National Call - CEEDARMagnuson will forward the question to a TeamBox project (“National all...

National Call

Process, Procedures, and Supporting Documentation

Part I

April 2013

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Part I: National Call and State Selection ....................................................................................................... 2 National Call .................................................................................................................................................. 3

National Call and Supporting Documents ........................................................................................... 3 Development and Review Process ...................................................................................................... 3

Marketing, Announcement, and State Solicitation Plan ............................................................................... 5 Marketing CEEDAR .............................................................................................................................. 5 Introducing CEEDAR and the National Call ......................................................................................... 5 Introducing CEEDAR’s National Call .................................................................................................... 5 State Recruitment ............................................................................................................................... 6 Informational Webinar ........................................................................................................................ 6 Process for Responding to National Call Inquiries .............................................................................. 7

Review and State Selection ......................................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A: National Call ........................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix B: Q & A Document ..................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix C: Reviewer Feedback Memo ..................................................................................................... 23 Appendix D: State Application .................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix E: Overview of National Call Development ................................................................................ 45 Appendix F: National Call CEEDAR Website Language ............................................................................... 48 National Call for States to Request CEEDAR Intensive Technical Assistance Released May 7th ................ 49 Appendix G: National Call Partner Website Language................................................................................ 50 Appendix H: National Call CEEDAR Exact Target (email) Language ............................................................ 52 Appendix I: National Call Q & A Tracking Form .......................................................................................... 57 Appendix J: CEEDAR Center State Application Review Guidance ............................................................... 58

1

Introduction

This document describes the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and

Reform (CEEDAR) Center’s process for conducting the National Call, the review and state selection

process, and the provision of universal, targeted, and intensive technical assistance. The document is

divided into two sections. Part I (National Call Announcement and State Selection) provides an overview

of the National Call, the supporting documentation, and the state application and selection process. Part

II (Memorandum of Understanding and Technical Assistance Blue Print Development) describes the

needs assessment, memorandum of understanding, and technical assistance blue print development

process, and highlights universal, targeted, and intensive technical assistance supports. Supporting

documents that accompany the processes outlined in Parts I and II can be found in the appendices.

2

Part I: National Call and State Selection

3

National Call

National Call and Supporting Documents

National Call (appendix A): This offers an overview of the CEEDAR Center and its purpose and

announces the opportunity for states to apply for intensive technical assistance through a state

application process.

Q & A Document (appendix B): This supplements the National Call by providing additional

information about the Center’s purpose and the selection process.

Reviewer Feedback Form (appendix C): This illustrates CEEDAR’s response to external reviews.

State Application (appendix D): This outlines the state application process and identifies

supporting documentation that must be submitted to CEEDAR to secure intensive technical

assistance.

Development and Review Process

The CEEDAR Center initiated the development of a National Call (and the relevant supporting

documents) in December 2012. Using information from the CEEDAR Center proposal and drawing on

experience with other center national calls (e.g., the Response to Intervention Center, the National

Center for Intensive Interventions), American Institutes for Research (AIR) generated drafts, solicited

reviews, responded to comments, and developed the final National Call, which can be found in appendix

A.

Below is an overview of the National Call Development and Review Process (for a complete account see

appendix E).

12/1/2012 – 12/17/2012

Created and shared the initial draft of the rubric that will provide guidance for CEEDAR Center

review and summary of state applications (appendix J). Initial review conducted by CEEDAR

leadership.

12/18/2012

Sent the National Call materials to CEEDAR Leadership for initial review.

4

1/25/2013

University of Florida (UF) sent the National Call, the Q & A document, and a feedback form to

the following external reviewers:

o Phoebe Gillespie, NASDSE

o Nancy Reder, NASDSE

o Jane West, AACTE

o Kathleen Paliokas, CCSSO

o Linda Blanton, FIU

o Marlene Pugach, USC

1/30/2013 – 2/23/2013

Collected external reviewer feedback, modified documents accordingly, and created a reviewer

feedback, tracking, and response document for CEEDAR Leadership and the Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP).

3/8/2013

Uploaded the following National Call documents to Team Box for UF review:

o Draft National Call

o Draft National Call with tracked changes, as per recommendations from reviewers

o Draft Q & A document

o Reviewer feedback and response document

o Draft State Selection Criteria

3/13/2013

National Call documents forwarded to project officers for feedback.

3/19/2013 – 4/1/2013

Solicited feedback from a representative group of deans:

o Group of dean representatives at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education (AACTE) conference

o Mike Rosenburg, State University of New York at New Paltz

o John Jacobson, Ball State University

4/5/2013 – 4/9/2013

Responded to feedback from deans and project officers.

5

Marketing, Announcement, and State Solicitation Plan

Marketing CEEDAR

Communicating CEEDAR’s mission and purpose is critical to ensuring that CEEDAR accomplishes its

objectives. CEEDAR staff members have developed an overview statement and a marketing brochure to

help to publicize the work of the Center. CEEDAR staff—inclusive of its partners—continually

communicates the Center’s purpose to states and institutes of higher education (IHEs) in order to recruit

states for intensive technical assistance, and are strategic about presenting at national conferences.

Introducing CEEDAR and the National Call

The CEEDAR Center conducted an introductory webinar on April 16, 2013. This webinar served as an

introduction to the Center, its purpose, and its scope of services, and provided states with information

about how to apply for intensive technical assistance.

Introducing CEEDAR’s National Call

The CEEDAR Center National Call will be announced in the following ways:

An announcement in the CEEDAR Center’s introductory webinar on April 16, 2013

An announcement on CEEDAR’s website (see appendix F), along with links to the National Call,

the Q & A document, and the application form

Announcements on the websites of CEEDAR partners and other associated organizations.

(CEEDAR will provide partners and associated organizations with language and a link to the

CEEDAR website announcement [see appendix G])

Exact target mailings (see appendix H) will be forwarded to various listservs, including chief state

school officers (AIR listserv); state special education directors (NASDSE listserv); Deans of

Education (AACTE listserv); Teacher Education Division/Council of Exceptional Children (CEC

listserv); State Title II Directors (AIR listserv); Teacher Certification and Licensure Directors (list

still be to identified); Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Directors (list still to be identified).

6

State Recruitment

CEEDAR staff will reach out to states (as appropriate) to share CEEDAR’s mission and the universal,

targeted, and intensive supports it offers. Although states will be encouraged to apply for technical

assistance, no guarantees will be made about the success of their applications.

Informational Webinar

The CEEDAR Center’s purpose is to build and sustain an aligned, coherent, and systemic approach to

personnel preparation for leaders and teachers of students with disabilities. The purpose of this

National Call is to inform state educational agencies (SEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) of

the opportunity to receive intensive technical assistance (TA) from the CEEDAR Center.

CEEDAR staff will also host two National Call webinars in order to respond to any inquiries. Provided that

the National Call is announced on May 7, 2013, the webinars will be held on the following dates:

Tuesday, May 14 2:00 p.m. E.D.T.

Wednesday, May 29 2:00 p.m. E.D.T.

The first webinar—conducted by Mary Brownell, Lynn Holdheide, and Amy Elledge—will provide an

overview of the CEEDAR Center and the purpose and scope of CEEDAR’s intensive technical assistance to

states, as well as the process through which states can apply to receive such assistance. Webinar

participants will also have an opportunity to ask questions about the CEEDAR Center and the application

process. A suggested outline for this webinar is as follows:

Overview of the CEEDAR Center—its purpose and design (Mary Brownell)

What’s in it for Me? Intensive Technical Assistance Supports (Lynn Holdheide)

State Application Process (Amy Elledge)

Q & A (All participants, with Amy Elledge facilitating)

All questions and answers will be archived and uploaded on to the CEEDAR website.

Participants will be encouraged to submit questions via email (to

[email protected]

7

) or via toll-free number (1-855-4CEEDAR). Additional questions and answers will be added to the

archived Q & A document.

The second webinar—conducted by Mary Brownell, Lynn Holdheide, and Amy Elledge—will provide an

overview of the CEEDAR Center and its intensive TA services (as done in the first informational webinar)

and also provide more detailed information and illustrations (as appropriate) about how states can

complete and submit the online application form requesting intensive technical assistance.

