supporting students requiring advanced behavioral interventions.
Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to
support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment
Driver)
The project evaluator, working closely with the DE SPDG Management Team will develop
training, coaching, and intervention fidelity instruments during the first two quarters of Year 1.
The DE SPDG Management Team will be responsible for overseeing fidelity measurement and
reporting. Project evaluators will train and coach the state and LEA coaches on the use of
implementation (training and coaching) and intervention (i.e., IEP development, social skills
instruction, Tier 3 behavioral interventions) fidelity instruments.
Data on the implementation of training and coaching will be collected at all trainings and
selected coaching events between the state and LEA coaches, as well as similar events with LEA
coaches and the school staff they are working with. The implementation fidelity instruments will
be developed through the practice profile process, discussed previously. Fidelity data for training
events will be collected by participating members of the DE SPDG Management Team to obtain
a diversity of perspectives on how well training has been implemented.
Other data to be collected and reviewed include Office Discipline Referrals, SPP data on
suspensions/expulsions (SPP #4), LRE (SPP #5), and parent engagement (SPP #8). These data
47

will be collected, reviewed, and analyzed annually. An annual impact and satisfaction survey
will be administered to all participating LEA personnel to gather quantitative and qualitative data
to inform project management and implementation. These data will be shared with the DE SPDG
Management Team quarterly and used to inform the previously discussed PIP PEP cycles.
Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to
implement the social skills and Tier 3 interventions in their schools. (Facilitative
Administrative Support/Systems Intervention Driver)
A training module will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on
implementation of behavioral IEP goals, social skills instruction, Tier 3 behavioral interventions,
and parent engagement strategies. The modules will initially be conducted as real time webinars,
but will also be archived on the DOEs website related to special education. The modules will
provide overviews of each initiative, including training, coaching, and evaluation strategies. A
particular focus will be on how administrators can support their staff in the ongoing
implementation of these activities. Another component will provide guidance to administrators,
teachers, and staff on analyzing data to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP
cycles.

48

QUALITY OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
This section of our proposal explains the employment policy for the DDOE, as well as
similar policies for specified organizational partners and potential contractors. Following the
review of employment policy, the qualifications of key project personnel are provided. Staff
resumes are in Appendix C.
Affirmative Action
The DDOE is an Equal Opportunity Employer. It does not discriminate on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age or Vietnam
era veteran status in employment, or its programs and activities. All DE SPDG partners also
strongly promote employment opportunities for all individuals. These agencies are also very
aggressive in their hiring practices in recruiting and maintaining high rates of underrepresented
groups. All avenues will be utilized in recruiting ethnic minorities, women, elderly, and
individuals with disabilities.
Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) of 1994 requires that each
applicant for funds ensures that steps are taken to ensure equitable access to, and participation in,
federally funded projects for program beneficiaries with special needs. The following steps will
be taken to address the equity issues in Section 437: a) every educator, paraeducator, school
administrator, related service provider, student with disabilities, and parent enrolled in any of
proposed SPDG professional development activity will have an equal opportunity to be engaged
in the training that is provided by the SPDG project staff; b) all materials disseminated by, to and
for project personnel will be in an accessible format; c) all facilities that house SPDG project
activities will be fully accessible; d) interpreters will be available as requested; and e) closed or
open captioned materials will be available as requested.
49

Below, we outline the experience and responsibilities of key staff and consultants who will
play a role in the DE SPDG. Three key staff (Mieczkowski, Celestin, and Touchette) are from
the Exceptional Childrens Resources at the DDOE. The other personnel listed are:
DDOE Staff Karen J ones, Linda Smith, and Michele Rush
CDS Staff Beth Mineo, Debby Boyer, and new positions to be filled (2.5 FTE)
PTI Consultant Marie-Anne E. Aghazadian
External Evaluators Patricia H. Mueller (EEC) and Brent Garrett (PIRE)
Principle Investigator (0.1 FTE, In-Kind)
Mary Ann Mieczkowski is the Director of ECR of the DDOE. Ms. Mieczkowski is responsible
for oversight of all fiscal and project activities. She will serve on the DE SPDG Management
Team. Prior coming to the DOE, she was the Supervisor of Special Education Services for the
Appoquinimink School District for ten years. She has a BA from the UD in Elementary
Education and Special Education and a MA from J ohns Hopkins University in Special Education
(severe and profound disabilities). Prior to this position, she worked at the DDOE, providing
leadership and training in PBS, the DE Inclusion Project and the DE Alternate Portfolio
Assessment. She also coordinated the Interagency Collaborative Team, which provided support
and funding for students with mental health issues and interagency supports.
Project Co-Director (0.40 FTE)
Sarah Celestin, Ed.D. is an Education Associate with the DDOE. She will be responsible for
oversight of Goal 1 activities including the management of contracts related to University of
Kansas (SIM), University of Kentucky (Communication) and the UD (ACCESS Project) as it
relates to this SPDG. At DOE, Dr. Celestin manages the IDEA Part B SPP and APR along with
related general supervision activities. She also coordinates the ACCESS project, an initiative
50

related to curriculum and instruction for students participating in the alternate assessment based
on alternate achievement standards. Prior to working at the DOE, she served as the Principal
Investigator for the DE Alternate Portfolio Assessment project at the UD where she provided
coaching and technical assistance to special educators and administrators. As a previous special
educator and project director, Dr. Celestin has experience leading initiatives related to IEP
development, curriculum adaptations, and instructional strategies as well as the implementation
of instructional coaching models.
Project Co-Director (0.40 FTE)
Brian Touchette has worked at the DDOE for 11 years as an Education Associate. Mr.
Touchette will manage activities related to Goal 2 and consult on Goal 1 activities related to IEP
goal development. He will be responsible for managing the contracts related to Evergreen
Evaluating and Consulting, UD (the specific aspects of PBS) and the PTI as it relates to this
SPDG. Before becoming an Education Associate, Mr. Touchette was on loan to the DOE for 2
years from his home District where he taught students with autism. At the DOE, he is assigned to
the ECR Workgroup; however, he is equally involved with the Assessment Resources group.
Parts of his responsibilities include State assessment for children with disabilities for both the
general assessment and DEs Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards.
Other DE initiatives he has led include PBS, the Inclusion Project, and development of a web-
based IEP. He has also presented nationally on issues of how to include teachers of students with
special needs in an educator effectiveness system (including those who teach students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities) and how student growth can be used as part of these
systems.

