FDLRS Managers Mtg. PPT 4.09_1_

Document Sample
FDLRS Managers Mtg. PPT 4.09_1_ Powered By Docstoc
					Terry the Tulip wants to remind you to stop by the corner coffee shop and grab a cup before we get rolling!

FDLRS Spring Managers’ Meeting

 Welcome Managers 
April 28 ~ 29, 2009 Orlando, FL

Planting the Seeds for a Successful 2009-2010

FDLRS Managers know how to select the seeds, plant in fertile soil, nurture the roots, and harvest the rewards!

So let’s take a look at our “FDLRS Garden” for the next two days.

F D L R S

Garden Topics by Day
Day One  BEESS and Function Updates  Center Data  SPP Indicators  Grants Management Update  Project Tracking System  Regional PD Alliances and PDP Projects  PTS Entries  2009-2010 Project Priorities
Day Two  RFA  Center Operating Procedures  Targeted Discussions
– Stimulus Dollars – Personnel Development Alliances – Follow Up Practices – Distance Learning – Budget Management – Coordinating Councils – Personnel Development – Fiscal Management – PR – Resources

Let’s get started with our BEESS Update with Bambi Lockman and Cathy Bishop

And now for our Function Updates

Child Find Update
Conference call 3/25/09. Easels will be translated in Spanish, Creole, and Vietnamese. Centers will place orders for easels and tear off pads. Sharing of ideas to reach pediatricians, private schools, homeless, and the use of radio/TV and other media. Conference calls will be held twice a year.

Indicator 12 C to B Transition
 Districts completed verification activity for 2007-08 data.  State compliance went from 68.5% to 90.2%.  Compliance of 100%--30 districts.  Compliance of 99%-76%--26 districts.  Compliance of 75% and lower—6 districts.  Systemic noncompliance = 75% or lower.  Districts with systemic noncompliance must review policies, procedures, and practices and implement any needed changes.  Five districts did not have any children transition during 2007-08.

Parent Services Update
 ESE Parent Survey deadline 06/13/09.  Parent Services Communication workgroup – created Wikispace.  Parent Services Training workgroup – meeting to discuss parameters for posting training on Wikispace & priorities trainings to post.  Plan to open Wikispace to Parent Services Liaisons after Training Workgroup complete parameters.  Workgroup created to update “Introduction to ESE” book.

Parent Services Update
 Important Dates
– June 5-7, 2009 – Family Café Conference -will be looking for volunteers to assist with FDLRS exhibit table. – October 1-15, 2009 – Disability History and Awareness Weeks. – October – National Disability Employment Awareness Month. – November – Family Involvement Month.

HRD Update
•Level II Differentiated Instruction: Assessment and Grading Train the Trainer co-conducted with FDLRS and FIN for 59 professional developers. Development of a 10 hour online DI PDA-ESE Course is underway and should be available in the fall.
•SIM Statewide Efforts have included: Days 4 and 5 of PPDI, January Update for 100+, 2 SIM Advisory Meetings, Days 1 – 5 of PPDI scheduled for June ’09, Regional SIM PD offerings ongoing.

•HRD Fall Meeting and Spring Forum in conjunction with FASD events. •HRD Workgroups: Differentiated Instruction, Behavior Management, ESE Policies/Procedure, Reading, Technology Integration, Low Incidence, SIM.
•HRD Communications via Wikispaces and website.

HRD Update Distance Learning: PDA-ESE
 Statewide offering of PDA-ESE Language Development and Communication Module for SLPs to receive CEUs. Incorporated Adobe Connect sessions for face-to-face meetings.  PDA-ESE 5 ½ Year Implementation Data (October 2003 – March 2009)
– PDA-ESE Total Number of Modules Offered Statewide – 620 – Total Number of Completing Participants – 4147
         Participant by Module Breakdown ~ Foundations - 737 Assessment and Evaluation - 358 Instructional Practices - 532 Positive Behavior Support - 779 Language Development and Communication - 312 Interpersonal Interactions and Participation - 151 Transition - 473 Differentiating Reading Instruction – 805

Data from 3/31/09

HRD Update Distance Learning: ELEM. K-6 and MGIC
 Elem. K-6 A cumulative total of 5,153 educators have accessed this online resource since it became available at the end of January in 2007. (3rd quarter – 557 registrants)  MGIC - A cumulative total of 7,849 educators have accessed this online resource since it became available at the end of May in 2005. (3rd quarter – 818 registrants)
Data from 3/31/09

Technology Update FDLRS Technology Network Goal
 To coordinate services at the state, regional, and local level; a well as with other BEESS Technology projects, to achieve a seamless service delivery system.
– Example : Regional coordination of Institute 2008 follow-up.