Marketing for both webinars occurred during the April 16 introductory webinar and following the

announcement of the National Call.

Process for Responding to National Call Inquiries

An email address ([email protected]) and toll-free number (1-855-4CEEDAR) associated

specifically with the CEEDAR National Call will be included in the following locations:

o The National Call document

o The National Call Q&A document

o The CEEDAR Website (National Call page)

CEEDAR staff at University of Florida will monitor the CEEDAR email account and forward all

questions and inquiries concerning the national call to [email protected].

A designated CEEDAR staff member (Laura Magnuson) will have access to both the email

address and the toll-free number voicemail box. People who call the toll-free number will hear

the following voicemail message:

“Hello, you’ve reached the voicemail of the CEEDAR National Call hotline. Please leave a

message including your name, state, question, and contact information and one of our

staff will respond to you shortly with an answer. Please visit our website at

www.ceedar.org for more information, including frequently asked questions and

answers associated with the National Call. Thank you.”

Upon receiving an email or phone call, the designated CEEDAR staff member (Laura Magnuson)

will log the question in the chart included in appendix H.

As Laura Magnuson receives the call or email, she will record the following information:

o Date received

http://www.ceedar.org/

8

o Name of staff responsible for answering question

o Mode of contact (email or call)

o Name of person asking question

o State

o Role (if provided)

o Summary of question

CEEDAR staff will then use the following guidelines to determine the level of response that is

required:

o Immediate Response: Laura Magnuson will provide an immediate response to questions

that are answered in a pre-existing CEEDAR document or on the CEEDAR website. (For

example: Can you extend the deadline for applying? Where can we find an application

to apply for Intensive TA?)

o Internal Review: If a question cannot be answered using a CEEDAR document or the

CEEDAR website, Laura Magnuson will forward the question to designated CEEDAR TA

staff members (Amy Elledge and Lynn Holdheide). If they are able, CEEDAR TA staff will

provide an answer and will use the internal Q&A document for guidance, adding to the

document as needed. Laura Magnuson will respond to the person who made the inquiry

within 24 hours (acknowledging receipt of the question) and will follow up within 48

hours with a final response from the CEEDAR TA staff.

o Pose to CEEDAR Leadership Team: If a question requires further consideration, Laura

Magnuson will forward the question to a TeamBox project (“National Call Questions”)

and will follow up this posting by emailing Meg Kamman. Meg Kamman and Laura

Magnuson will coordinate with the CEEDAR Leadership Team to answer the question.

Laura Magnuson will respond to the person who made the inquiry within 24 hours

(acknowledging receipt of the question) and will follow up within 72 hours with a final

response from the CEEDAR Leadership Team.

Laura Magnuson will fill out a Q and A tracking form (see appendix I) to record responses to all

questions, including:

o Level of Response

o Date of Response

o Summary of Response

9

This document will be updated daily and saved in the TeamBox project “National Call Questions.”

10

Review and State Selection The selection process for states to receive intensive technical assistance from CEEDAR begins with an

online application (see appendix D). This application allows SEAs to evaluate their existing efforts to

reform, restructure, and improve statewide systems. This improvement would focus on personnel

preparation licensure, practice, professional learning supports, and undertaking evaluations to ensure

that students with disabilities in all settings achieve college and career readiness standards. The

application, which must be submitted by the Chief State School Officer, will provide SEAs and IHEs the

opportunity to self-evaluate. Evidence to support readiness for intensive technical assistance (TA) may

include 325T grants, modified curriculum and course syllabi from IHEs, and current initiatives such as

Race to the Top applications, ESEA flexibility waiver applications, and state improvement plans from

SEAs. This evidence is requested in the application. A committee will evaluate the status of a state’s

preparation and licensure programs for teacher and leader educators. Applications will be evaluated in a

six-step selection process (outlined below).

Step 1: Form a Screening Committee

The process leverages AIR staff’s TA experience and IHE (e.g., CEEDAR partner institutes of

higher education) program experience in training teachers and leaders in special education and

general education classrooms. The CEEDAR Center will select at least three representatives—

one from AIR and two from partner IHEs including both teacher and leader experience (i.e., one

with TA experience and one with university preparation experience)—who will constitute a

screening committee to review applications. The number of committee members will be

determined by the number of applications to be reviewed. If there are between 15 and 20

applications, for example, a two person committee should be sufficient. If there are more than

20 applications, more committee members may be needed. Membership will continue to reflect

both AIR and IHE staff.

Step 2: Create a Selection Criteria Rubric

A state selection review process has been developed (see appendix J) to evaluate SEA and IHE

preparedness in three areas: leadership support, program alignment and integration, and data

and formative evaluation. Evidence from state applications for each of these areas will be

ranked within a hierarchy of readiness: Committing, Planning, Emerging, and Implementing. The

rubric provides the reviewers with specific descriptions and examples of qualifying and

11

disqualifying evidence for each area, and within each hierarchical level. For example, a state

application may be disqualified due a lack of evidence of commitment from three IHEs

partnering with the SEA to complete this work.

Step 3: Review, Summarize, and Rank Order the Applications

The committee described above will review and organize material in the applications and

summarize each application based on selection criteria in the rubric. The summary will cover

areas including SEA and IHE goals, action plans, other state initiatives that would provide

resources that might be committed to this project, and current practices to be strengthened, as

well as a description of the TA requested. Disqualifying factors would also be cited. The

committee will then rank potential SEAs according to the evidence. From this rank ordering, a

state may be recommended for either intensive TA or targeted TA.

Step 4: Present Committee Recommendations to CEEDAR Leadership

The rank-ordered summaries will be reviewed by CEEDAR leadership, which will approve or

revise these recommendations prior to forwarding them to OSEP for final approval.

Step 5: Review Provided by OSEP of CEEDAR Leadership Recommendations

OSEP will make the final decision, state by state, regarding which will receive intensive or

targeted assistance.

Step 6: Notify States of Final Decisions

The CEEDAR director will notify selected states by telephoning the Chief State School Officer,

and this will be followed up with a letter. This notification will indicate the SEA’s status as a

recipient of either intensive TA or targeted TA.

Step 7: Begin to Negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding

States receiving intensive TA will begin the process of negotiating a memorandum of

understanding with CEEDAR state leads and technical assistance liaisons. States that are

selected for targeted TA will be supported by CEEDAR to strengthen current initiatives and

program status in order to be more competitive for subsequent applications for intensive

technical assistance.

12

Appendix A: National Call

13

Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center

National Call for States to Request CEEDAR Intensive Technical Assistance

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center

seeks state partners, including state departments of education and teacher and leadership preparation

programs, to enhance the preparation of teachers and leaders to better support students with

disabilities in achieving college and career ready standards.

The purpose of this national call is to inform state educational agencies (SEAs) and institutions of higher

education (IHEs) of the opportunity to receive intensive technical assistance (TA) from the CEEDAR

Center. The intensive TA will be designed to meet the specific needs of each state.

CEEDAR Center

The CEEDAR Center is a new national center funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP) under a cooperative agreement to the University of Florida. The

Center is being funded for five years, from 2013 through 2017.

The CEEDAR Center is designed to help states, IHEs, and LEAs create aligned professional learning

systems that provide teachers and leaders effective opportunities to learn for teachers and leaders

(OTL2) how to implement core and specialized instruction that enables students with disabilities to

achieve college and career ready standards in inclusive educational settings.

CEEDAR Intensive Technical Assistance

To achieve its mission, CEEDAR intensive TA supports will build the capacity of partner SEAs, and their

respective IHE teacher and leader preparation programs, to reform, restructure, and improve their

statewide systems for personnel preparation, licensure, and evaluation.

CEEDAR’s intensive supports will be integrated into existing statewide reform initiatives, detailed in

signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with each SEA and IHE partner, and approved by OSEP. In

each state selected for intensive TA, the CEEDAR Center will:

Support state leadership teams in conducting a needs assessment and developing intensive TA

blueprints for reviewing and reforming their personnel preparation systems, and specifically,

teacher and leader licensure standards.

14

Offer training and other TA supports, both in person and at a distance, on how to design and

implement evidence-based professional learning systems (i.e., systems that support teachers

across the career continuum) that can better prepare teachers and leaders to effectively

educate all students with disabilities in kindergarten through 12th grade. And,

Support states and IHEs in their use of K-12 student outcome data to reform and continuously

improve their teacher and leader preparation programs.

