The Pennsylvania National Agenda (PANA) committee, with the help of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) and the support of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), administered a survey to supervisors of programs serving students with visual impairments in Pennsylvania.

The survey asked questions about demographic information, students served, professional staff, paraeducators, program services, and supervision roles and responsibilities.

The results pertaining to each of the 10 goals of the National Agenda will be presented.

18 supervisors of programs serving students with visual impairments in PA. Respondents have been working in the field of education for an average of

27 years with a range of 17 years to 46 years.

Respondents have been working in the field of visual impairment for an average of 14 years with a range of 2 years to 35 years.

17 of 18 respondents have earned a Masters degree

14 of 18 respondents hold a supervisory certification and 12 of 18 respondents have a certification in special education.

7 of the 18 respondents have also earned a certification in visual impairment.

Almost always was selected by over half the respondents. Overall, 71% of respondents said that referrals were always or almost always made within 30 days of a suspected visual impairment where as 6 % said rarely.

Almost always was selected by over half the respondents. Overall, 82% of respondents said that assessments or services were always or almost always provided within of referral for vision services. No respondents selected rarely for this question.

This goal was not addressed in the supervisor’s survey but will be addressed in a parent survey that will be administered in the near future.

Respondents reported that an additional 65 TVIs and 36 O&M specialists will be needed in the next 10 years due to attrition.

The 18 respondents reported 1,835 students with visual impairments are served in their programs.

Respondents reported a total of 113 teachers of the visually impaired (TVIs), 28 orientation and mobility specialists (O&M), and 47 dually certified TVI and O&M specialists were on staff. Based on the previous slide, 1,835 students are served by 160 TVIs and dual certified TVIs. The average caseload size was 11 students, however, caution should be taken since this number doesn’t indicate the range of caseload sizes based on geographical location.

The most frequent providers of services are APS personnel in the birth to 3 age range (90%). School districts are not an option at this age. In the 3-5 age range, IU personnel are the most frequent providers of services (58%) and then dominate as the providers of services for the 5-21 age range (71%). This information only partially addresses this goal as the supervisors were not asked about the frequency of specific service delivery options.

Providers of Services by Age Range

The survey asked how frequently students with visual impairments are provided O&M assessments (O&M), Functional Vision Assessments (FVA) and Learning Media Assessments (LMA):

10 of 18 respondents s reported O&M assessments and FVA are always completed or updated on an annual basis.

On the other hand, 2 reported O&M and FVA are rarely completed annually and 1 reported O&M assessments are never completed annually.

6 of 18 respondents reported LMA are always completed or updated on an annual basis, however, 1 reported never.

Frequency Assessments are Completed of Updated Annually

10 of 17 respondents reported it is not a challenge providing accessible materials in a timely manner, however, 7 of the supervisors reported it is. Results from this should be compared to teachers survey and parent survey to determine if students are indeed receiving accessible materials in a timely manner.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of compensatory access skills occurs with students with visual impairments. 11 respondents selected always; no respondents selected rarely or never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of orientation and mobility skills occurs with students with visual impairments. 7 respondents selected always; no respondents selected rarely or never and 1 selected not sure.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of social skills occurs with students with visual impairments. Only 4 respondents selected always; most respondents selected almost always or sometimes; no respondents selected rarely or never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of independent living skills occurs with students with visual impairments. Only 5 respondents selected always; most respondents selected almost always; 1 respondent selected rarely; no respondents selected never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of recreation and leisure skills occurs with students with visual impairments. Only 4 respondents selected always; most respondents selected almost always or sometimes; 2 respondents selected rarely; no respondents selected never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of sensory efficiency skills occurs with students with visual impairments. Only 5 respondents selected always; most respondents selected almost always; 2 respondents selected rarely; no respondents selected never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of self-determination skills occurs with students with visual impairments. Only 5 respondents selected always; most respondents selected almost always; no respondents selected rarely or never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of transition skills occurs with students with visual impairments. 7 respondents selected always; 1 respondent selected rarely; 2 respondents selected never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of use of technology occurs with students with visual impairments. 8 respondents selected always; no respondents selected rarely or never.

Respondents were asked how often instruction or assessment in the area of academics occurs with students with visual impairments. 8 respondents selected always; no respondents selected rarely or never

Respondents reported that instruction or assessment in the area of transition skills is always, almost always, or sometimes provided. It appears that further training in this area is needed. 15 of the 18 respondents felt staff development training in the area of transition skills would meet the needs of their staff.

All respondents reported that staff receive professional development training “In-house”. 17 of 18 respondents reported that staff receive professional development training at state conferences and through PaTTAN. LEA was the least selected location for professional development activities.

77% of respondents felt professional development activities that focus on data collection/record management would address staff needs. 55% of respondents felt professional development activities that focus on integrated services would address staff needs.

61% of respondents felt professional development activities that focused on educating students with multiple disabilities would address staff needs. 50% and less felt professional development activities focused on working with families/parents and infants/preschoolers was not needed.

Except in the areas of self-determination and O&M, 50% and over of the respondents felt professional development activities should focus on the areas of the ECC in order to address staff needs.