51

DDOE Project Lead Goal 1 (0.20 FTE)
Karen Jones works in the Teaching and Leaning Branch at the DDOE in the area of ECR. Ms.
J ones will be responsible for activities within Goal 1. She will primarily be involved with
development of training and coaching for activities related to both Academic IEP Goals and
SIM. She leads the current SPDG to close the achievement gap in literacy and math for
struggling readers, and supports higher education in developing highly qualified and the
retention of special education teachers. She also leads the effort for Inclusive Schools and
continues to build DEs infrastructure for providing accessible instructional materials in various
formats. Ms. J ones is also the State NIMAS Coordinator, and works with the Curriculum
Department in aligning Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction with the
Delaware Recommended Curriculum. She provides technical assistance and teacher training in
these areas, as well as RTI and the new IEP format - emphasizing bringing curriculum access
and grade level expectations to all students to raise achievement.
DOE Project Lead Goal 2 (0.10 FTE, In-Kind)
Linda Smith is an Education Associate with the DDOE. Ms. Smith will be responsible for
activities within Goal 2. She will primarily be involved with development of training and
coaching for activities related to Behavior IEP Goals and Tier 3 Interventions. In addition, she
will continue with the expansion of the Social Skills training and coaching. Ms. Smith
coordinates Unique Education Alternatives for students with complex mental health and
behavioral needs and serves as the DE PBS Project Co-Director. With over 30 years of
experience in the field of special education, she has worked at the classroom level for 19 years
with students preschool through adolescence who have learning disabilities as well as intellectual
and multi-sensory disabilities.
52

Data Manager (0.10 FTE, In-Kind)
Michele Rush is the Part B Data Manager for the Exceptional Children work group. Ms. Rush
will be responsible for compiling relevant data from State level databases related to each of the
goals. In her work at DOE, she is responsible for all federal IDEA Part B reporting for the state
of Delaware. She also fulfills data requests regarding children with disabilities for the DDOE,
both internally and externally. As part of the Exceptional Children work group she participates in
all phases of Compliance Monitoring.
Director, Center for Disabilities Studies (0.05 FTE, In-Kind)
Beth Mineo, Ph.D. is the Director of the CDS and a tenured associate professor in the
Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the UD. She will be responsible for
administrative oversight of the ACCESS and Positive Behavior Supports project. Dr. Mineo
founded the Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative, the states AT Act program 21 years ago,
and also directs the Centers Assistive Technology (AT) Unit. Trained as a speech/language
pathologist and specializing in supports for children with significant learning and communication
disabilities, she has extensive experience in project design and implementation, services for
individuals with disabilities, AT development and utilization, and research and evaluation.
Director of School Age Unit, Center for Disabilities Studies (0.10 FTE, In-Kind)
Deborah Boyer, MS, is the director of the School-Age Services Unit at the UDs CDS. She will
be responsible for supervision of the PBS project as well as general management of the School-
Age Services Unit which includes the ACCESS project. Ms. Boyer will be the lead in the hiring
of new CDS positions created through SPDG funding. Since joining the Center in 2001, Ms.
Boyer has served as the co-director of the statewide PBS Initiative, a collaborative effort
53

between CDS and the DDOE. She has provided PD on implementing PBS in schools and other
organizations serving children throughout the state.
Positions to be filled at the Center for Disabilities Studies, University of Delaware:
Instructional Coach - CDS 1 (1.0 FTE)
The Instructional Coach (CDS 1) will work in conjunction with the ACCESS project to provide
project development, professional development, coaching, and evaluation related to standards-
based IEP development and advanced tiers of academic intervention through SIM. The preferred
candidate will have a Masters degree with special education certification and five years of
successful teaching and/or coaching experience.
Instructional Coach/Research Associate - CDS 2 (1.0 FTE)
The Instructional Coach (CDS 2) will work in conjunction with the PBS project to provide
project development, PD, and evaluation related to the development of behavioral/social IEP
goals and advanced tiers of behavioral interventions and strategies to support students with
behavioral and mental health needs. The preferred candidate will have a Masters degree in
special education, counseling, or mental health with a concentration in behavioral/mental health
supports and five years of successful teaching, coaching, or clinical experience.
Instructional Coach/Research Associate - CDS 3 (0.5 FTE)
The Instructional Coach (CDS 3) will work in conjunction with the PBS project to provide
professional development and coaching related to the development of behavioral/social IEP
goals and advanced tiers of behavioral interventions and strategies to support students with
behavioral and mental health needs. The preferred candidate will have a Masters degree in
special education, counseling, or mental health with a concentration in behavioral/mental health
supports and five years of successful teaching, coaching, or clinical experience.
54

Director of Parent Information Center of Delaware (0.10 FTE)
Marie-Anne E. Aghazadian is the Executive Director, Parent Information Center of Delaware,
Inc. She will be responsible for parent training and engagement activities such as lunch and
learn webinars, workshops, and family consultation. Under Ms. Aghazadians leadership, PIC
has emerged as DEs largest and only organization providing information, education and support
to families of children with the broad range of disabilities as well as to families who experience
barriers to being engaged in their childrens education. Prior to her career at PIC, she was the
president of the Autism Society of DE (ASD) that was successful in helping establish the DE
Autism Program and a continuum of vocational and residential services for adults with autism.
External Evaluators
Patricia H. Mueller, Ed.D. is President and founder of Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting Inc.,
(EEC) a woman-owned firm specializing in evaluation of federal-funded programs. Dr. Mueller
has extensive experience evaluating federally funded education initiatives to include: SPDGs in
MS, NH and VT; Regional Resource Centers; the National Center on Educational Outcomes; and
IHE personnel preparation programs. She employs a systematic approach to evaluation that
incorporates state-of-the-art methods and strategies in the field of evaluation.
Brent Garrett, Ph.D. will collaborate with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation to
coordinate evaluation activities. Dr. Garrett will serve as lead PIRE evaluator. He collaborates
with other partners to assist in evaluating SPDGs in KY, VT, NH, and MS. He is supported by a
PIRE team that brings a diverse set of methodological skills, using both quantitative and
qualitative practices. The goal of his work is to provide scientifically sound evaluation findings
in an easy to use, practical manner for the purpose of program improvement, assessing program
impact, and assuring accountability of state and federal funds.
55

ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES

In this section, we describe the DDOE and collaborating partners adequacy of resources to
implement this work. The demonstrated commitment and relevance of each partner is discussed
below and in their letters of support, found in Appendix B. We also discuss how our budget is
appropriate to meet the project demands, and how the budget is closely linked to the project.
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources,
from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
Delaware Department of Education
The DDOE has adequate facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources to support and
sustain the activities of the SPDG during and beyond the funding period. The central office of
DDOE is located in Dover with approximately 270 employees. DDOE will provide the support
of its physical resources such as facilities, equipment, and supplies, as well as making available,
to the maximum extent possible, its personnel in support of SPDG activities. Office space
required by SPDG personnel is currently available within the ECR Group. The DDOE has
telephones and computers ready for use by the SPDG staff. The DDOE maintains its own
computer network, Internet access and electronic mail system. All computers and laser printers
within DDOE are connected to the high speed Ethernet network. The DDOE also maintains an
active website, which meets government-wide standards. A portion of this website will be used
to post pertinent SPDG information.
The DDOE ensures it will provide equipment needed by project staff or beneficiaries of
project services. Materials developed in support of SPDG activities will be available in alternate
formats such as audiotape, large print, and Braille upon request. Services, including sign
language interpreters, Brailing, or other assistance will be provided, as needed, at all training
56

activities. Any videotapes developed by the project work will be appropriately captioned and
audio-described. Finally, DE SPDG technology resources are designed to fully support our work.
All Web content will conform to Priority Level 1 of the Web Accessibility Guidelines published
by the Web Accessibility Initiative (www.w3c.org/wai/) and Section 508 Standards for Web-
based Internet information/applications (www.section508.gov), which are based in part on the
WAI Guidelines. The manual and automatic procedures used to evaluate the site will follow
those recommended by the Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/) and will
be performed on an ongoing basis. All print documents published and disseminated by the DE
SPDG will be made available in alternate formats upon request.
Parent Information Center of Delaware