The CEEDAR Center will select five states to receive intensive TA -- per year -- during Years 1, 2, 3, and 4

of its 5-year operation. Each of the 20 states, once selected, will continue to receive CEEDAR intensive

TA supports until December 2017.

The CEEDAR Center will make subgrant awards of up to $200,000 per state. Subgrants are intended to

support the CEEDAR partnership, leverage CEEDAR intensive TA supports, and extend personnel

preparation reform statewide. The purpose and scope of a subgrant will be negotiated and detailed in

MOUs that the Center signs with each SEA and IHE partner.

CEEDAR Target Audiences

Specific target audiences who can receive CEEDAR intensive TA supports include—

SEA officials and other state policymakers and educators

College of education deans and other IHE officials and administrators

IHE teacher and leader education faculty and administrators

o General educators

o Special educators

CEEDAR Intensive TA Benefits

The CEEDAR Center will support collaboration on personnel preparation reform among each of its state

partners. The goal of such collaboration will be to enhance the preparation of teachers and leaders in

using evidence-based practices to support students with disabilities in achieving college and career

ready standards. Activities completed with the SEA, IHE, and LEA partners in each intensive state include

the following:

Assess the context for reform. The CEEDAR Center will assist its state partners in identifying the

most pressing statewide needs related to personnel preparation reform and then to design a

customized intensive TA blueprint to meet these reform needs. Intensive TA supports will be

developed in consultation with the state leadership team including appropriate SEA, IHE, and

LEA officials. Specifically, CEEDAR will provide:

o Support in the formation of the state leadership team

o A structured needs assessment process

o A systematic approach to developing the TA blueprint

15

Integrate the evidence base. The CEEDAR Center will offer customized intensive TA supports to

each state partner. In accordance with each state’s blueprint, intensive TA supports will feature

strategies to integrate evidence-based practices effectively into content instruction and field

placements for teacher and leader candidates in personnel preparation programs. The CEEDAR

Center will work to build the capacity of its partners to extend the widespread use of these

evidence-based practices to improve the delivery of special education programs and services in

K-12 schools throughout the state. Specific CEEDAR TA supports include:

o Professional learning modules

o Document review

o Topical resources including webinars and expert blogs

Create sustainable systems. The CEEDAR Center will assist the SEA and leadership team in

reviewing, revising, and implementing policies, collaborative structures, data systems, and fiscal

and human infrastructures in order to promote an evidence-based approach to teacher and

leader preparation and support academic and social growth for students with disabilities. In

particular, the CEEDAR TA supports include:

o Tools and facilitation guidance to review licensure and program approval standards

o Guidance by summarizing emerging research and practice

o Access to national experts and professional learning modules for district and IHE faculty

use.

Application Process

The state chief school officer or designee completes an online application available at the CEEDAR

website, www.CEEDAR.org.

The application requires that the SEA:

Identify and demonstrate the commitment of at least three IHEs and appropriate LEAs who are

available to partner with the SEA;

Provide a brief description of the state’s goals and needs for personnel preparation reform;

Provide the names, titles and contact information of persons representing the SEAand IHEs who

will be the primary contact and project lead ;

Describe the accomplishments of teacher and leader preparation programs (inclusive of both

general and special education preparation programs, if not already merged) that could

potentially participate in the partnership at their institution’”; and

Describe current state initiatives to reform statewide systems for personnel preparation (e.g.,

ESEA waivers, Race to the Top awards, Annual Performance Reports, 325T grants, State

Personnel Development Grants, etc.) and how CEEDAR intensive TA supports would

complement those initiatives.


16

Selection of Cooperating States to Receive CEEDAR Intensive TA

How will CEEDAR select which states receive intensive technical assistance?

A team of CEEDAR Center staff and select national experts will conduct a review of state

applications and the supporting evidence. The reviews will be conducted using a state

selection rubric assessing the state’s commitment to the work and demonstrated need.

CEEDAR staff will conduct follow up phone conferences with state leads to obtain any

additional information. Once a state is selected, CEEDAR staff will work collaboratively with

state leads to develop a Memorandum of Understanding.

The CEEDAR Center will use the following criteria to evaluate applications and select partnering states:

Leadership. The application described the leadership roles and commitment of SEA, IHEs, and

potential LEAs that are proposed for the CEEDAR partnership, including the process for

establishing and maintaining collaboration and ongoing communication among these partners

(e.g., partnership meetings, public announcements of partnership initiatives, and electronic or

other existing communication systems among partner organizations within the state).

Program Alignment / Integration. The application provided a thorough description of how the

state will align educator certification and licensure requirements to support its personnel

preparation reform agenda, including the roles of the state offices and agencies which set

licensure and certification standards, IHEs that prepare teachers and leaders, and, LEAs that

employ teachers and leaders to educate K-12 students with disabilities.

Data Systems and Formative Evaluation. The application provided a description of existing

systems and future plans to collect statewide data on the impact of improved personnel

preparation on the capacity of teachers and leaders to implement evidence-based practices and

improve outcomes for K-12 students with disabilities.

17

Timeline for Selecting CEEDAR Intensive TA States

May 7, 2013 National Call

May 14 & May 29, 2013 Informational Webinars

June 21, 2013 Application Deadline

June 21 - July 19, 2013 Review of applications; selection of states

July 22 – August 2, 2013 Notification of state selection for year 1

August 5 – Sept. 30, 2013 State needs assessments and negotiation of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) for CEEDAR – state TA partnership.

October 7, 2013 Signed MOU

October 7, 2013 – Collaborative work and customized technical assistance

December, 2017

A webinar will provide additional information about the benefits of the TA to SEAs, IHEs, and potential

LEAs and the application process. Members of the SEA leadership team and other key state partners

should plan to attend one of the following:

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (E.D.T.)

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (E.D.T.).

Instructions for joining the webinars can be found on the Center’s website: www.ceedar.org

Questions?

Please contact:

American Institutes for Research

Attention: CEEDAR Center Application

1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW

Washington, DC 20007-3835

Phone: 1-855-4CEEDAR (1-855-423-3327)

[email protected]


18

Appendix B: Q & A Document

19

Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center


Questions & Answers

1. Who submits the application to become a cooperating state? The Chief State School Officer or designee is responsible for submitting the

application. Evidence of commitment from selected state department leads, Deans at

Institutes of Higher Education (IHE), and as appropriate, Local Education Agencies

(LEA) superintendents will create a competitive state application.

2. Is this only for special education school teachers and IHE teacher educators?

No, CEEDAR is designed to support both effective general and special education

teachers, working together with effective leaders who can support their efforts are

the key to empowering students with disabilities to develop skills to be college and

career ready.

3. We already have a number of initiatives concerning common core, teacher and leader

effectiveness, and students with disabilities. How is the CEEDAR different? CEEDAR will complement these other efforts and help states leverage their resources

for greater effect. In addition, the CEEDAR Center is different from most other

initiatives because the Center:

offers a comprehensive approach to systemic reform by building statewide

capacity to reform, align, and improve systems to prepare, certify and license,

and support teachers and leaders using evidence regarding the sciences of

teaching and leading; research regarding effective professional preparation;

and proven strategies for building capacity and engaging in systems change.

targets support of IHE faculty to integrate evidence-based approaches in their

programs, establishing a strong foundation of effective teachers and leaders.

20

4. How are the IHEs selected?

We suggest that the SEA consider IHEs:

that have existing partnerships with the SEA

committed to education reform efforts

that are representative of the state, i.e. research one institutions, regional

universities, public and private institutions, and those representing diverse

geographical areas and diverse populations

5. Our state has numerous alternative routes to teacher and principal certification. Can

those programs be involved in this effort?

Yes.

6. How much funding will states be provided? States will receive up to $200,000 over two years. Specifics of the use of these resources will be spelled out in the MOU.