Technology Update Institute 08 Resources
           Read:Outloud Software Kurzweil Software Classroom Suite Software Mino Camera Boardmaker Curriculum Support Resources Science Curriculum Support Tools Singapore Math Resources Virtual World Resources Digital Text Materials Low Incidence Literacy Materials & Resources Project WILD Science Resources

Technology Update Services/Resources
     Network Websites efdlrs Moodle Webinar Trainings Network Presentations Knowledge Management Systems

Technology Update Services/Resources
    Wikis Second Life AT Comp Virtual Meetings 20,145 17,802 500 201

– Connect – Elluminate – Talking Communities

 Tech Booklet

14,000

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased test scores

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased participation in the assessment process

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased active listening in the learning activity

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased activity communication in the learning activity

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased participation on cooperative learning

Student Outcomes - 7052
 Increased on-task behavior

Let’s take a look at a little center data and an update on our SPP Indicators.

State Performance Plan
How did we do in 2007-2008?

(APR provided under Tab 6)

Indicator 1
 % of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma….

Target

Performance 2007-08

40.3%

45.2%

Comments - Indicator 1
 Data revealed an increase in the graduation rate of 5.3% from prior year.  70.4 % (50/71) of districts were above the target.  81.2% (26/32) of the districts targeted improved.  Re-structured improvement activities.  Moving forward, targeting of districts based on performance across 1, 2, 13, and 14.

Indicator 2
 Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Target 4.0%

Performance 2007-08 4.4%

Comments – Indicator 2
 While we did not meet target, performance improved with decline from 5.39% in 200607 to 4.4% in 2007-08.  58% (42/72) of districts met the target.  80% (28/35) of districts targeted had decrease in dropout rate.

Indicator 3
 Participation and performance on statewide assessments
a) % of districts that meet state minimum “n” size meeting AYP for progress for disability subgroup. b) % participating in statewide assessment. c) Proficiency rate against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

Target a) 40% in reading/37% math

Performance 2007-08 a) 7% (5/72) met target in reading; 8% (6/72) in math

b) 96%

b) 96.1% participation rate

c) 38% proficient reading; 40% c) 31.6% proficient reading; math 35.3% math

Comments - Indicator 3
 Met target in participation rate, but rate dropped slightly.  Increasing proficiency rates
– Reading up from 29.9% – Math up from 32.4%

 % of districts meeting AYP target
– Increased for reading (4% to 7%) – Decreased for math (10% to 8%)

Comments for Indicator 3
 Beginning this year, districts will be targeted based on criteria that integrate data elements for regular class placement and performance in reading and math on the state assessment.  Modifying and streamlining activities between 3 and 5.

Indicator 4
 Percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than ten days in a school year. Target 7.5% or fewer districts Performance 9% (6/67)

Comments Indicator 4
 % of districts having significant discrepancy up from 6% (4/67) for 2006-07.  Two of the four districts with significant discrepancy in 2006-07 did not have significant discrepancy in 2007-08.  Key factors in improvement – correction of data; PBS initiated.  Two districts targeted for three consecutive years.

Indicator 5
 Percent of students with IEPs aged 6 – 21
a) Percent removed from regular class < 21% of the day. b) Percent removed from regular class >60% of the day. c) % served in separate schools, residential placements, homebound or hospital placements.

Target a) 56.8% b) 22.3% c) 2.7%

Performance 2007-08 a) 62.1% b) 18.4% c) 3.3%

Comments - Indicator 5
 Exceeded the state targets in two of the three indicators.  Increase of 4.3% in % served in regular class placement over prior year.  Decrease of 3.1% in % of students removed for more than 60% of the day over prior year.  Increased by 1.5% in separate environments over prior year.

