osep personnel development program

Welcome! PROGRAM MEETING

July 23, 2012

OSEP Personnel Development

Program1

Agenda

Program Performance Measure Results 2011

Discussions on Program Improvement

Grant Priority or Focus Room Number

Early ChildhoodHigh Incidence (Ts) LeadershipLow IncidenceMinority InstitutionsParaprofessional Related ServicesSecondary Transition

Washington 5Washington 6Virginia A, B, CWashington 4HooverBalcony BDelaware A & BBalcony A

Discussions (4:10-5:30)

Summer 2012 Doctoral Interns

University of Central FloridaFlorida International UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityGeorge Mason

UniversityUniversity of MarylandUniversity of NC-Charlotte

GOAL To prepare personnel in areas of critical need who are highly qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities

5

PDP Investments

Program Improvement

Preparation National Centers

Program Evaluation

5

Program ObjectivesObjective 1. Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to ensure that personnel preparing to serve children with disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices that reflect the current knowledge base. Objective 2. Increase the supply of teachers and service providers who are highly qualified for and serve in positions for which they are trained. Objective 3. Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal dollars under this program

7

INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

Program Investments

Activities Participation Short Term Long Term

Project OfficersFundingEvidence-Based &Best PracticesResearchProgram & Grants Policy Technology

Process Measures Outcome Measures

Intermediate

Increased supply of fully qualified personnel* with awareness and knowledge of EBP & best practices

Increased training opportunities

Increased placement of fully qualified*personnel

Improved personnel development infrastructures

Increased retention of fully qualified* personnel in workforce.

Increased collaboration - SEAs, IHEs, LEAs & lead agencies

GranteesFacultyStudents in IHEsSEAs & LEAsLead AgenciesPractitioners AdministratorsChildrenFamilies

Develop priorities &manage competitions

Monitor grants

Build models & networks for collaboration

*Fully Qualified = Highly Qualified for special education teacher; Qualified for paraprofessional/aide; Fully Certified for administrator/coordinator, for related or supportive services in a school setting, or for teacher, related services, or supportive services in early intervention, early childhood.

CONTEXT

Federal Law & Regs

Time

OSEP Personnel Development Program - Logic Model Goal: To prepare personnel in areas of critical need who are fully qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities

Train personnel

Redesign &build models & networks for collaboration

Develop and disseminate resources

6/09

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, OSEP has developed a strategic plan for measuring performance and will collect information to assess progress and performance.(FY 2012 325D, 325K, 325T Appl icat ion Package)

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

Program Performance MeasuresFY 2011 Results

http:/ /ww w2. ed. gov/about/over v iew/budget/ budget1 3/ justifications/ i - spec ia le d .pdf

OSEP Personnel Development

Program9

Performance Measure 1 Percentage of projects that incorporate

evidence-based practices into their curricula

20072008

20092010

2011

0102030405060708090

100

41.555.5

48.7

91.3100

Performance Measure 2Percentage of scholars completing OSEP- funded training programs who are knowledgeable and

skilled in evidence based practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

20072008

20092010

2011

0102030405060708090

100

0

43.5 39.140.1

84.9

Performance Measure 3Percentage of program scholars who exit preparation programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3 3

1.8 2

1.4 1.61.95

Performance Measure 4Percentage of funded degree/certification program recipients who are working in the area(s) in which they were trained upon program completion.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8075.3

69.476.669.7 73.273.4

Performance Measure 5 Percentage of funded degree/certification program recipients who are working in the area(s) in which they were trained upon program completion and

who are fully qualified under IDEA.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

70.265.3

73.169

Measure 5Results

Percent of Scholars Over Four YearsRY 2008

(FY 2006)RY 2009

(FY 2007)RY 2010

(FY 2008)RY 2011

(FY 2009)

Scholars who were employed in the area trained and fully certified

69.0 70.2 65.3 73.1

Scholars who were employed in the area trained but NOT fully certified

2.2 3.2 2.7 1.9

Scholars who were employed but NOT in area trained 13.1 7.7 11.0 9.8

Scholars who were not employedor whose employment, area trained, and/or certification status was unknown

15.7 18.8 21.1 15.1

Total 100.0 99.9 100.1 99.9

Performance Measure 7 The Federal cost per degree/certification program recipient who completed the program.

20082009

20102011

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000 26,15521,944 24,197 27,398

1. STUDENT LEARNING2. TEACHER RETENTION3. EMPLOYER SATISFACTION

New Outcome Measures

Program Improvement

Training on – Preparing Annual Performance

ReportsUsing Logic ModelsWriting Performance MeasuresImproving Performance

Measurement Data QualityDesigning Measurement of

Student Growth

Our Future, Our Teachers: the Obama Administration’s Plan for teacher Education Reform and Improvement:

Our Future, Our Teachers: the Obama Administration’s Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement

http://www.ed.gov/teaching/documents/our-future-our-teachers.pdf

Grant Priority or Focus Room Number

Early ChildhoodHigh Incidence (Ts) LeadershipLow IncidenceMinority InstitutionsParaprofessional Related ServicesSecondary Transition

Washington 5Washington 6Virginia A, B, CWashington 4HooverBalcony BDelaware A & BBalcony A

Grant Area Discussions