7. How can the CEEDAR subgrant award be used? The SEA must use the funds to support the CEEDAR partnership and is encouraged to

leverage existing capacity and resources to create efficiencies and avoid duplication

of efforts. Specifically, CEEDAR suggests a portion of these funds be used to support

the participation of the IHEs. For example, CEEDAR funds may support travel for IHE

participants to attend meetings with the SEA, and the funds could be used to “buy

out” an instructor’s course to enable the faculty member to coordinate the

university’s reform efforts. Again, specifics of the use of the funds will be spelled out

in the MOU.

8. Is my state required to have adopted the Common Core State Standards in order to apply to participate in this initiative? A state must have adopted college and career readiness standards, equivalent to the

Common Core State Standards.

The SEA should provide documentation that the state has adopted or is working

towards ESEA approved standards to ensure all students are college and career

ready.

21

9. Exactly how will the state efforts and partnership with CEEDAR be evaluated?

Evaluation of the impact of CEEDAR will be assessed through:

outcome-based assessments of student achievement,

other assessment measures used to document student growth

classroom observation protocols

preparation program revisions and/or revised syllabi

CEEDAR will work collaboratively with the state leadership team to determine the

measures that are available and appropriate for data-based system monitoring

statewide. Target measures are likely to vary somewhat across individual intensive

states and will include the extent to which the leadership teams and Center activities

have contributed to the reform by influencing teaching practices, and in turn, the

learning outcomes of students with disabilities.

10. What about principals? Can they be involved?

Yes! Principals and other school leaders must be involved. The CEEDAR Center

technical assistance will work to prepare and support leaders so that evidenced-

based practices are used to promote the instructional and organizational

improvements that support effective instruction for students with disabilities.

11. Do I have to attend the webinar?

No, participation in the webinar is not mandatory. However, information provided in

these webinars will clarify the process and expectations of the application process -

likely resulting in competitive state applications. The webinars produced by CEEDAR

will be archived at www.ceedar.org.

12. How does a state submit an application to receive intensive technical assistance from CEEDAR? The application and submission process of CEEDAR’s intensive technical assistance is

located here: www.ceedar.org



22

13. Will I receive technical assistance until the grant ends in 2017? Yes, once a state has been selected, CEEDAR Center staff will continue to support the

state throughout the length of the project. It is expected, however, that the level of

support will decrease as capacity for ongoing improvement is built within the

participating SEAs, LEAs, and IHEs.

23

Appendix C: Reviewer Feedback Memo

24

Memo Date: March 5, 2013

To:

Bonnie Jones David Guardino

CC: Paul Sindelar

From Mary Brownell

Re: Reviewer feedback to CEEDAR national call materials

Bonnie and David: As you know, we recently sent drafts of the CEEDAR national call and the Questions and Answers document to five outside reviewers for their feedback and comment. The reviewers were Linda Blanton (Florida International University), Phoebe Gillespie (NASDSE), Kathleen Paliokas (CCSSO), Nancy Reder (NASDSE), and Jane West (AACTE). In an effort to show how the CEEDAR staff have responded to their feedback we are sending this memo and attachments. The memo reflects the questions that the reviewers were asked on the feedback form and summarizes the reviewers’ feedback. Beneath each suggestion is our response, in blue. The attachment is a Word document of the national call. In track changes and comment boxes, it shows edits made by the reviewers and our responses. We look forward to your review and comment on these documents as well as the current versions of the national call, the application template, the reviewers’ rubric that will be used to score applications, and the Q&A document. Below follows the text of the reviewers’ feedback form, with their comments. Thank you again for taking the time to review the CEEDAR Center National Call. The two attached documents are the materials states will receive as part of the National Call:


National Call Questions & Answers

Please review and provide feedback to the following questions:

1. Are the documents easy to read and understand? Feedback from Linda Blanton:

Mostly, but I am aware of the guidelines; readers probably are not familiar. Feedback from Phoebe Gillespie

Formatting problems with the first document Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

Yes

25

Feedback from Nancy Reder

The Q&A is very dense and I believe may discourage states from applying. The application process spelled out in national call document is much easier to read and understand.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have revised and shortened the Q&A document in an attempt to make it more user-friendly to SEAs.

Feedback from Jane West

Yes – very well written and clear

2. Are the objectives of the initiative clear? Feedback from Linda Blanton:

I’m not sure they are as clear as they could be. For example, the first sentence under CEEDAR INTENSIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE says that CEEDAR TA “will support the cooperating states to reform, restructure, and improve their statewide systems for personnel preparation, licensure, and evaluation.” Following from this sentence should be more specificity about whether the expectation is to address all or part of these systems. This becomes clearer (somewhat) later in the Call, but see my suggested edits and comments on the sheet itself.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have responded to Linda’s edits in the document itself, and have tried to revise the language to make it clearer.

The National Call document reads like an invitation and the Q&A uses stronger language and reads like a stiff competition (scores, etc.). Need consistency across the documents.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have revised the Q&A in an attempt to respond to this concern

In the Q&A document, the first sentence in the answers to questions 2 and 3 seem unnecessary – are confusing.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree, and have deleted those sentences

Move question 10 in the Q&A up front – one of the first questions in the Q&A. How general and special education might work together in these systems seems much too buried.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree and have moved question 10 further up in the Q&A document.

Feedback from Phoebe Gillespie

Yes Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

In the 4-page application document, in some places it appears reform of preparation is the focus, while in others you also talk about reforming K-12 instruction. In some cases it is not clear if you want to reform K-12 individual educator evaluation processes or build educator preparation accountability systems or build an evaluation system to measure success of the state’s reform agenda. I recommend reviewing language and being more precise about these different levels of work and where the targets are.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have reviewed the language and we feel it is clear. The focus of our work will be different with each state, and across the states it may very well focus on all of these things.

26


Again, I believe the four-page document is quite clear. However, I believe that the Q&A muddles things. For instance, you have identified a great team of scholars/experts but it is not at all clear how they will be helping the states or even how their research will be integrated into the project. For example, will the states be required to adhere to the research documents? If that is the case, I believe it’s important to say so. Second, the Q&A says very little about reformation of state licensing standards, which I thought was one of the goals of this project. This is much clearer in the other document. There is no mention anywhere of the involvement of state licensing boards (unless I missed it). Shouldn’t they be included as part of the state team? (At a minimum, the state should say how it will engage with the state licensing board)

o CEEDAR Center response: we have attempted to revise the Q&A to be more clear. We have also included language about state licensing boards.


Yes – though they are very ambitious with a small amount of money for each participant.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree, although we have successfully recruited states in other TA centers where we offered no money, so we are hopeful that even a smallish amount will be incentivizing to states.

3. Are the expectations of the SEA, IHEs and LEAs clear? If not, please provide suggestions for

additional information/clarity? Feedback from Linda Blanton:

I think more should be said about leveraging existing reform efforts and whether every part of the system (i.e., standards and licensure, preparation, evaluation) must be part of the State’s plan/proposal. More concrete examples might help.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree, and have made several edits to the text of the call and the application process to reflect this.

I also saw little about the intersection of general and special education (e.g., any suggested guidelines for which faculty to include from IHEs?).

o CEEDAR Center response: We have edited a bullet in the text of the call that we hope helps with this, and there is also a question and answer in the Q&A document that addresses it.


I think there is a lack of clarity about the role of the 3 partnering LEAs. o CEEDAR Center response: this is an issue that CEEDAR management has

struggled with as well. Per conversations during the January kick-off meeting with OSEP project officers, it was determined that LEA participation is a desired but not essential component. LEA participation has since been removed.

Also, the state's data system capacity should be assessed somehow in the application o CEEDAR Center response: we agree and have added language to the application

template Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

Nowhere did I see an explanation of what IHEs and LEAs are committing to do. I recommend making this explicit. Maybe the application should require letters of support from each IHE and LEA to ensure buy-in.

27

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree that it was never clear what exact role the LEAs would play. Emphasis on LEA participation has been significantly reduced. As for the IHEs, we hope the package of materials (national call, Q&A, and application template) make it clearer what the role of the IHEs is.

Feedback from Nancy Reder I don’t think that the role of the LEAs is particularly clear.

o CEEDAR Center response: see above bullet Feedback from Jane West

They are as clear as they can be, as much of the fleshing out will be done by the teams. The one area I would recommend addressing before the very end of the document (p.3) is data systems. A bullet could be added under the TA section to say something like – promote the development/completion of statewide data systems and facilitate their utilization to link teacher performance to preparation programs.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree and have added the bullet to the national call.