Indicator 7
 Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
– Positive social-emotional skills – Acquisition and use of knowledge (including early language/communication and early literacy) – Use appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Target
No baseline yet - will establish in next SPP/APR

Performance 2007-08
See table

619: Results for FY 07-08
OSEP Categories Positive socialemotional skills (including social relationships) Number of % of children children Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills Number of children % of children Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Number of children % of children

a. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who did not improve functioning
b. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach d. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sameaged peers e. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Total

1.7

1.7

1.7

46

11.4

89

22.1

58

14.4

33

8.2

77

19.1

38

9.4

129

32.0

107

26.6

89

22.1

188
N=403

46.7
100%

123
N=403

30.5
100%

211
N=403

52.4
100%
38 38

Indicator 8
 Percentage of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Target 32% Performance 2007-08 35%

Comments - Indicator 8
 Increase of 5% over 2006-07 performance.  Response rate still discouraging – 9% (15,830/175,884).  For 2008-2009 will move to separate reporting for preschool and K-12.  Established targets for two populations.

Indicator 9
 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. Target 0% Performance 2007-08 0%

Indicator 10
 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Target 0% Performance 1.38% (1/72)

Comments - Indicator 10
 All races and ethnicities examined for each disability in all districts.  Sample records were requested from nine districts on newly identified students.  Used record review protocol to determine if disproportionate representation a result of inappropriate identification.

Indicator 11
 Percent of children, with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days or state established timeline.

Target 100%

Performance 2007- 08 94%

Comments – Indicator 11
 Improved by 1% from 2006-07.  # of districts that met 100% compliance increased from 16 to 18 districts.  Three districts targeted in 2006-07 reported 100% compliance.  54 districts improved overall compliance.

Indicator 12
 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who were found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthdays. Target 100% Performance 2007-08 90.2%

Comments - Indicator 12
 Significant improvement over 2006-07 which was 68.5%!  96%+ have their IEPs within 30 days of the 3rd birthday.  First time that no districts had 0% compliance.

Indicator 13
 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals. Target 100% Performance 2007- 08 24%

Comments – Indicator 13
 Performance represents 92 of 389 transition IEPs reviewed from 72 LEAs.  Decrease from 76% in 2006-07.  Attribute the decrease to revised procedures that facilitated finding areas of weakness.  Those procedures included Web based selfassessment implemented in all districts.

Indicator 14
 Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school or both, within one year of leaving high school. Target 55.7% Performance 55%

Comments – Indicator 14
 Decrease by .7% from 2006-07.  Decrease in employment outcomes likely due to the struggling economy.
– In 2005 Florida had an annual job growth of 3.9% – In 2007 job growth was 1.9%

 Long waiting list for adult services may also be a contributing factor.

Indicator 15
 General supervision system identified and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Target 100%

Performance 99.6%

Comments – Indicator 15
 Substantial increase over last year’s rate of 84%.  The single instance of uncorrected noncompliance related to evidence of systemic non-compliance for indicator 13 for one district.

Indicator 16
 Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or timeline was extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. Target 100% Performance 100%

Indicator 17
 Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45day timeline or timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer. Target 100% Performance 100%

Indicator 18
 Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Target 57.5%

Performance 69%

Indicator 19
 Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Target 75%-85%

Performance 73%

Indicator 20
 State reported data are timely and accurate.

Target 100%

Performance 100%

Grants Management Update with Sue Wilkinson and Kay Caster

Review of BEESS Discretionary Projects Request for Applications Please delete slides 60 through 75
Mid-way on Page 13

Why Changes
 Standardize proposals  Approval process expedited

What are the changes in the RFA?
 Narrative format  Format requirements  Assurances

Changes in the Project Design Narrative
 The BEESS will identify:
– A description of the project. – Initiatives – specific initiatives the project is expected to address:
 Expected outcomes/goals the project is expected to address.  State Performance Plan indicators the project is expected to address.

 The Project narrative components will address the initiatives identified by BEESS.

Changes in the Narrative Components
 Project abstract:
– Brief description of the primary focus of the project – No more than two paragraphs

 Initiatives:
– Brief description of each identified project initiative

 Baseline data

Changes in the Narrative Components

– Data against which project performance will be measured. – Representative of the region/district, if applicable. – Types of data
 Quantitative
(e.g., relevant SPP indicator data as reflected in the SPP/APR or LEA profiles, student performance outcome data, number of people trained, district graduation rates for students with disabilities, or formal survey results)

 Qualitative
(e.g., informal needs assessment results, focus group results, or case studies)

 Data collection plans

Changes in the Narrative Components
 Established need
– State, regional or district need based on analysis of the baseline data.