The Parent Information Center of Delaware (PIC) has administered DEs only PTI through
five consecutive grants from OSEP. PIC services include: individual technical assistance to
families and professionals, workshops, audio conferences and webinars, electronic and print
newsletters, a website, a lending library, referrals to programs and services and dissemination of
informational materials in both English and Spanish. Over the past 25 years, the PIC has
developed a large network of collaborative partnerships with local state and national agencies
and organizations that uphold our efforts to provide training information and support to families
of children with disabilities in Delaware from birth to age 26.
Furthermore, PIC has been able to broaden its scope by securing supplementary programs
that enhance the services provided by the PTI. Four years ago, PIC was awarded a Parent
Information and Resource Center (PIRC) project funded by the US Department of Education
under the Elementary and Secondary Education/No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The
Delaware PIRC like the PTI, focused on families who experience barriers to participating in their
57

childs education with a strong emphasis on low-income, low literacy, minority, and non-English
speaking families in both urban and rural areas of our state.
The PIC maintains physical locations in each of DEs counties, with 11 full and part-time
staffs. The organizations main office is located in Wilmington. PIC is proud to house the most
comprehensive library on disability topics in the state with over 250 books on Autism Spectrum
Disorder alone. The centers website, www.picofdel.org, features comprehensive and up-to-date
information regarding the organization, its programs and services, archived audio conferences
and trainings, an online resource center, downloadable toolkits and podcasts.
Center for Disabilities Studies
The Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS), at the UD, offers a variety of services and
supports that advance the independence and productivity of individuals with disabilities and their
families. Given the wide-ranging expertise of the Centers diverse staff, CDS is frequently
sought as a partner to assist state agencies and organizations in research, evaluation, program
planning and implementation, advocacy, and policy development. CDS is also one of 67
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD) Research, Education,
and Service nationwide. The Center is located in a single-story building equipped with switch-
operated doors and accessible restrooms. Ample accessible parking spaces are located
immediately adjacent to the entrance, and a large parking lot accommodates dozens of vehicles.
Signage, crosswalks and an emergency call box have been installed to maximize the safety of
staff and visitors. For the benefit of staff and guests, CDS routinely provides alternate access to
events and materials, offering constituents sign language (ASL and tactile) and oral translation,
and alternate formats of materials (e.g., large print, Braille, electronic format, and audiotape).
Training sites are free of architectural barriers, and accommodation of individual needs for
58

portable ramps, assistive listening devices, screen enlargers and the like is achieved readily
through the Assistive Technology Resource Centers. CDS staff have expertise with accessible
web design, captioning, descriptive audio, and other mechanisms for optimizing the uptake of
information.
CDS is integrally connected with every state agency providing services and supports to
individuals with disabilities across the lifespan. CDS currently is engaged in partnerships
formalized by grant or contract mechanismswith the DDOE, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, Division of Public Health, and
Division for the Visually Impaired. CDS has extremely strong working relationships with its DD
Network partners, the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Council (DDC) and Delawares
Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization (the Disabilities Law Program of the Community
Legal Aid Society, Inc.), and 46% of CDS staff members are individuals with disabilities and/or
family members of individuals with disabilities.
The Center is the home of several projects closely aligned with the vision of the SPDG. The
DE-PBS Project is a statewide initiative designed to build the knowledge and skills of DE
educators in the concepts, content and practices of PBS. Project staff provides PD to schools in
all levels of implementation and works closely with coaches within each school district who
provide support to schools at the local level. This project, conducted in partnership with the DE
Department of Education for the past 10 years, has been a catalyst for positive climate change in
schools throughout the state.
The Social Skills Project utilizes a school-wide approach to teaching social skills to students
with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Asperger Syndrome, ADHD and other related social skills
needs. Intensive PD and consultation is provided to group facilitators, as well as PD for the
59

students classroom teachers so that everyone is using the same vocabulary and skills can be
reinforced in the classroom. Parent workshops are also offered to the parents of student attending
social skills groups, as well as other families who are interested in supporting their childs social
thinking at home.
The Adapting Curriculum & Classroom Environments for Student Success (ACCESS)
project is a statewide initiative funded by the DDOE focusing on access to both the academic
curriculum and inclusive environments for students with significant intellectual disabilities.
Project staff provides PD on modification of academic curriculum, determining a students
placement, developing IEP goals, and progress monitoring. ACCESS staff also provides
technical support for the development and implementation of the Delaware Comprehensive
Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1).
Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc.
Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting, Inc. (EEC) is a woman-owned small business located in
J ericho, Vermont, founded in 1990 by Dr. Patricia Mueller. EEC consultants and associates have
extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide
formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key
stakeholders. EECs expertise is primarily in the area of education program evaluation and
professional development. EEC consultants skills and knowledge are matched with the needs of
the projects and expectations of clients. On this project, EEC will partner with evaluators at the
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project
to the implementation and success of the project.

60

Support letters contained in Appendix B provide documentation of each partners
commitment and contribution to the proposed workscope. The relevance of each partners
contribution can also be found in the Personnel and Adequacy of resources section.
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design,
and potential significance of the proposed project.

The largest investment of the DE SPDG in in personnel, either listed as salary and fringe, or
as consultants. The personnel responsible and the amount of time required for implementing
project objectives and activities are listed in our Management Plan (found on page 64). Personnel
and other direct costs (travel, supplies, equipment, contractual, and other) are explained in detail
in the budget narrative. We have given extensive thought on how to minimize or share costs
among our collaborating partners. The budget narrative clearly outlines projected expenditures
and discusses how the expenditure relates to specific activities.
(v) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends,
including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to
this type of support.

Sustainability has been an important consideration of our proposal development. Much of the
proposed work focuses on building the capacity of existing personnel at the state and local level
through enhanced coaching. DDOE staff will play key roles in implementing the SDPG and
those activities will be able to continue after grant funding ends. Similarly with partners at the
PTI and CDS, the skills developed through this effort will assist them as they continue to provide
PD on the SPDG academic, social, and behavioral interventions. LEAs will have also developed
the capacity to support these initiatives as a result of the PD they received from the SPDG.