4. CEEDAR Center objectives and activities require a coherent and systemic approach to reform. Therefore, the level of commitment sought from SEAs, IHEs, and LEAs is significant. In your opinion, is the level of expectation cited in the call too demanding or not rigorous enough? For example, will this level of expectation be too much or too little to get quality buy-in and commitment from the parties?

Feedback from Linda Blanton:

None provided Feedback from Phoebe Gillespie

I am not sure the "level of commitment" is clearly stated. Maybe a listing of expected outcomes would be good.

o CEEDAR Center response: We anticipate this has been spelled out more specifically in the Q & A document and will also be stated more explicitly in the application process.

Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

The application process is not too onerous. Giving sufficient time to complete it will be key for very busy state staff.

o CEEDAR Center response: we anticipate allowing at least one month, perhaps two, for states to complete the application process.


In addition to identifying a leadership team in each state, the state should identify a project lead. It might help if some mention is made about states include in their applications how this work can be integrated into other relevant, related activities already ongoing in the state. (if the application statement says this, states will begin to see the connections and not view it as yet ‘another thing to do.” Also, it might help to articulate specific goals, e.g., where do you want the state to be at the end of five years specifically? (You can ask this as part of the application too.) Are you expecting statewide reforms or only in those IHEs and LEAs that are involved in the project? One goal might be for the state to articulate how this work would spread to other IHEs and LEAs not directly involved in the project.

28

o CEEDAR Center response: We agree that states should identify a project lead, and have added that to the requirements. We have also made several attempts to be clear that this work will build off other work already happening in the states within the application process.


It is a little hard to tell exactly what the IHE’s will be doing, but that is probably because it will vary depending on the state and the IHE and what their programs are like in terms of utilizing evidence based practices etc.

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree, and we do feel as though the role of the IHE will vary across states. In the application, we ask states to describe where IHEs are in terms of aligning their preparation programs, and we hope this helps with clarity.

5. What recommendations can you provide for modifying the requirements to increase the

likelihood that states will apply to collaborate with us? Feedback from Linda Blanton:

Keep a focus on leveraging existing reform efforts so that the funding is seen as a support to keep efforts moving forward and also ensuring that STDs achieve to high standards.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have added language in several places throughout the call about building off existing state initiatives.


I do not recommend modifying the requirements. The less you expect from them, the less you get in return and then your project takes the hit!

o CEEDAR Center response: we agree. Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

States are in middle of doing a lot of this work so it needs to be clear to them what this work offers. I encourage you to clarify in each section of the call that this initiative is targeted to students with disabilities (see my suggested edits in track changes)

o CEEDAR Center response: we have agreed with the tracked changes, and we have added language in several places throughout the call about building off existing state initiatives.


Tie it directly to ongoing work in the states related to their ESEA waivers, Race to the Top Awards, Early Childhood Challenge Grants, Annual Performance Reports, etc. These are all things a lot of states are already doing (in the case of the APRs, all states and they know what their determination letter says). If this work is not looked at as being directly connected to other statewide initiatives, states will be less willing to become engaged.

o CEEDAR Center response: see above response Feedback from Jane West

I am concerned that the IHEs may end up getting zero financial support for this activity. If the state receives $200K and say one third of that is for three IHEs over 5 years, that amounts to very little financial incentive to participate. I wonder if there are non-monetary incentives that the states might develop – some sort of recognition, or professional engagement.

29

o CEEDAR Center response: we find alternative incentives to be an interesting idea to explore and will have further team discussions about possible incentives. However, as stated previously, we have also had success working with states where we provided no monetary incentive.

6. Can you provide ideas for evidence that should be required for each category?


Not sure what you want here – for licensure/standards, preparation, and evaluation? o CEEDAR Center response: apparently we were not clear about what the intent

of this question was. It was intended to seek what items of evidence states could provide for each of the areas.


The PIC used a "narrative" rubric for this part of their states' application elements. Maybe developing one that rates each category from 1-5 and including it in the application will give the states a better idea of what you are looking for.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have developed a reviewers’ rubric, but at this point we are not inclined to release it with the call. We hope that the text prior to each response box in the application provides the clarity that states need. The webinars we host will also provide opportunities for interested states and IHEs to ask questions and gain clarifying information.


None provided Feedback from Nancy Reder

Not sure what this question means – are you talking about evidence that the state has done what it said it would do or something else? I think this gets back to the goals for each state. If the end goal is spelled out in the application, then quarterly reports should document how/what the state has done towards meeting those goals.

o CEEDAR Center response: again, it seems we were not clear with this question. Nancy raises good points that we will consider when developing goals in the MOUs.

Feedback from Jane West o None provided

7. What is your sense of the priorities - are they reasonable for SEAs, IHEs, and LEAs to accomplish? Feedback from Linda Blanton:

Not sure what you want here – for licensure/standards, preparation, and evaluation? Feedback from Phoebe Gillespie

Not sure if they are well-defined enough o CEEDAR Center response: we hope that the revisions to the call and Q&A, in

conjunction with the application template, will help define the priorities. Feedback from Kathleen Paliokas:

The key is whether states feel like they can integrate this into what they are already doing without burdening staff. It may be tricky if they see it as taking on new work without enough resources to cover staff time.

30

o CEEDAR Center response: we have made several revisions to both the call and the template emphasizing building on existing state efforts.


Are you referring to page 2 of the call document? Those specifics are clear but they are not called “Priorities.” If you want to focus on “priorities” then use the word.

o CEEDAR Center response: we have made this clearer. Feedback from Jane West

Priorities are good. I wonder if this is going to be perceived as a special education initiative. Will need to work to be sure that general educators see this as a part of their portfolio, at all levels – state, local, higher ed. This may be worth a strategic discussion.

o CEEDAR Center response: The focus is on improving the preparation of all teachers and leaders to improve the academic and social outcomes of students with disabilities. We believe the modifications in the national call and Q & A document provide more clarity.

8. What else should we include?


None provided Feedback from Phoebe Gillespie

Other than a rubric and a set of expected outcomes, just a better definition of what the LEAs will be doing in this partnership

o CEEDAR Center response: we have developed a reviewers’ rubric, but at this point we are not inclined to release it with the call. We hope that the text prior to each response box in the application provides the clarity that states need.


You need to clarify upfront in Q2 whether alternate programs can participate. The way the Call and the Q&A is framed, it is clear you are preferencing universities.

o CEEDAR Center response: this is now addressed in the Q&A Feedback from Nancy Reder

See my comments above. Feedback from Jane West

In the Q and A, question 2 about how IHE’s are selected – I would recommend adding something like this: Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a representative set of IHES, such as Research universities, regional universities, public and private universities, geographical representation etc. In addition, efforts to ensure statewide engagement by all IHE’s will be considered favorably. For example AACTE’s state chapter could participate in the initiative by promoting awareness and disseminating information. Chiefs could reach out to those chapters in developing the application.

o CEEDAR Center response: this is now addressed in the Q&A

31

Appendix D: State Application

32

Cooperating State Application for CEEDAR Intensive Technical Assistance

Thank you for expressing an interest to be a partner with the CEEDAR Center. The CEEDAR Center’s

mission is to work with states to build upon existing efforts to reform, restructure, and improve

statewide systems for personnel preparation, licensure, practice, professional learning supports, and

evaluation to ensure that students with disabilities, in all settings, achieve college and career readiness

standards. This application process is designed to serve several purposes:

To provide the state a process to submit information concerning current efforts and

demonstrated need to be used by the CEEDAR Center in the selection process.

To assist a state in considering their current level of efforts related to teacher and leader

preparation to support the academic and social growth of students with disabilities.

To apply for intensive technical assistance from CEEDAR, included below is a straightforward application

process which requires reflection, a statement of current efforts, and where necessary, supporting

evidence. Please note the state application must be submitted via email ([email protected]) no later than

11:59 p.m. E.D.T. on June 21, 2013. Should you wish to send hard copy documentation, those can be

addressed to:

American Institutes for Research

Attention: CEEDAR Center Application

1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW

Washington, DC 20007-3835

Phone: 1-855-4CEEDAR or [email protected]

Questions and/or assistance regarding this national call and the procedures for submitting a complete

application can be accessed through [email protected] or by phone at 1-855-4CEEDAR or 1-

855-423-3327.