Changes in the Narrative Components
 Scope of work
– Project activities
 What will the applicant do?
– Identify details of activities including deliverables; training, technical assistance and dissemination; student performance and service delivery. Must include consideration of alternate training activities. – Address project-specific activities identified in the SPP – Demonstrate how districts, especially targeted districts, will receive support in accomplishing improvement activities. Assist with problem-solving and resource identification.

 When will the project conduct the activities?

Changes in the Narrative Components
 Evaluation plan
– Identify how the project will evaluate progress toward improving baseline data used as a foundation to identify need and project activities.

– Types of data:
 Quantitative
(e.g., relevant SPP indicator data as reflected in the SPP/APR or LEA profiles, student performance outcome data, number of people trained, district graduation rates for students with disabilities, or formal survey results).

 Qualitative
(e.g., informal needs assessment results, focus group results, or case studies).

 Results of initial data collection.

Additional Components
 Support for Reading/Strategic Imperatives:
– Address the reading initiatives – Incorporate one or more of the Strategic Imperatives
(http://www.fldoe.org/staregic%5Fplan/pdfs/200507_StratPlan.pdf)

 Dissemination/Marketing:
– Describe strategies that will be used to disseminate information and market the project to appropriate populations.

Additional Components
 Reporting outcomes
– Status updates
 Regular updates required at the discretion of the project contact.

– Quarterly reports
 Reports of progress submitted to the BEESS project contact.  The fourth quarter - a cumulative report of the project’s accomplishments.  Submit quarterly reports electronically using the format provided by BEESS.  Reporting will be impacted by new BEESS discretionary project database.

Additional Components
 For Federal Programs – General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
– Describe in narrative form how equitable access to and participation in its program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs will be provided. For details refer to URL: http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/g epa427.doc.

Format Requirements
 Submit one copy.  Proposal format:
– 8.5 x 11-inch plain sheets of paper; use 12 point font – Identify the district/agency in the upper right hand corner – Label narrative pages by subject area – Number the pages

 Do not include additional attachments.

Budget
 Include descriptions of all personnel funded through the project by:
– Position – Amount of salary – Number of FTE (full time equivalent)

 Explain out of state travel:
– Information in budget must be explicit
 Destination  Purpose  Number traveling

 Submission of fiscal information at periodic intervals not required – will check on the status of expenditures by other methods.

Changes in the Assurances
 Adds requirements to:
– Maintain and keep current data reflecting project activities in the BEESS Discretionary Projects Database. – As applicable to a project’s work scope, give priority to districts that have been targeted for improvement.

Contact Information
 Cathy Bishop, cathy.bishop@fldoe.org  Joyce Lubbers, joyce.lubbers@fldoe.org  Telephone – 850.245.0478

Budget and Grants Considerations

Budget Review
 Be sure to review and follow the instructions on page two of the DOE 101.  Budget should reflect the expenditures anticipated to support the activities/program described in the program narrative.  Salaries and benefits should be reported on different lines because they are typically recorded using different object codes.

Budget Review
 Column 3 should include:  Account title of the object code and
– A narrative description identifying the specific item; and – How it will benefit the program described in the program narrative.

Budget Review
 Column 4 must be used to list the FTE for:
– Every salaried position – Every Other Personal Service (OPS)

The instructions for the DOE 101 include how to calculate the FTE.

Budget Review
 Column 5 is used to record the amount anticipated for each budgeted line item.  If the narrative description includes amounts, their total should equal the amount reflected in this column.

INDIRECT COST
 Districts = Negotiated Rate with FDOE  Non public agencies, not for profits, ID cost is not allowable
– Exception

INDIRECT COST
 Public Universities, Colleges & Community Colleges up to 10%
– Includes rent, utilities, support staff, staff not directly attributed to service delivery, costs that are not easily metered for cost sharing.

Negotiation of the ID rate is in progress & not likely to exceed 10%

Technical Review
 All applications should be sent directly to the Office of Grants Management (OGM).  Reviewer checks for TAPS Number, appropriate signature on the DOE 100A or DOE 100B, items specified in the “Conditions for Acceptance” Section of the RFA/RFP.

Technical Review
 The TAPS Number identifies:
– Year of the application – Unit in GMS that manages that program – Specific program for which the application has been submitted

Technical Review
 Failure to include the TAPS Number or using the incorrect TAPS Number could result in a delay in processing the application, or in the application being misdirected.