61

QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

In this section, we discuss the adequacy of our management plan for achieving the
objectives of the project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities,
timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. We also discuss the efforts made to
bring a diversity of perspectives to the development and implementation of these initiatives.
(i) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the
operation of the proposed project.
Diversity of Perspectives
Advisory Board
In the Needs section, we discussed how we solicited stakeholder input from a diversity of
audiences to develop this proposal. In this section, we discuss how we include the same diversity
of perspective in the management, implementation, and evaluation of the DE SPDG. The DE
SPDG Advisory Board will be composed of representatives of organizations that will be
impacted by the proposed activities. This includes representation from the DE PTI, the
Governors Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens, IHEs, the CDS at the UD, Delaware
Prevention and Behavioral Health Services (state mental health agency), and DOE units
including the ECR office, the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, School Turnaround Unit,
the College and Workforce Readiness Branch, and Curriculum, Instruction, and PD.
The Advisory Board will meet quarterly during the first year, then bi-annually afterwards.
They will be responsible for overseeing the SPDG and developing the final action plan for
implementation. At each meeting, this group will review the progress on each objective and
determine if the activities continue to support implementation of the goals of the grant. In
62

addition, this group will be critical in the ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant to
meet the stated goals.
Leadership and Management Teams
On a day to day basis, the DE SPDG Leadership Team will oversee project activities. Mary
Ann Mieczkowski, the Director of the ECR Office will serve as the Principal Investigator of the
DE SPDG. Working under the supervision of Ms. Mieczkowski, Sarah Celestin and Brian
Touchette, Education Associates with the ECR Office will be responsible for overseeing each
initiative and the evaluation component. The Leadership Team will also be responsible for
budgetary and related financial matters. With a number of partners requiring contracts, careful
attention will be focused on budgets. Our budget and corresponding budget justification are
presented in a separate section of the proposal narrative. All budgeted items are in specific
alignment with our proposed objectives and activities. The budget also reflects the way in which
some activities will be ramped up over the time of the grant and some will have a higher cost of
implementation in the early years of the grant.
The DE SPDG Management Team (MT) will review and approve project implementation
activities. The MT will be composed of members from the DDOE, the PIC, CDS, and project
evaluators. They will meet monthly either in-person or through online collaboration software to
review current activities and plan for upcoming events. The DE SPDG MT will feed-forward
information to the DE SPDG Advisory Board, as well as receive feedback from them.
While reporting is primarily discussed in the evaluation section of the proposal, we feel that
it is essential to stress the role that data will play in managing the DE SPDG in this section as
well. Project evaluators will develop monthly reports, summarizing key activities and focusing
on performance indicators and formative evaluation questions identified in the evaluation
63

section. These reports will be shared with the Management Team for decision making purposes.
All PD staff will be responsible for monthly submission of data, based on the work they
completed and outcomes influenced. The data from these reports will also be aggregated to form
the basis of our annual reporting to OSEP and other stakeholders.
Effective communication and coordination is essential to manage the proposed initiatives to
reach our goal of improving student achievement. At the end of this section, we have included
personnel loading charts and timelines for all projected activities that were described in the
Quality of Project Design section. These charts will be used by the Management Team and
evaluators to coordinate project activities and ensure activities are completed in a timely manner.
ii. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project
on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
Tables 4 and 5 list the amount of effort for each key personnel for both goals. Tables 6 - 15
state which organizations/individuals will be responsible for each activity and when the activity
will be implemented. Following each table is a list of milestones for each objective. Pertinent
milestones will be reviewed at each Leadership Team meeting. The budget and budget
justification were developed to minimize costs, while providing the supports necessary to
implement the proposal.
Our strategies for using implementation science have been discussed throughout the
proposal. PIP/PEP cycles will be an integral component of our feedback/feedforward process,
practice profiles will be used to identify the critical components of interventions and assist in
evaluation instrument development, and we discuss the instruments to be used to assess
implementation stages and organizational drivers in the Evaluation section.
64

Table 4: Goal 1 Loading Chart
Objective SC BT KJ CDS 1 MAM MR PIC 1
Obj. 1.1: Selection 15 6 3 30 2 6 0
Obj. 1.2: Training 20 8 20 60 0 0 10
Obj. 1.3: Coaching 39 2 15 110 0 0 6
Obj. 1.4: Performance Assessment 15 5 7 35 2 7 6
Obj. 1.5: Facilitative
Administrative Support
15 5 7 25 9 0 4
Total Number of Days 104 26 52 260 13 13 26
FTE 40% 10% 20% 100% 5% 5% 10%
SC- Sarah Celestin, BT - Brian Touchette, KJ Karen J ones, CDS Staff to be hired, MAM
Mary Ann Mieczkowski, MR Michele Rush, PIC Marie-Anne Aghazadian
Table 5: Goal 2 Loading Chart
Objective BT LS CDS 2 CDS 3 MAM MR PIC 1
Obj. 1.1: Selection 10 7 30 0 2 6 0
Obj. 1.2: Training 15 15 60 45 0 0 10
Obj. 1.3: Coaching 23 15 110 80 0 0 6
Obj. 1.4: Performance Assessment 15 8 35 0 2 7 6
Obj. 1.5: Facilitative
Administrative Support
15 7 25 5 9 0 4
Total Number of Days 78 52 260 130 13 13 26
FTE 30% 20% 100% 50% 5% 5% 10%
BT Brian Touchette, LS - Linda Smith, CDS Staff to be hired, MAM Mary Ann
Mieczkowski, MR Michele Rush, PIC Marie-Anne Aghazadian
65

Goal 1: To increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, through the implementation of sustainable,
evidence-based instructional strategies to impact students with the greatest academic needs.
Table 6: Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic and communication needs, and to define
the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD
Goal 1 Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5
1.1.1: Identify PD competencies SC (lead), CDS 1
Q1-2
1.1.2: P & F schools selected as SPDG LEAs
SC (lead), BT, MAM,
MR
Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1
1.1.3: Participating LEAs sign commitment letter SC (lead), MAM
Q4 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1
1.1.4: Review of Priority and Focus school IEPs SC (lead), KJ , CDS1
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
1.1.5: DCAS and DCAS-Alt1 review in P & F schools
SC (lead), BT, MR,
CDS 1
Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4
1.1.6: Review existing curriculum
SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1
(lead)
Q1-4 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
1.1.7: Teacher/administrator/staff/parent IEP and academic
needs assessment survey conducted
SC (lead), CDS 1, PIC 1
Q3 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
1.1.8: Communication needs assessment SC (lead), CDS 1
Q2-3 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
1.1.9: Action plan developed SC (lead), BT, CDS 1
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
P & F =Priority and Focus Schools
66

Objective 1.1: Milestones
Competencies for PD providers identified
State coaches/recruited/hired
LEAs recruited
Needs assessments conducted
Action plans developed
Table 7: Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, EB training to increase the competency of DE teachers, administrators, and staff, as
well as students, families, and other community members to support students academic and communication needs.

Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
1.2.1: Training plan developed
SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
DE SDPG staff receive
1.2.2: IEP training from IEP resources
1.2.3: SIM training from KU
1.2.4: Communication intervention training from UK
SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1

1.2.5: Adapt training materials with local context
considered
SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1,
PIC 1
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
Training conducted in P & F schools on:
1.2.6: IEP training
KJ (lead), CDS 1, SC, BT,
PIC 1
Q4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2
67

1.2.7: SIM training
1.2.8: Communication training
1.2.9: Parent/family training
1.2.10: Training data reviewed to improve future PD.
SC (lead), BT, KJ , CDS 1,
PIC 1
Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Training plan developed
Training materials developed
All trainers are trained on specific interventions
IEP, SIMS, communication, & parent training provided on
schedule
Table 8: Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support strategies, through evidence-based and
quality coaching.

Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5
1.3.1: State coaches identified and trained SC (lead), BT, CDS 1 Q2-3
1.3.3: Identification of LEA coaches SC (lead), BT, CDS 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
1.3.3: Training of LEA coaches SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
1.3.4: Coaching plans developed SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
68

1.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols SC (lead), CDS 1 Q2-3
1.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches,
with review of multiple data sources
SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
1.3.7: Develop and support PLC SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
State coaches identified and trained
LEA coaches trained and identified
Coaching plans developed
Monthly coaching meetings occur

Table 9: Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the
school, LEA, and state level.