All applicants will be notified by email whether their application is approved or denied, including the

reasons for the denial. Additionally, the list of the states selected will be posted on the CEEDAR website:

www.ceedar.org. Please be reminded that while not all states will be selected in the first year cycle for

intensive technical assistance, universal and targeted technical assistance will be made available for all

interested states. Additional states will be selected in subsequent years.

This application is designed to prompt self-reflection and guide the applicant(s) through a series of

questions that when answered, will provide the CEEDAR Center and expert reviewers the necessary

mailto:[email protected]



33

information to determine the level of commitment to fully implement a systemic approach to teacher

and leadership preparation, evaluation, and support.

State: Pull Down List of States

State Superintendent’s Signature of Commitment:

Contact information concerning this application:

Primary Contact:

Name: <text field – 25 characters>

Agency/Institution: <text field or pull down>

Department: <text field – 25 characters>

Title: <text box – 25 characters>

Address: <text field>

Phone Number: <numeric field >

Email Address: <text field – 30 characters

Secondary Contact:

Name: <text field – 25 characters>

Agency/Institution: <text field or pull down>

Department: <text field – 25 characters>

Title: <text box – 25 characters>

Address: <text field>

Phone Number: <numeric field >

Email Address: <text field – 30 characters –

Electronic Signature

34

Leadership Support

Using the scale below, please indicate the present level of leadership support that exists to implement a

systemic approach to revise teacher and leadership preparation, evaluation, and support at the state

level.

State Department of Education/Policymakers

Committing Planning Emerging

Commitment from State Superintendent/Chief School Officer and other department representatives (e.g. licensure and standards, certification, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement).

Plans in process for establishing working relationships between State Superintendent/Chief School Officer and other department leads (e.g. professional standards and licensure, accreditation, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement).

Working relationships established between State Superintendent/Chief School Officer, department leads (e.g. professional standards and licensure, accreditation, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement).

Please provide a brief narrative describing current state leadership:

As appropriate and available, please attach any supporting evidence citing the documents and insert

links when available in the text box below. Examples may include:

Superintendent/Chief State School Officer letter of support

Plan for coordination among departments Examples of regular, collaborative planning

meetings and projects. Statute and regulations detailing collaboration

and coordination requirements Review of state goals indicating commitment

to ongoing collaboration

Open Text Box – Limited Text – 500 words

35

Preparation Programs #1 Committing Planning Emerging

Demonstrated Dean of Education support from at least three IHEs, including, as appropriate, commitment from appropriate departments (e.g. Elementary & Secondary, Curriculum & Instruction, Leadership Preparation, and the Special Education).

Plans for establishing working relationships between the Dean and Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Department Chairs in at least three IHEs.

Established working relationships between the Dean and Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Department Chairs at least three IHEs.

Please provide a brief narrative describing current IHE leadership:



Letters of commitment from Dean & appropriate Chairs

Established leadership team or steering committee to plan and monitor the partnership

Stated vision and objectives for alignment of education program with evidence based research regarding inclusive models

Example of recent syllabi revisions that may reflect this partnership (e.g. involvement in 325T grants)

Preparation Program # 2 Committing Planning Emerging







36



Letters of commitment from Dean & appropriate Chairs

Established leadership team or steering committee to plan and monitor the partnership



Preparation Programs # 3 Committing Planning Emerging







Letters of commitment from Dean & appropriate Chairs Established leadership team or steering

committee to plan and monitor the partnership Stated vision and objectives for alignment of

education program with evidence based research regarding inclusive models



37

Program Alignment/Integration

Using the scale below, please indicate the present level of program alignment/Integration that exists to

implement a systemic approach to revise teacher and leadership preparation, evaluation, and support.

State Department of Education/Policymakers Committing Planning Emerging

Commitment to address preparation and licensure to ensure that both general and special education teachers are adequately prepared. Expressed interest in establishing an ongoing partnership between the state education department and the selected IHEs preparing teachers. Stated desire to align teacher and leader quality efforts.

Working to collaborate with IHE stakeholders (e.g. faculty committees, school district personnel) to institute regular communication and collaboration regarding the preparation and licensure of both general and special education teachers.

Preparation programs and licensure are in the process of being modified to teachers and leaders are adequately prepared. Demonstrated ongoing collaboration and coordination with the state departments and teacher and leader preparation programs. Demonstrated coherence across teacher and leader quality initiatives.

Please provide a brief narrative describing current state program alignment/integration:



Superintendent/Chief State School Officer & Dean letters of commitment to review and modify the pre-service curriculum, and the accreditation/approval process

Demonstrated commitment to align teacher and leader quality efforts.

SEA demonstrated alignment in other initiatives the past

Teacher and Leader Standards revised to include skills needed for addressing the needs of SWDs

Statute/regulation requiring coursework for meeting the needs of SWDs


38


At least 3 IHEs have demonstrated commitment to collaborate across departments to align their general and special education teacher and leader preparation programs to reflect current evidence-based practice and state and federal initiatives.

At least 3 IHEs have evidence of communication, outreach, and planning mechanisms to address collaboration across departments to revise teacher and leader preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice.

At least 3 IHEs have instituted processes to align their special and general education teacher preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice and state

and federal initiatives.

Please provide a brief narrative describing current IHE program alignment/integration:



Associated Dean(s) letters of commitment Noted plan within IHE reform efforts

(e.g. 325T OSEP grants) IHEs demonstrated collaboration towards

alignment in other initiatives in the past Communication and outreach to SEA, LEA,

faculty, and staff regarding participation in revising preparation program requirements

Program modifications per HQT requirements and the inclusion of evidence-base practice (e.g. 325 T Grants)

Modified curriculum and syllabi Established work groups to revise preparation

program requirements and modifications per HQT requirements and the inclusion of evidence-base practice




At least 3 IHEs have instituted processes to align their special and general education teacher preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice and state and federal initiatives. .


39














At least 3 IHEs have instituted processes to align their special and general education teacher preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice and state

and federal initiatives. .




40










Data and Formative Evaluation

Using the scale below, please indicate the present level of data and formative evaluation that exists to

implement a systemic approach to revise teacher and leadership preparation, evaluation, and support.

State Department of Education/Policymakers Committing Planning Emerging

A history of using data systems with the capacity to collect valid and reliable data concerning academic performance of students with disabilities.

Plans for developing data systems with the capacity to collect valid and reliable data concerning academic performance of students with disabilities and other students at-risk that can be accurately captured and reported back to the preparing institutions.

In the process of developing data systems with the capacity to collect and report valid and reliable data concerning the academic performance of students with disabilities that can be accurately captured and reported back to the preparing institutions.

Please provide a brief narrative describing current state data and formative evaluation:


41



Data reports

Plans within the State’s current initiatives (Race to the Top Application, ESEA Flexibility Waiver Application, and State Improvement Plan)

State has demonstrated capacity to link student

performance data by class and is in the process of designing systems to attribute growth to the teacher(s) and administrator


The IHEs have a history of requesting and valuing feedback from principals and districts that have hired their teachers. There is a documented history of a reciprocal working relationship between the IHEs and the LEAs. The faculty are committed to incorporating feedback as a mechanism to evaluate preparation programs.

The selected IHEs are communicating and reaching out to stake holders to plan the development and pilot of a system to use performance feedback of teacher and leader candidates to modify and improve preparation programs

The selected IHEs are developing and piloting a system to provide feedback on the performance of their teacher and leader candidates.

.

Please provide a brief narrative describing current IHE data and formative evaluation:





alignment in other initiatives in the past Communication and outreach to SEA, LEA, faculty,

and staff regarding participation in revising preparation program requirements


Modified curriculum and syllabi Established work groups to revise preparation program

requirements and modifications per HQT requirements and the inclusion of evidence-base practice


42





.












43





.












44

Leveraging Existing Efforts and Resources

Describe additional state resources that can be leveraged to complement CEEDAR subgrants and

support the CEEDAR partnership. In addition, describe how any SEA, IHE, and LEA grants, initiatives, or

other state resources can be used to complement the CEEDAR subgrant and support the reform of

personnel preparation systems statewide. For example, an SEA may have received a federal award (e.g.