Technical Review
 The appropriate person must sign the DOE 100 (A or B).  For school districts, this is the superintendent.
If a designee signs, please be sure to include a letter from the superintendent authorizing the person to sign.

Technical Review
 To help identify the original application, it is suggested that the signature be made using blue ink instead of black ink.

Access to Grants Management Tracking System
      Public access to GMS is password free. Go To URL http://gms.fldoe.org. Select Application Status. Select your agency from drop down menu. Select year. Click on Search or use Enter Key.

Home Page

Application Status

Application Status

Contact Information
Sue Wilkinson, sue.wilkinson@fldoe.org Office of Grants Management

It’s time for……

Pls. turn to Page 16 in Your PPT

Welcome Back! It’s time for our BEESS’ Project Tracking System Update with Lezlie & Karen!

One more thing from Lezlie…. Regional PD Alliances and PDP Projects

Comments from your FDLRS Lead Team re: PTS Entries…
 Noted several activities with no data entered.  Be sure to update activities – even if it’s just a “not-initiated at this time” comment.  Significant difference between entries – new grouping of PTS entries should help.  Some entries have too much detail, while others have too little – summary statements are fine – aggregate your data/offerings/numbers.  Fold follow-up activities in under initial activity/offering.  Activity Descriptions of activities are helpful and vital.  Consider assessing amount of deliverables included.  Don’t include “technical comments” in updates – send them to MA.

Do you have any brain cells left to ask questions?

Have a good evening…we’ll see you at 8:30AM!

Good Morning and Welcome Back FDLRS Managers!

 FDLRS Managers’ Meeting 
April 28 ~ 29, 2009 Orlando, FL

We might have piled it on you yesterday……
But we knew you’d find a way to step up and over those mounds of information and come back for more….and we’re sure glad you did!
So accept your FDLRS’ Smilin’ Donkey Award with Pride!!!

Please read the story first!!!

Today it’s time for the… Project Priorities RFA COP and Shop Talk
But first let’s get started with our super fantastic, able to leap tall priorities with a single bound, go-get-’em FDLRS Regional Contacts!!!

2009-2010 Project Priorities

Child Find
FDLRS Child Find provides assistance in the location, identification, evaluation, and initiation of appropriate education or other needed services to all children and youth, birth through 21 years of age, who have or are atrisk of developing special or unique needs related to a disability. This includes children with disabilities who are homeless, are wards of the state, and children with disabilities attending private schools. The target population is children birth to five years of age and children and youth through age 21 who are not enrolled in a public school. The 2009-2010 Child Find Priority Areas are:
 CF-1Provide developmental screenings to identify children birth to five years of age who are at-risk or may qualify for services related to exceptional student education. SPP Indicator 12

 CF-2Use of the Children’s Registry and Information System (CHRIS) to document screenings, referrals for evaluations, evaluation outcomes, placement decisions, and transition from the Early Steps program to prekindergarten programs for children with disabilities at age three. SPP Indicator 12

Child Find Continued
 CF-3Support awareness of materials and provide/facilitate training opportunities related to child development and developmentally appropriate practices. SPP Indicator 12

 CF-4Locate nonpublic and private school children needing exceptional student education. SPP Indicator 12  CF-5Support transition at age three and implementation of the statewide system to measure child outcomes through facilitating collaboration among school districts, the Early Steps program, the Technical Assistance and Training System (TATS) for Programs serving Pre-kindergarten Children with Disabilities, and other early education and care programs in the community. SPP Indicators 7, 12

Parent Services
FDLRS assists districts and families who have children who are exceptional or have special or unique needs to develop effective partnerships that will allow for shared responsibility to improve education of all children and youth. The 2009-2010 Parent Services Priority Areas are:
 P-1 Support, coordinate, or provide information and technical assistance to schools and/or districts on best practices and strategies which assist schools in developing and implementing strategies to reach out to families and facilitate effective parent involvement in their child’s education. Examples of topics for consideration include, but are not limited to:
– – – – – Annual ESE Parent Survey, Effective Parent-Teacher Conferences Quality IEP Meetings and Progress Reporting to Parents Building Two-Way Meaningful Communication with Parents Creating Family Friendly Schools, Opening Doors Building Cultural Bridges, Outreach Strategies for Hard-to-Reach Parents, School-Wide Action Planning to Increase Parent Involvement, Active Parenting SPP Indicator 8