1.4.1 & 1.4.2: Review, adopt, and use implementation and
intervention fidelity instruments for training and coaching
on IEP academic goals, SIM, communication
interventions, and family engagement strategies.
SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
1.4.3: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity
SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
69

instruments.
1.4.4: Develop data management system for tracking
implementation, intervention, & other process data.
SC (lead), CDS 1, MR,
EEC
Q1-4
1.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching
evaluation forms (using pre/post items)
SC (lead), KJ , CDS 1,
PIC 1, EEC
Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
1.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership
Team.
SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC
Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
1.4.7: Collect outcome data (SPP 3, 5, 8, and 13)
SC (lead), BT, KJ ,
CDS 1, PIC 1, EEC
Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4
1.4.8: Conduct and report on annual school impact survey
SC (lead), EEC
Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
1.4.9: Student formative/summative data review SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
1.4.10: Collect and analyze other student data SC (lead), CDS 1, EEC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
Implementation & intervention fidelity instruments
developed
Training evaluation forms developed
Data management system developed
Fidelity data submitted to project evaluators quarterly
70

Trainers/coaches are trained in using fidelity
instruments
Formative outcome data collected quarterly, summative
data collected annually
Table 10: Obj. 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to develop quality academic IEP goals
linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and communication interventions in their schools.

Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on
1.5.1: Supporting teachers to develop academic IEP goals
1.5.2: Supporting implementation of SIMS
1.5.3: Supporting implementation of individualized
communication interventions.
SC (lead), BT, KJ ,
MAM, CDS 1, PIC 1
Q3-4 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
1.5.4: Administrators part of coaching visits
SC (lead), CDS 1 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Administrator training materials developed
Administrators trained to support ongoing PD on IEP academic goals, SIM, communication interventions, and family
engagement strategies.

71

Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with behavioral, social, and/or mental health
needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence-based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional
development to educators and related staff.
Table 11: Obj. 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD & to define the expectations & commitment of those receiving PD.
Goal 2 Person Responsible Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Yr. 5
2.1.1: Identify and validate PD competencies needed
through the practice profile process.
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q1-3
2.1.2: P & F schools selected as SPDG LEAs BT (lead), LS, MAM,
MR, CDS 2
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
2.1.3: Create LEA MOA, with clearly defined expectations
and degree of commitment needed.
BT (lead), LS Q3
2.1.4: Create LEA survey assessing knowledge and use of
behavioral IEP goals, pro-social interventions, and Tier 3
behavioral supports.
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q2-3
2.1.5: Analyze LEA survey data to develop action plan for
each LEA.
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4

72

Competencies for PD providers identified
LEAs recruited
Needs assessments conducted
Action plans developed
Table 12: Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the competency of Delaware teachers,
administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families, and other community members to support students needing social support
strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports.

2.2.1: Use needs assessment data to inform training
curriculum
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
2.2.2: Training curriculum is reviewed by content experts
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2
Q3
2.2.3: PD staff are trained
BT (lead), LS, CDS 2,
CDS 3
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
2.2.4: PD Provider PD Plans are developed
CDS 3
Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
2.2.5: Online modules developed for IEP development
CDS 3
Q1-3
73

Training conducted in:
2.2.6: Behavioral IEP goals.
2.2.7: The DE Social Skills Project.
2.2.8: Tier 3 behavioral interventions.
2.2.9: Evidence-based parent engagement strategies.
LS (lead), BT, CDS 2,
CDS 3, PIC 1
Q3-4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2
2.2.10: LEA PD Plans are developed
LS (lead), BT, CDS 2,
CDS 3
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
Training plan developed
Training materials developed
All trainers are trained on specific interventions
Behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3
behavioral interventions.& parent training provided on
schedule
Table 13: Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support strategies and individualized tiered
behavioral supports.

2.3.1: State coaches identified and trained LS (lead), BT, CDS 2 Q2-3
2.3.2: Identification of LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
74

2.3.3: Training of LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
2.3.4: Coaching plans developed LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4
2.3.5: Create coaching fidelity protocols LS (lead), BT, CDS 2 Q2-4
2.3.6: Monthly coaching meetings with LEA coaches LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
2.3.7: Develop and support PLC LS (lead), BT, CDS 2, CDS 3 Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
State coaches identified and trained
LEA coaches trained and identified
Coaching plans developed
Monthly coaching meetings occur

Table 14: Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the
school, LEA, and state level.
2.4.1 & 2.4.2: Review & adopt implementation &
intervention fidelity instruments for training and coaching
on IEP behavioral goals, DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3
behavioral interventions, & family engagement strategies.
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, PIC 1, EEC
Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
75

2.4.3: Review and adopt other implementation or
intervention fidelity instruments as required
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, EEC
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
2.4.4: Train state and LEA coaches to use fidelity
instruments
LS (lead), BT, CDS
2, EEC
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
2.4.5: Develop & implement training & coaching
evaluation forms (using pre/post items)
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, PIC 1, EEC
Q2-3
2.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly with Leadership
Team.
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, EEC
Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
2.4.7: Collect outcome data (SPP 4, 5, and 8) BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, PIC 1, EEC
Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4
Implementation & intervention fidelity instruments
developed
Training evaluation forms developed
Data management system developed
Fidelity data submitted to project evaluators quarterly
Trainers/coaches are trained in using fidelity
instruments
Formative outcome data collected quarterly, summative
data collected annually

76

Table 15: Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives to implement the social skills and
Tier 3 interventions in their schools.

Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support
teachers in the development of
2.5.1: Behavioral IEP goals.
2.5.2: The DE Social Skills Project.
2.5.3: Tier 3 behavioral interventions.
2.5.4: Evidence-based parent engagement strategies.
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, MAM, PIC 1
Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
2.5.5: Formalize PD into online modules and make available on
DOE website.
BT (lead), LS, CDS
2, CDS 3
Q1-3
Administrator training materials developed
Administrators trained to support ongoing PD in the development of behavioral IEP goals, the DE Social Skills Project, Tier 3
behavioral interventions, and evidence-based parent engagement strategies.
77

QUALITY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATION
This section outlines the processes to ensure that that the proposed goals and objectives have
been achieved and that the planned activities are completed in a timely and quality manner. We
will contract with EEC, along with partners from PIRE to serve as our external evaluators once
funded. Between proposed evaluation firms, they have evaluated ten SPDGs in five states over
the last ten years. They are active in the SPDG evaluators community of practice and bring
extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide
formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key
stakeholders. This evaluation plan is similar to work conducted with other states by project
evaluators. This allows for testing and development of instruments and findings across state,
promoting greater reliability and validity of results.
(i): The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate
to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
We developed a project logic model (see Appendix A) to ensure there were clear and logical
links between goals, objectives, and outcomes. The logic model was also used to guide the
development of a draft evaluation plan. The draft evaluation plan is presented over the next few
pages, through a series of evaluation tables depicting data sources, and methods of analyses for
each objective and activity. This will allow us to determine to what degree our goals and
objectives have been met.
The process for collecting, analyzing and reporting evaluation data will be consistent across
objectives. Project evaluators and project management will work together so that the correct data
are collected and there is consensus with how the data will be collected, analyzed, and reported.
It will be the responsibility of the evaluators to collect, analyze, and report the data. When
78