Race to the Top grant, Striving Readers grant, or State Improvement grant) or received an approved

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver that provide resources for personnel

preparation reform or an IHE may have received a 325T Teacher Quality grant to revise pre-service

preparation programs.

IHE Collaboration

Identify IHEs in your state who are interested in partnering with the CEEDAR Center:

IHE Name:

Point of Contact:

Point of Contact title:

Phone:

Email:

IHE Name:

Point of Contact:


Phone:

Email:

IHE Name:

Point of Contact:


Phone:

Email:


45

Appendix E: Overview of National Call Development

46

12/1/2012 – 12/17/2012

Created and shared initial draft of the state selection criteria rubric (Appendix C) as a means to

identify needs per the national call and state application process. Initial review conducted by

CEEDAR leadership.

12/17/2012-1/14/2013

Worked internally with AIR team – with input from Marty Hougen - to create the following draft

documents

o Modified state selection criteria per CEEDAR team feedback

o Initial draft of the National Call

o Initiated a Q & A document to support the national call

12/18/2013

Sent the following materials to CEEDAR Leadership for initial review


o Draft Selection Criteria Rubric

o Draft Q & A Document

o Reviewer request letter and feedback form

1/21/2013

Responded to comments from CEEDAR leadership and modified all documents accordingly

1/25/2013

UF sent National Call, Q & A Document, and the Feedback form to external reviewers:

o Phoebe Gillespie, NASDSE

o Nancy Reder, NASDSE

o Jane West, AACTE

o Kathleen Paliokas, CCSSO

o Linda Blanton, FIU

o Marlene Pugach, USC

1/30/2013

Reviewed last column of the state selection criteria rubric with CEEDAR team. Collected input

and suggested modifications.

Reviewed Memorandum of Understanding with the CEEDAR team. Collected input and

suggested modifications.

47

1/30/2013 – 2/23/2013

Collected external reviewer feedback, modified documents accordingly, and created a reviewer

feedback, tracking and response document for CEEDAR Leadership and OSEP

2/25/2013 – 3/4/2013

Incorporated feedback from the Dean’s Focus Group

Reviewed Q & A document with the CEEDAR Leadership as a means to create common

consensus on CEEDAR focus and national call selection criteria

3/4/2013 – 3/8/2013

Sent all national call documents through Quality Control at AIR (Stephanie Jackson & Rebecca

Zumeta)


o Draft National Call with Tracked Changes as per recommendations from reviewers




3/8/2013

Uploaded the national call documents to Team Box for UF review


o Draft National Call with Tracked Changes as per recommendations from reviewers




Submitted documents to AIR editing team

3/13/2013

Received national call documents back from editing.

National Call documents forwarded to Project Officers for feedback

3/19/2013 – 4/1/2013

Solicited feedback from a representative group of Deans:

o Group of Dean representatives at AACTE

o Mike Rosenburg, State University of New York at New Paltz

o John Jacobson, Ball State University

4/2/2013 – 4/3/2013

Responded to Dean and Project Officer Feedback

48

Appendix F: National Call CEEDAR Website Language

49

National Call for States to Request CEEDAR Intensive Technical Assistance Released May 7th

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center

seeks state partners, including state departments of education and teacher and leadership preparation

programs, to work collaboratively to promote, support, and reinforce teacher and leader effectiveness

across the career continuum and thereby ensure that students with disabilities achieve college and

career readiness in inclusive settings.

Through the CEEDAR Center, states will have opportunities to create strategic partnerships among SEAs

and IHEs to support teacher and leadership education faculty and administrators, researchers, state

policymakers and school based professionals, for the purpose of building and sustaining an aligned,

coherent, and systemic approach to personnel preparation. The Chief State School Officer or designee

must submit an on-line application in conjunction with SEAs and state IHEs. For more information, on

the CEEDAR Center, information on the application process, and the application itself, visit the CEEDAR

Center web site, www.ceedar.org.

Additional information concerning the CEEDAR Center, the national call, and application process can be

located below:

CEEDAR Center Overview Document

(link)

CEEDAR Center Overview Webinar (link)

National Call (link)

National Call Q & A (link)

State Application (link)

Two informational webinars concerning the national call process will be held as designated below.

Members of the SEA leadership team and other key state partners should plan to attend one of the

following:

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (E.D.T.)

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (E.D.T.)

Instructions for joining the webinars can be found here (link). Questions concerning the national call can

be addressed to 1-855-4CEEDAR (1-855-423-3327) or through email at [email protected].



50

Appendix G: National Call Partner Website Language

51

Providing Opportunities to Create Effective Teachers and Leaders

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center, a

new national center funded by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs

and its partners, is announcing a national call seeking state partners, including state departments of

education and teacher and leader preparation programs to work collaboratively to promote, support,

and reinforce teacher and leader effectiveness across the career continuum and thereby ensure that

students with disabilities achieve college and career readiness in inclusive settings. For additional

information regarding this opportunity and the state application process, please visit www.ceedar.org.


52

Appendix H: National Call CEEDAR Exact Target (email) Language

53

Exact Target Language to Chiefs:

To: Chief State School Officers

Date: May 7th, 2013

Subject Line: CEEDAR Center Announces National Call for Intensive Technical Assistance to States, SEAs

and IHEs

Dear <insert Chief State School Officer>,






students with disabilities achieve college and career readiness in inclusive settings.

Announced today, states have the opportunity to apply for CEEDAR’s intensive technical assistance for

up to five years. Through the CEEDAR Center, states will have opportunities to create strategic

partnerships among SEAs and IHEs to support teacher and leadership education faculty and

administrators, researchers, state policymakers and school based professionals, for the purpose of

building and sustaining an aligned, coherent, and systemic approach to personnel preparation.

The Chief State School Officer or designee must submit an on-line application in conjunction with SEAs

and state IHEs. For more information on the CEEDAR Center, information on the application process,

and the application itself, visit the CEEDAR Center web site, www.ceedar.org.

Sincerely,

Mary Brownell

Project Director

CEEDAR Center

University of Florida

Attachments: National Call Document

Q and A Document


54

To: State Special Education Directors

Date: May 7th, 2013


and IHEs

Dear <insert State Special Education Director>,












The application process requires that the Chief State School Officer or designee submit the on-line

application in conjunction with SEAs and state IHEs. Technical assistance through the CEEDAR Center can

help support states with initiatives concerning common core, teacher and leader effectiveness, and

supports for students with disabilities. Should you feel your state is a prime candidate to receive such

support, please work collaboratively with the Chief State School Officer to begin to identify participating

IHEs and the application process.

Sincerely,

Mary Brownell

Project Director

CEEDAR Center



Q and A Document

55

To: IHE Deans

Date: May 7th, 2013


and IHEs

Dear <insert DEAN>,












The application process requires that the Chief State School Officer or designee submit the on-line

application in conjunction with SEAs and state IHEs. Technical assistance through the CEEDAR Center can

help support states with initiatives concerning common core, teacher and leader effectiveness, and

supports for students with disabilities. Should you feel your state is a prime candidate to receive such

support, please work collaboratively with the Chief State School Officer to begin to work collaboratively

to complete the application process.

Sincerely,

Mary Brownell

Project Director

CEEDAR Center



Q and A Document

56

Appendix I: National Call Q & A Tracking Form

57

National Call Q & A Tracking Form

Date Received Staff Responsible

for Question Mode of Contact

(call or email) Name State

Role (if provided)

Summary of question

Level of Response

Date of Response

Summary of Response

58

Appendix J: CEEDAR Center State Application Review Guidance

59

Year 1 CEEDAR Center State Application Review Guidance

Evaluation Guidance to Identify Potential States for Intensive Services

*NOTE: States have been asked to supply a narrative indicating readiness at the appropriate level, including examples of evidence. All

examples of evidence listed below are not required to be submitted by states; rather, the expectation is a compilation of narrative and

evidence that provides the evaluator with a clear indication of the state’s level of readiness and commitment.