 P-2 Support, coordinate or provide information and technical assistance to parents on best practices and strategies which assist families to be effectively involved in their child’s education. SPP Indicator 8

HRD
FDLRS plans collaboratively with exceptional student education departments/directors, staff development offices, curriculum departments, schoolbased administrators, and other professional development entities to provide information, professional development, technical assistance, consultation, and resources on research-based effective instructional practices/programs and models for the education of children and youth who are exceptional or have unique needs. HRD priorities are based on BEESS initiatives that are in alignment with the State Performance Plan (SPP), support the Florida Department of Education statewide activities including Just Read, Florida! efforts, and the Department’s Strategic Imperatives. Professional development activities are conducted in accordance with Florida’s Professional Development System Evaluation Protocol, BEESS priority areas, and locally assessed needs. The 2009-2010 HRD Priority Areas are:
 H-1 Utilize collaborative, data-based, needs assessment process to identify and align professional development activities in support of the State Performance Plan, Areas of Focus, Evaluation Protocol, K-12 Reform Efforts, Highly Qualified, Just Read, Florida! and statewide efforts in support of math/science initiatives, including but not limited to the following: – Collaborative planning meetings with Coordinating Councils, ESE Directors, Curriculum and Staff Development Offices, School Improvement Teams, Advisory Committees – Online needs assessment surveys – Planning with HRD Workgroups – Analysis of district data and impact of efforts on student achievement – Development of long range plan for planning, delivery, follow up and evaluation SPP
Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

HRD Continued
 H-2 Coordinate and provide multi-level, research-based professional development activities that are aligned with BEESS’ SPP indicators. Examples include, but not limited to the following:
– Least Restrictive Environments/FAPE, Quality IEPs, Matrix, IDEA Implementation, ESE Policies and Procedures, Dropout Prevention, Disability Awareness, TBI, and other BEESS Initiatives – Areas of Emphasis, Just Read, Florida! Initiatives, Math and Science Content, Aspects of the Differentiated Accountability Model – Research-based instructional practices such as: SIM (Strategic Instruction Model), Instructional Strategies, Differentiated Instruction, Accommodations/ Modifications, Learning Styles, Algebraic Thinking, etc. – Assessment, Alternate Assessment, Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and Access Points – Classroom/Behavior Management, Social Skills – Transition (middle/secondary level) – Collaborative Teaching Model, Peer Coaching and Classroom Observation Strategies, Action Research, Professional Study Groups – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

HRD Continued
 H-3 Provide relevant information, materials and other resources related to professional development, exemplary practices and FDLRS services that support the attainment of state/district goals related to ESE programs and services. Including, but not limited to the following: – Dissemination of ESE disability awareness information – Utilization of web-based communication tools to distribute follow up information to targeted professional development – Electronic newsletters, websites, chat rooms – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 H-4 Support development and implementation of statewide effective distance learning professional development activities including Professional Development Alternatives for Exceptional Student Educators (PDA-ESE), Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Elementary K-6 Online Content Review Modules, and delivery of local professional development using virtual technologies, including but not limited to the following: – Developing an annual calendar of PDA-ESE Offerings – Coordinating regional PDA-ESE offerings to ensure equitable access to modules across service region – Distributing awareness information on IC and K6 Programs – Developing local and regional professional development offerings utilizing virtual technologies – SPP Indicators: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14



Technology
FDLRS plans and works collaboratively with school districts, schools, and families to ensure that the technology related services provided to students with disabilities are effective and of high quality. Activities may include technical assistance, professional development, consultations, resources and deliverables, and collaboration/networking. The FDLRS Technology function includes coordination at the state, regional, and local level, as well as with other BEESS Technology projects, to achieve a seamless service delivery system.