possible, this will be done in collaboration with other project partners. Results will be shared
with project management on an ongoing basis to guide decision making as described later in this
section. Below, we list either the established tools we will use, or the process for identifying or
creating data collection instruments.
IEP Training We will adapt DEs Compliance Monitoring Protocol using Courtade and
Browders (2011) Aligning IEPs to the Common Core Standards to develop a new protocol
focused on quality and effectiveness of standards-based IEPs during the planning year.
Strategic Instruction Model Instruments We will use implementation and intervention
fidelity tools developed the University of Kansas to assess the implementation and impact of
SIMS in Delaware.
Communication We will use an intervention fidelity protocol developed by researchers at
the University of Kentucky, based on Rowlands (2004) communication matrix.
Tier 3 Behavioral Interventions We will develop a tool based on the Individual Student
Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET: Anderson Del, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai &
Sampson, 2008) and the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT: Anderson, Childs, Kincaid,
Horner, George, Todd & Spaulding, 2009). The ISSET is a research-quality measure
designed to assess the implementation status of secondary (targeted) and tertiary (intensive)
systems within a school. The ISSET is conducted by an external evaluator. The BAT is a
self-assessment measure of the implementation status of Tiers 2 (secondary, targeted) and 3
(tertiary, intensive) behavior support systems within their school. The BAT is completed by
school PBS teams with their PBS coach. The BAT is based on factors drawn from the ISSET.
Suspension and expulsion data will also be collected from DDOE.
79

Social Skills Project The project has used the DE School Climate Survey (DSCS) to
measure various aspects of school climate including social development. The survey was
developed by staff from the DE-PBS Project under the leadership of the project's faculty
partner from the School of Education. The DSCS includes Student, Teacher/Staff, and Home
formats which allows for comparisons of results across informants. Each survey consists of
subscales measuring important dimensions of school climate. Each of the subscales included
on the survey is grounded in research and theory as to its importance in academic
achievement and social and emotional development. In Year 1, a tailored evaluation tool will
be developed based on the social development portion of the DSCS and other research-based
social skills intervention tools.
Content Validity Analyses This process will be used to assess the quality, relevance, and
research basis of new materials developed by the DE SPDG. Local and national content
experts, local LEA and school personnel, families, and other stakeholders will be used to
assess the content validity of SPDG products.
Professional Development Log (PD Log) Used by state and regional PD providers to track
the delivery PD activities on an ongoing basis.
Training Evaluations All training evaluations will contain a set of standard items
assessing the quality, relevance, and utility of training, as well as logistical issues. Each type
of training will have unique pre/post questions and items inquiring of the degree to which
training objectives were met.
Participating Personnel Survey (PPS) Used annually to gather feedback from project
partners, as well as school and LEA personnel, who participate in SPDG PD.
It is likely over the course of the project, we will need to develop additional surveys,
80

interviews, and focus group protocols to gather quantitative and qualitative data specific. All
instruments and procedures will be developed, tested, and implemented in accordance with
standard evaluation protocols (Fowler, 2002; Dillman, 1999; Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Instruments will be developed in a collaborative manner so that the evaluators take advantage of
the content expertise of project staff. As the audience for our evaluation activities will vary, we
will utilize a variety of survey methods, including face-to-face, mail, and web-based surveys.
implementation of sustainable, evidence-based instructional strategies to impact
students with the greatest academic needs.
Table 16: Objective 1.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on students academic &
communication needs, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD.
Selection Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
1.1.1: Identify competencies
needed via practice profile process.
Completed practice
profile & competencies
Document review
1.1.2: Priority and Focus schools
selected as SPDG LEAs
List of schools Document review
1.1.3: Participating LEAs sign
commitment letter
Signed commitment
letters
Document review
1.1.4: Review of Priority and
Focus school IEPs
IEP summary document Qualitative analysis
using IEP tool
1.1.5: DCAS and DCAS-Alt1
review in Priority & Focus schools
Spreadsheet of LEA
assessment data
Frequency/regression
analysis of assessment
81

data
1.1.6: Review existing curriculum Curriculum review
summary
Document review
1.1.7: Teacher/Administrator/
Staff/Parent needs assessment
survey conducted
Survey results Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of
needs assessment data
1.1.8: Communication needs
assessment
Needs assessment data Frequency analysis of
communication data
1.1.9: Action plan developed Copies of action plans Review of action plans
by Management Team

Table 17: Objective 1.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the
competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, families, and
other community members to support students academic and communication needs.
Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
1.2.1: Training plan developed Copy of training plan Review of training plan
by Management Team
SPDG trainers receive the following
training to be qualified trainers:
1.2.2: IEP training from IEP experts
1.2.3: SIM training from KU staff
1.2.4: Communication training from
UK staff
Training materials &
agendas
Evaluation data
Review of training
materials, agendas, &
evaluation data
82

1.2.5: Training materials finalized,
local context considered
Training materials
Review rubric
Expert review to
ensure content validity
Training conducted in Priority &
Focus schools on:
1.2.6: IEP training
1.2.7: SIM training
1.2.8: Communication training
1.2.9: Parent/family training
PD Log
Training evaluations
Pre/post training
data
PPS
Frequency/descriptive/
training PD Log, & PPS
data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
1.2.10: Training data reviewed to
improve future training.
Evaluation Reports
Meeting minutes
Review of reports and
summary of data reviews

Table 18: Objective 1.3: To sustain the use of intensive academic and communication support
strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver)
Coaching Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
1.3.1: State coaches
identified
1.3.2: LEA coaches
identified
Recruitment materials
Selection criteria
Coaches resumes
Qualitative review of
materials
Review with MT
1.3.3: Training of state &
LEA coaches
agendas
Evaluation data
Review of training
materials, agendas, &
evaluation data
1.3.4: Coaching plans
developed
Copy of coaching plans
Monthly/quarterly
Review of coaching plans by
Management Team
83

coaching plan updates
1.3.5: Create coaching
fidelity protocols
Completed practice
profile
Completed protocol
Summary of meeting notes
related to fidelity protocol
1.3.6: Monthly coaching
meetings with LEA coaches,
with review of multiple data
sources
Meeting minutes
Fidelity data
Outcome data
PD Log
PPS
minutes; coaching, outcome,
& PPS data; & PD Log
1.3.7: Develop and support
PLC
PLC agendas/notes
PPS
qualitative analysis of minutes
& PPS data

Table 19: Objective 1.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data
to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment Driver)
Performance Assessment
Activities
Data Sources Analysis/Method
1.4.1: Review, adopt, & use
implementation fidelity instruments
for training & coaching on IEP
academic goals, SIM,
communication, & family
engagement strategies.
1.4.2: Review, adopt, and use
List of adopted
fidelity instruments
Completed practice
profiles for new
instruments
Expert review of
completed practice profiles &
implementation instruments
84

intervention fidelity instruments for
assessing the degree of
implementation of IEP academic
goals, SIM, communication, &
family engagement
1.4.3: Train state and LEA coaches
to use fidelity instruments.
PD Log
Pre/post training data
PPS
training PD Log, & PPS data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
1.4.4: Develop data management
system for tracking implementation
and intervention fidelity, and other
process data.
Data management
system plans/needs
Final system
Review of documentation
by Management Team
1.4.5: Develop & implement
training & coaching evaluation
forms (using pre/post items)
Training & coaching
curriculum
Review of forms by
Management Team
1.4.6: Evaluation data shared
quarterly with Leadership Team.
Evaluation reports
Copy of LT meeting
minutes
minutes
1.4.7: Collect annual outcome data Annual Evaluation
Report
Review of report and data
by Management Team &
85