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

LEA

DER

SHIP

SU

PP

OR

T

Stat

e

Documented commitment from State Superintendent/Chief School Officer and personnel representing state educator standards and licensure, accreditation, and relevant departments of education (e.g. general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement) Examples of Evidence Superintendent/Chief State

School Officer letter of commitment and/or signatures

Plan for coordination among departments

Plans for establishing working relationship between State Superintendent/Chief School Officer, department leads within the offices of professional standards and licensure, accreditation, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement. Examples of Evidence Examples of regular,

collaborative planning meetings and projects.

Planned collaborative projects

Established working relationships between State Superintendent/Chief School Officer, department leads within the offices of professional standards and licensure, accreditation, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement. Examples of Evidence Established collaborative projects Statute and regulations detailing

collaboration and coordination requirements

Established blended leadership between the offices of professional standards and licensure, accreditation, general education, special education, teacher and leader effectiveness, accountability and improvement. Examples of Evidence Staffing Structure Examples of collaborative

projects Statute and regulations

detailing collaboration and coordination requirements

Review of state goals indicating commitment to ongoing collaboration

60

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

Pre

p P

rogr

am(s

)

Demonstrated Dean of Education support from at least three IHEs, including commitment from the Elementary & Secondary Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction, Leadership Preparation, and the Special Education Department Chairs to work collaboratively and to devote personnel time. Examples of Evidence

Letters of commitment from Dean and appropriate Chairs

Plans for establishing working relationships between the Dean and Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Department Chairs in at least three IHEs. Examples of Evidence

Established leadership team or steering committee to plan and monitor the partner ship


Example of recent syllabi revisions that may reflect this partnership

Established working relationships between the Dean and Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Department Chairs at least three IHEs. Examples of Evidence Piloting models of teacher

education programs aligned to evidence based research regarding inclusive models

Communication, outreach, and professional learning opportunities regarding o Syllabi revision o The alignment of teacher

education program with evidence based research regarding inclusive models

Established blended leadership program between Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education programs. Examples of Evidence

Evidence of fully developed program alignment that addresses blending special education & general education programs to reflect current research and initiatives (i.e., MTSS).

Sample syllabi that reflect current research and initiatives.

61

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

PR

OG

RA

M A

LIG

NM

ENT

/ IN

TEG

RA

TIO

N

Stat

e

SEA is committed to addressing preparation and licensure to ensure that both general and special education teachers are adequately prepared. Expressed interest in establishing an ongoing partnership between the state education department and the selected IHEs preparing teachers. Stated desire to align teacher and leader quality efforts. Examples of Evidence Superintendent/Chief State

School Officer & Dean letters of commitment to review and modify the pre-service curriculum, and the accreditation/approval process

Demonstrated commitment to align teacher and leader quality efforts.

SEA demonstrated alignment in other initiatives the past

The SEA is working with stakeholders (e.g. faculty committees, school district personnel) to institute regular communication and collaboration between the SEA and some IHEs regarding the preparation and licensure of both general and special education teachers. Examples of Evidence SEA Plan for HQT Preparing program

accreditation/ approval process revision

Initial plan within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans, 325T grants)

Description of communication and collaborative effort

The SEA has modified preparation and licensure to ensure that all teachers are adequately prepared. Demonstrated ongoing collaboration and coordination with the state departments and teacher and leader preparation programs. Demonstrated coherence across teacher and leader quality initiatives. Examples of Evidence Teacher and Leader Standards

revised to include skills needed for addressing the needs of SWDs

Statute/regulation requiring coursework for meeting the needs of SWDs

Developed plan and measured outcomes within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans)

Fully developed plan for preparation and licensure, including demonstrated ongoing collaboration and coordination with the state departments, teacher and leader preparation programs, and, as appropriate, LEAs. Examples of Evidence Fully developed plan and

measured outcomes within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans)

IHE representation on the development and implementation of teacher and leader evaluation frameworks.

Regularly established meetings between SEA and IHEs

62

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

Pre

p P

rogr

am (

s)

At least 3 IHEs have demonstrated commitment to collaborate across departments to align their general and special education teacher and leader preparation programs to reflect current evidence-based practice and state and federal initiatives. Interest expressed in coordinating and aligning all IHE entities preparing teachers and school leaders. Examples of Evidence Superintendent/Chief State

School Officer and Associated Dean(s) letters of commitment

Noted plan within IHE reform efforts (e.g. 325T OSEP grants)

IHEs demonstrated collaboration towards alignment in other initiatives in the past

At least 3 IHEs have evidence of communication, outreach, and planning mechanisms to address collaboration across departments to revise teacher and leader preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice. Examples of Evidence Communication and

outreach to SEA, LEA, faculty, and staff regarding participation in revising preparation program requirements


Noted plan within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans)

At least 3 IHEs have instituted processes to align their special and general education teacher preparation programs to reflect evidence-based practice and state and federal initiatives. Examples of Evidence Modified curriculum and syllabi Established work groups to revise

preparation program requirements and modifications per HQT requirements and the inclusion of evidence-base practice

Development of detailed plans within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans) to support alignment of special and general education teacher preparation programs to reflect current research and state and federal initiatives

At least 3 IHEs have evidence of integrated special education and general education leadership and teacher preparation programs that continually examine and align the programs to reflect evidence-base practice and state and federal initiatives. Examples of Evidence Revised preparation program

requirements Modified curriculum and syllabi 325 T Grants Blended general and special

education programs General and special education

cohorts Increased field experiences –

including various service delivery models

Noted plan and measured outcomes within state reform efforts (e.g. RTTT, ESEA Flexibility Waiver, Response to Intervention, School Turn Around, State Improvement Plans)

IHE representation on the development and implementation of teacher and leader evaluation frameworks.

Regularly established meetings between SEA and IHEs

63

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

DA

TA &

FO

RM

ATI

VE

ELV

AU

ATI

ON

Stat

e

A history of using data systems with the capacity to collect valid and reliable data concerning academic performance of students with disabilities and other students at-risk. Examples of Evidence

Data reports

Plans for developing data systems with the capacity to collect valid and reliable data concerning academic performance of students with disabilities and other students at-risk that can be accurately captured and reported back to the preparing institutions. Examples of Evidence Plans within the State’s

current initiatives (Race to the Top Application, ESEA Flexibility Waiver Application, and State Improvement Plan)

In the process of developing data systems with the capacity to collect and report valid and reliable data concerning the academic performance of students with disabilities that can be accurately captured and reported back to the preparing institutions. Examples of Evidence State has demonstrated capacity

to link student performance data by class and is in the process of designing systems to attribute growth to the teacher(s) and administrator

State has established that data are valid and reliable and provides data by class and as well as by school and district

Implemented data systems with the capacity to collect and report valid and reliable data concerning the academic performance of students with disabilities and other students at-risk that can be accurately captured and reported back to the preparing institutions. Examples of Evidence State has demonstrated a link

student performance data by class and has implemented systems to attribute growth to the teacher(s) and administrator

State has established that data are valid and reliable and provides data by class and as well as by school and district

64

Review Guidance

1 Committing

2 Planning

3 Emerging

4 Implementing

Pre

p P

rogr

am (

s)

The IHEs have a history of requesting and valuing feedback from principals and districts that have hired their teachers. There is a documented history of a reciprocal working relationship between the IHEs and the LEAs. The faculty are committed to

incorporating feedback as a

mechanism to evaluate

preparation programs.

Examples of Evidence IHE required SEA reports Measurements implemented

by the IHE

The selected IHEs are communicating and reaching out to stake holders to plan the development and pilot of a system to use performance feedback of teacher and leader candidates to modify and improve preparation programs Examples of Evidence Steering

committee/leadership team of appropriate stakeholders

IHE required SEA reports

The selected IHEs are developing and piloting a system to provide feedback on the performance of their teacher and leader candidates. Examples of Evidence Surveys of principals, surveys of

their candidates

Preparation program has a history of following graduates upon exit including post-graduate follow up survey, placement and retention rates, and principal and supervisor feedback. Teacher and leader performance data are routinely shared with IHE faculty and administrators. Examples of Evidence Surveys & observations IHE required SEA reports Measurements implemented

by the IHE

National Call - CEEDARMagnuson will forward the question to a TeamBox project (“National all...

Documents

Transcript of National Call - CEEDARMagnuson will forward the question to a TeamBox project (“National all...