Technology Continued
FDLRS Regional Technology Specialists (RTS) FDLRS Regional Technology responsibilities focus on providing regional leadership to the FDLRS Centers’ technology function in order to assist in developing/maintaining highly qualified educators, technology specialists, local assistive technology specialists, regional assistive technology specialists, and other district/school personnel as they address the requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with regard to the provision of assistive technology devices and services for students with disabilities, technology that supports learning (instructional technology & virtual technology), Universal Design for Learning, and accessible instructional materials. Coordination of services includes:
– Working with the FDLRS Statewide Technology Coordinator to achieve a seamless service delivery system of statewide FDLRS Network activities and BEESS initiatives
– Working with FDLRS Center Managers and Technology Specialists to achieve a seamless service delivery system of regional FDLRS Network activities and BEESS initiatives

Regional Tech Priorities
  RT-1 Maintain/update the Assistive Technology Competencies website. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5 RT-2 Maintain/update local Satellite Labs. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

 

RT-3 Coordinate NIMAS & AIM implementation/support. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5 RT-4 Coordinate content development for:
    FDLRS Technology web portal FDLRS Network technology competencies & presentation materials 2009/2010 technology booklet and Statewide online courses/trainings on technology for students with disabilities. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5

Regional Tech Priorities
 RT-5 Follow-up activities for the 2008 FDLRS Institute and planning/participation for the 2009 Institute. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5 RT-6 Support and participate in hands-on technology labs and exhibits; including (if scheduled) FLCEC, FETC, ATIA, and Just Read! Florida. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5 RT-7 Attend required Network meetings: two Statewide Tech Team meetings (1 face to face, 1 virtual), Network conference calls, statewide FDLRS Institute (face to face), statewide technology function meeting (fact to face), two regional meetings (face to face), and two regional meetings (virtual). SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5





FDLRS Associate Center Technology FDLRS Center Technology responsibilities focus on developing/maintaining highly qualified educators, technology specialists, local assistive technology specialists, regional assistive technology specialists, and other district/school personnel as they address the requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with regard to the provision of assistive technology devices and services for students with disabilities, technology that supports learning (instructional technology & virtual technology), Universal Design for Learning, and accessible instructional materials.
Coordination of services includes:
– Working with the FDLRS Statewide Technology Coordinator and Regional Technology Specialists to achieve a seamless service delivery system of FDLRS Network activities and BEESS initiatives

– Working with the FDLRS Center Manager and other FDLRS Center staff to achieve a seamless service delivery system of local activities

FAC Tech Priorities
 T-1 Provide professional development & support in the areas of assistive technology, instructional/virtual technology, UDL, NIMAS and AIM, including follow-up activities for the 2008 FDLRS Institute. SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5 T-2 Collaborate in content development for:
    FDLRS Technology web portal FDLRS Network technology competencies & presentation materials 2009/2010 technology booklet Statewide online course on technology for students with disabilities SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5





T-3 As available, support and participate in hands-on technology labs and exhibits; including (if scheduled) FLCEC, FETC, ATIA, and Just Read, Florida! SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5
T-4 Attend required Network meetings: statewide FDLRS Institute (face to face), statewide technology function meeting (fact to face), two regional meetings (face to face), and two regional meetings (virtual). SPP Indicators 1,2,3,4,5



FDLRS 2009-2010 RFA

Budget Considerations
 IDEA remaining the same.  GR dollars are reflected at current amount – anticipate further reduction.  FDLRS Administration - providing additional resources for development of PDA-ESE Science and Math and extend offering of PDA-ESE language/communication module for SLPs.  Make sure superintendent signs cover sheet (including double sheets if additional TAPS numbers)

RFA – General Requirements
 Grants Management Contact – Margaret White.  Added more explicit language on indirect for both colleges and school districts.  School district language straight from Green Book.  Final disbursement reports:
– Original to Comptroller – Copy to Josh Rew

RFA General Requirements
 Out-of-State Travel – non-project staff
– Projects may not support out-of-state travel for school district staff. – Exceptions – presenting with project staff at conference or on behalf of project or when approved by project liaison.

RFA Requirements
 Out-of-State Travel – Project staff:
– Must be described in budget narrative. – Restricted to maintaining up-to-date knowledge connected to the professional development provided by project. – or – – Related to participation in a national meeting sponsored or co-sponsored by OSEP or its affiliated TA networks.

RFA – Narrative Expectations
 Project Abstract – brief and to the point.  Baseline data:
– Quantitative – SPP indicator data, LEA profiles, targeted districts, student performance data, graduation rates, survey results, etc. – Quantitative – based on prior project activities – Qualitative – informal needs assessments, focus groups, etc.