SPP Indicator data:
3, 5, 8, and 13
OSEP Project Officer
1.4.8: Conduct and report on annual
school impact survey
Completed survey
Survey data
qualitative analysis of survey
data
1.4.9: Student formative/summative
data review
Formative reading &
math scores
DCAS reading &
math scores
Communication
Matrix & LCI data
Triangulation of
descriptive, frequency, &
correlational data for each
data source
ANOVA for longitudinal
analyses

Table 20: Objective 1.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives
to develop quality academic IEP goals linked to the CCSS and to implement SIM and
communication interventions in their schools.
Organizational/Leadership
Activities
Provide PD for LEA &
school administrators on how
to support teachers in:
1.5.1: The development of
academic IEP goals.
1.5.2: Implementation of SIM
1.5.3: Implementation of
PD Log
PPS
data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
86

communication interventions
1.5.4: Administrators part of
coaching visits
PD Log
Coaching meeting summaries
Review of PD Log and
coaching summaries.

Goal 2: To increase the graduation rates and academic achievement of students with
behavioral, social, and/or mental health needs, through the use of sustainable, evidence
based social and behavioral practices, as well as enhanced professional development to
educators and related staff.

Table 21: Objective 2.1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD and to define the
expectations and commitment of those receiving PD.
Selection Driver Data Sources Analysis/Method
2.1.1: Identify and validate PD
competencies needed through the
practice profile process.
Completed practice
profile & competencies
Document review
2.1.2: Develop and issue RFP
soliciting LEA involvement.
List of desired
practices, time frames,
& other requirements.
Selection Criteria
Review of materials and
final RFP by Management
Team
2.1.3: Create LEA MOA, with
clearly defined expectations and
degree of commitment needed.
List of desired
practices, time frames,
& other requirements
Review of materials and
final RFP by Management
Team
87

2.1.4: Create LEA survey
assessing knowledge & use of
behavioral IEP goals, pro-social
interventions, & Tier 3 behavioral
supports.
Completed survey

Review of survey by
Management Team
2.1.5: Analyze LEA survey data to
develop PD plan for each LEA.
Survey data Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of survey
data
Table 22: Objective 2.2: To provide high quality, evidence-based training to increase the
competency of Delaware teachers, administrators, and staff, as well as students, their families,
and other community members to support students needing social support strategies and
individualized tiered behavioral supports.
Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
2.2.1: Use needs assessment data
to inform training curriculum
Needs assessment data Review of needs data
2.2.2: Training curriculum is
reviewed by content experts
Training materials
Review rubric
Expert review to ensure
content validity
2.2.3: PD staff are trained by:
IEP Experts
CDS staff
agendas
Evaluation data
Review of training materials,
agendas, & evaluation data
2.2.4: PD Provider PD Plans are Copy of PD Plans PD Plans are reviewed by
88

developed Management Team
2.2.5: Online modules
developed for IEP development
Module development
materials
Completed modules
Expert review to ensure
content validity
Training conducted in:
2.2.6: Behavioral IEP goals
2.2.7: DE Social Skills Project
2.2.8: Tier 3 behavioral
interventions
2.2.9: Evidence-based parent
engagement strategies
PD Log
PPS
qualitative analysis of training
PD Log, & PPS data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
2.2.10: LEA PD Plans are
developed
Copy of PD Plans PD Plans are reviewed by
Management Team

Table 23: Objective 2.3: To provide ongoing coaching to sustain the use of social support
strategies and individualized tiered behavioral supports.
Coaching Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
2.3.1: State coaches identified
2.3.2: LEA coaches identified
Recruitment materials
Selection criteria
Coaches resumes
Qualitative review of
materials
Review with MT
2.3.3: Training of state and LEA
coaches
PD Log
qualitative analysis of training
89

PPS
PD Log, & PPS data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
2.3.4: Coaching plans developed Copy of coaching
plans
Monthly/quarterly
coaching plan updates
Review of coaching plans by
Management Team
2.3.5: Create coaching fidelity
protocols
Completed practice
profile
Completed protocol
Summary of meeting notes
related to fidelity protocol
2.3.6: Monthly coaching
meetings with LEA coaches,
with review of multiple data
sources
Meeting minutes
Fidelity data
Outcome data
PD Log
PPS
minutes; coaching, outcome,
& PPS data; & PD Log
2.3.7: Develop and support PLC PLC agendas/notes
PPS
qualitative analysis of minutes
& PPS data

Table 24: Objective 2.4: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data
to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level.
Performance Assessment Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
2.4.1: Review & adopt implementation List of adopted Expert review of
90

fidelity instruments for training and
coaching on IEP behavioral goals, DE
Social Skills Project, Tier 3 behavioral
interventions, and family engagement
strategies.
2.4.2: Review & adopt intervention
fidelity instruments for assessing the
degree of implementation of IEP
behavioral goals, DE Social Skills
Project, Tier 3 behavioral interventions,
& family engagement strategies
2.4.3: Review and adopt other
implementation or intervention fidelity
instruments as required
fidelity instruments
Completed practice
profiles for new
instruments
completed practice
profiles &
implementation
instruments
2.4.4: Train state and LEA coaches to
use fidelity instruments
PD Log
Pre/post training
data
PPS
data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
2.4.5: Develop & implement training &
coaching evaluation forms
Training & coaching
curriculum
Review of forms by
Management Team
91

2.4.6: Evaluation data shared quarterly
with Leadership Team.
Evaluation reports
Copy of LT meeting
minutes
minutes
2.4.7: Collect on annual outcome data Annual Eval Report
SPP Indicator data:
3, 5, 8, and 13
Suspension/ODR
data
Review of report and
data by Management
Team & OSEP Project
Officer

Table 25: Objective 2.5: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives
to implement the social skills and Tier 3 interventions in their schools.
Organizational/Leadership
Activities
Provide PD for LEA & school
administrators on how to support
teachers in:
2.5.1: Supporting teachers to develop
behavioral IEP goals.
2.5.2: Supporting implementation of
the DE Social Skills Project
2.5.3: Supporting implementation of
Tier 3 behavioral interventions.
2.5.4: Supporting evidence-based
parent engagement strategies
PD Log
PPS
data
ANOVA for pre/post
assessments
92

2.5.5: Formalize PD into online
modules and make available on
project website.
Module development
materials
Completed modules
Expert review to
ensure content validity