RFA Narrative Expectations
 Established need – based on what you see in the data, identify needs  Scope of work – embedded in the Project Performance Accountability (PPA) forms  Description of alternate methods for training/meetings – describe alternate methods used to reduce travel; estimate the number of events using such alternate methods; estimate number of events requiring out-of-district travel

RFA Narrative Expectations
 State Performance Plan – how will project activities address SPP indicators  Evaluation Plan  Areas of Focus – reflects link to Next Generation Strategic Plan  Describe support for Just Read and Math/Science initiative  Dissemination/Marketing

RFA Narrative Expectations
 Status updates upon discretion of project contact.  Project Reporting – must use PTS; may enter data on activities anytime; must enter data at least quarterly; failure to enter data may jeopardize future funding.  GEPA

RFA - Submission
 Send in ONE original to Grants Management.  Send electronically to Josh and Cathy.  Font size smaller than 12 may be used for charts/tables.

Assurances
 General Assurances
– Project will give priority to districts that are targeted on indicator(s) or in “needs assistance” upon the request of district. – For projects with Web sites:
 Project must maintain current and updated information on the site.  When referencing products developed by other projects, link to that project rather than excerpt or summarize.

Assurances – Select Projects
 Applicable to FDLRS.  Will participate with Regional Personnel Development Alliance during the project year.  Also applies to CARD, SEDNET, ProblemSolving/RtI, FIN, PDP, Project 10, TATS, RtI-TLC, ISRD, Accommodations and Modifications.

Assurances - FDLRS
 Cleaned up some of the language around preschool – was a bit contradictory.  Updated link to 6A-1.099, Cooperative Projects and Activities.  Deleted separate assurances related to Regional Technology – was redundant.  Added reference in travel section to Regional Technology Specialists – must be able to travel within region and to statewide meetings and activities (now reads, all project staff, to include RTS will be allowed ….).

And now for the draft template which will make your lives a little easier .
Well, maybe not this easy …who are they kidding?

Let’s take a look at our 2009-2010

Center Operating Procedures

FDLRS Updated Center Operating Procedures
 Updated Background Information  CC Meetings from 6 to 4 with only two having to utilize a face-to-face format. Virtual methods OK for other 2 meetings.  Updated Project Priorities  Tweaked Funding Section  Tweaked Reporting Section  Tweaked Assurances  Other Changes…..

Targeted Topics

Ask for Corey Beerman

Don’t forget to capitalize on the various strengths of our fellow FDLRS’ gardeners!!!

Successful Gardening Tips from FDLRS’ with Green Thumbs 

As you go forth….filled with the knowledge needed to cultivate your local FDLRS’ Gardens for 2009-2010…let us keep in mind a few helpful tips…

Selecting the Seeds
•What type of ―seeds‖ will do well in this climate? •Which ―seeds‖ compliment the other flowers ―growing in our garden‖? •Will there be sufficient ―gardeners‖ to tend to the ―seeds‖ as they grow? •Will the effort that goes into ―sowing the seeds‖ be worth the outcome?

Planting in Fertile Soil
•Is the environment ―rich enough‖ to sustain the growth of the ―seed‖?

•Will there be sufficient ―motivation‖ for the seeds to want to grow? •Will there be ―sunlight‖ from above to foster the growth of the seeds?

Nurturing the Roots/Seedlings
•What support system will be established to ―tend to the seedlings‖ as they grow?
•Who will be on the ―gardening team‖?

•Will there be appropriate ―tools‖ to support the seedlings as they grow?

Harvesting the Rewards!
•What will be the plan for ―gathering the harvest‖? •Where will the flowers of data be shared?
•How will we spread the word about our successful ―growing techniques‖?

•What will we need to do to ensure a successful ―season‖ again next year?

What’s the secret to the success of your FDLRS’ garden?

For additional “gardening” tips ….. don’t forget to contact your FDLRS Lead Team
Cathy Bishop ~ cathy.bishop@fldoe.org Marilyn Hibbard ~ marilyn.hibbard@fldoe.org Kathy Burton ~ kathy.burton@fldoe.org David Davis ~ davisd@paec.org Mary Ann Ahearn ~ ahearnm@nefec.org

Thanks for coming and for all you do for our FDLRS Network and the districts of Florida! May 2009-2010 find you planting the seeds of excellence, leadership and commitment to ensuring student success throughout your service region. May your gardens be plentiful and your weeds few…and may every ―mound‖ that comes your way be easily stepped over with a smile!

You’re the Best!!!


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:86
posted:12/16/2009
language:English
pages:155