(ii): The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness
of project implementation strategies.
We have proposed multiple measures for assessing the effectiveness of project
implementation strategies. These instruments, with the same implementation process, will be
used in all states evaluated by EEC and PIRE, allowing for a greater sample to test, refine, and
validate instruments. These include instruments developed by SISEP to (1) assess stages of
implementation and (2) evaluate the degree to which the implementation drivers are in use (see
Appendix A. These established instruments will be used in conjunction with project specific
implementation (PD) and intervention (evidence-based practice) fidelity measures, identified in
the project logic models __ and the evaluation tables on pages 16 25 of this section to
determine the effectiveness of DE SPDG PD. Existing fidelity instruments will be used when
available (see previous discussion about project data collection tools). Otherwise, we will use the
practice profile method for developing and testing fidelity instruments for demonstrating the
effectiveness of project implementation activities.
We will use SISEPs stage-based assessments of implementation instruments to determine
the stage of implementation for each initiative. Depending on the stage, it is likely different
implementation drivers will be emphasized and need to be measured. The SISEP state-based
instruments provide the necessary data to inform management decisions related to
implementation.
93

Table 26: Stage of Implementation Assessments
Stage Assessments
Exploration Assessment of Implementation Stages & ImpleMap
Installation Installation Stage Assessment & Action Planning Guide
Initial Implementation
Initial Implementation Comp. Assessment & Action Planning
Guide
Full Implementation
Full Implementation Component Assessment & Implementation
Tracker

Supporting the assessment of implementation stages, we will use the SISEP implementation
drivers instruments (see Appendix A) to gauge the implementation of the specific staff
competency, organizational, and leadership drivers for the DE SPDG. Utilizing the PIP/PEP
cycle, data from these instruments will be reviewed quarterly by the DE SPDG Management
Team to inform ongoing SPDG policy. Decisions made as a result of the policy review will be
shared with all project partners.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective
performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project
and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
We will report on the SPDG Program/GPRA performance measures (PM) on an annual
basis. Data from these indicators will be used to inform federal officials, as well as DDOE staff,
and project management. We will not report on PM 4 as we do not have a formal teacher
recruitment/retention goal.
Performance Measure 1: Much of the reporting for PM 1 relates to documentation of evidence-
based professional development, such as LEA commitment forms, training process agendas and
pre/post assessments, coaching materials and protocols, etc. Data related to growth in teachers
knowledge and skills, as well as fidelity of implementation data collected via training and
94

coaching protocols will be provided. A mixed set of qualitative and quantitative data will be
provided to assess the quality of PD. Our expectation is by Year 2, we will score a minimum of a
3 on the 4 point scale used in the SPDG PM 1 Rubric, indicating consistent use of evidence-
based professional development practices.
Performance Measure 2: PM 2 focuses on the fidelity of intervention of desired practices. As
much of the PD will be determined and provided based on LEA need, it is difficult to state
specific instruments. For LEAs, participating in SIMS, we will use their established fidelity
instruments. The Tier 3 behavioral interventions have available a self-report in the BAT and/or
an independent ISSET review. In cases where we do need to develop fidelity protocols, we will
use the practice profile process to identify the critical components of each practice. For each
critical component, we will identify the gold standard for implementation, acceptable variations
in the practice, and ineffective practices and undesirable practices. As many of our fidelity
measures will be self-report, we will build in an observation component for 20% of the
LEAs/schools for which we report fidelity data. The observations will be conducted by SPDG
regional coaches and LT members.
Performance Measure 3: To report on the cost/benefit performance measure, we will track the
use of sustained PD activities through an online tracking log, known as the PD Log. This has
been used in successive SPDGs (and in other states our evaluators work in) to collect data on the
type, amount, and audience of PD. Through this database, we can determine the percentage of
staff time spent on sustained PD activities, such as coaching. Travel and other costs will be
tracked to determine other costs impacting this performance measure.
Upon funding, we will define our project-level performance indicators in a collaborative
manner with the specific contents experts. However, we have presented a number of potential
95

indicators for each project objective below. Objectives are structured the same for each goal, so
we will be able to aggregate data across initiatives and report for the entire project. To be most
useful, indicators address short-term and intermediate outcomes.
Objective 1 (Selection Driver): (1) All PD providers have been trained on the specific
interventions they will facilitate in participating LEAs. (2) The expected number of LEAs have
been recruited for each initiative, each year.
Objectives 2 (Training Driver): (1) Annually, 75% of DE SPDG workshops will result in
statistically significant increases from pre to post in participants knowledge and skills. (2) On
the annual Participating Personnel Survey (PPS), 75% of PD participants will report that the PD
they received had a large to very large impact on their knowledge and skills related to IEP
development, SIMS, Communication training, the DE Social Skills Project, and/or Tier 3
behavioral interventions.
Objective 3 (Coaching Driver): Six months after training, participants will implement the
desired intervention/practice with 80% fidelity, as measured by a SPDG coach on the SPDG
coaching/implementation fidelity protocol.
Objective 4 (Performance Assessment Driver): 75% of participating schools score 80% or
higher on specific initiative intervention fidelity protocols, after two years of full implementation
of the intervention.
Objective 5 (Facilitative Administrative Supports Driver): On the annual PPS, 75% of
administrators in participating LEAS will report that the PD they received had a large to very
large impact on their knowledge and skills of supporting and sustaining the implementation of
IEP development, SIMS, Communication training, the DE Social Skills Project and/or Tier 3
behavioral interventions.
96

(iv): The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
While tracking and monitoring activity completion is an important component of evaluation,
we feel that evaluation data are best used as decision-making tools to guide us in implementing
these exciting new initiatives. We intend to use a learning orientation approach to evaluation
(McLaughlin, 2001) focusing on (1) what factors in our initiatives are influencing emerging
outcomes and in what ways, (2) what factors in our initiatives are influencing final outcomes and
in what ways, (3) what factors in the context or implementation environment of our initiatives
may have influenced success positively or negatively, and (4) what unintended effects are
occurring or have occurred?
In conjunction with a learning approach to evaluation, we believe it is important for project
evaluators to be an active part of project management (Perry, Thomas, DuBois, & McGowan,
2006). While in contrast to the more traditional view that evaluators must remain distant and
purely objective, the field is now beginning to realize the importance of an inclusive model for
evaluation. We expect to capitalize on the expertise of our evaluators by (1) learning more about
how to use and incorporate data into our work and (2) informing our policy decisions with the
best quality data available (Grob, 2006).
In order to benefit from a learning orientation approach to evaluation, however, it is essential
to have high quality data that are available in a timely manner. Bernhardt (1998) stressed that
comprehensive school-wide improvement activities are dependent on data that address the
interactions among and between stakeholders, stakeholder perceptions, the actual intervention,
and the results. Guskey (2000) stressed the importance of measuring the impact of professional
development on student learning. These processes and impacts are illustrated in the DE SPDG
97

logic model. The model is designed to demonstrate the causal linkages between project
objectives, the organizations and individuals working together to achieve this goal, and the short-
term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes associated with each initiative.
Our intent is to ensure that policy enables practice and practice informs policy. To do this,
the external evaluator will submit quarterly reports to project management, documenting the
amount and type of PD provided, as well as incorporating any available ongoing performance
feedback. These reports will be based on feedback from formal PD opportunities;
surveys/interviews with teachers, administrators, families, IHE faculty, DDOE personnel; and
informal data collection opportunities. The quarterly reports will be aggregated to form the basis
of the SPDG APR. Annual reports will summarize the formative data from throughout the year
and provide annual summative and cumulative data.

State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

State Personnel Development Grant Proposal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Delaware Department of Education

Exceptional Children Resources Office

Potrebbero piacerti anche