A Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

A Study of State and Local Implementation and ImpactA Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact

The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs,

U.S. Department of Education

Conducted by Abt Associates Inc.and its subcontractors, Westat and SRI


School Resources for Improving Teachers’ Instructional Capacity: Findings from SLIIDEA

(2002-2003 School Year)

Fran O’Reilly, Tammy Ouellette, Ellen SchillerAbt Associates Inc.

Presented at the AEFA Annual Conference

Louisville, KYMarch 2005


Study Overview

The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA

4

Congressionally-Mandated Questions

How well are states, districts and schools making progress toward: • Establishing accountability systems (participation and performance)• Participating in general education curriculum• Making effective early childhood and secondary transitions • Placement in the LRE• Reducing drop-outs• Using positive strategies for behavioral issues• Coordinating services• Increasing parent participation• Using alternatives to dispute resolution


5

Study Design

• Six year multi-method longitudinal study of states, districts and schools

• Four surveys of states

• Three surveys of nationally representative sample of districts (n=959) and schools (n=4,448)

• Case studies of selected districts nested in five states, on specific topics


6

Year 2 Survey

• Data Collection: School Year 2002-2003

– State (100% response rate)

– District (86% response rate)

– School (74% response rate)


7

Study Questions

• What types of resources are available at the school level to help improve teachers’ instructional capacity?

• Do these district and school resources matter?

• Which schools have the resources that matter?


8

Methods

• Descriptive statistics (both univariate and bivariate)

• Weighted logistic regression to examine relationships between resources and outcomes (i.e., instructional capacity)


9

Methods

Outcomes• Instructional capacity as measured by principal

reports of general and special education teacher preparedness to:– Improve the participation and performance of

students with IEPs in state and district-wide assessments;

– Implement strategies focused on the dropout prevention and recovery for students with IEPs; and

– Increase the access of students with IEPs to the general education curriculum through the use of accommodations in instruction and assessments


10

Methods

State Predictors• State Policy

– Written guidelines– Rewards/Sanctions– Public Reporting

• State Resources– Allocation of state staff– Provision of resources to districts and

schools (technical assistance, financial assistance, professional development)


11

Methods

District Predictors• District Policy

– Written guidelines– Rewards/Sanctions– Public Reporting

• District Resources– Received resources from state– Provision of resources to schools (technical

assistance, financial assistance, additional personnel, professional development)


12

Methods

School Predictors

• School Resources – Received and used funds (from district or

state)– Received resources (technical assistance,

financial assistance, additional personnel, professional development)

– Assigned staff with specific responsibility– Staff participated in professional

development


13

Types of Resources

• Financial Assistance (e.g., competitive grants)

• Technical Assistance

• Additional Personnel

• Professional Development (district and school)

• School staff with specific responsibilities


14

District and School Demographics

• District and School Size

• Percent Free and Reduced Price Lunch

• Percent Minority

• Percent Students with IEPs

• Urbanicity

• School Grade Level


15

Staff Preparedness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t

General Education Teachers

Special Education Teachers

Participation Performance Dropout Prevention

Access

Across areas, special educators were reported to be better prepared than general educators. Less than half of all teachers were reported to be well

prepared in the area of dropout prevention/recovery.


16

Staff Preparedness

• Across areas, small schools were more likely than larger schools to report having well prepared general education teachers.

• There were no patterns in the characteristics of schools that reported having well prepared special education staff.


17

School Resources

Across areas, professional development was the most common type of resource available at the school level. Schools have the fewest resources

for dropout recovery/prevention for students with IEPs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

Participation Performance Dropout Prevention

Access

Financial assistance

Technical assistance

Professional development

Designated staff


18

Do these Resources Matter?

• State policy tools and resources have virtually no effect on teacher preparedness.

• District policy tools and resources have very limited impact on teacher preparedness.

• School resources mattered, but the impact differed somewhat for special and general education teacher preparedness.


19

General Educators

Across areas, staff participation in targeted professional development provided at the school level was associated with general education

teacher preparedness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t

Participated in PD

Did not participate in PD

Participation** Performance** Dropout Prevention*

Access**


20

Special Educators

Across areas, staff participation in targeted professional development provided at the school level also was associated with special education

teacher preparedness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

Participated in PD

Did not participate in PD

Participation* Performance* Dropout Prevention**

Access*


21

Special Educators

In the area of dropouts, district provided professional development and targeted technical assistance also mattered for special education

teacher preparedness.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100P

erce

nt

Received resource

Did not receive resource

District Professional Development**

Technical Assistance**


22

Special Educators

In the area of access, financial assistance and designated staff also mattered for special education teacher preparedness; financial

assistance also influenced preparedness of special educators in the area of performance.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t

Had resource

Did not have resource

Financial Assistance*

Designated staff*


23

Which Schools Have These Resources?

• Schools with moderate levels of poverty are most likely to receive district professional development on dropout prevention and recovery.

• Larger schools are more likely than smaller schools to have the resources that matter.


24

Larger schools are somewhat more likely than smaller schools to have the resources that matter.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100P

erce

nt

Which Schools Have These Resources?

< 250 students

250-750 students

> 750 students

Professional Development on

Accommodations

Financial Assistance to Improve

Performance

Receive Funds for Access


25

Summary and Conclusions

• Across the board, special education teachers were reported to be better prepared than general education teachers.

• Professional development was the most common type of resource available to school staff.

• Only about half the schools reported having other types of resources targeted to the four issues we examined.

• The area of dropouts received the fewest school resources.


26

Summary and Conclusions

• Professional development provided by schools was a critical factor in improving instructional capacity.

• Larger schools were more likely than smaller schools to have the resources that mattered.

• District provided resources mattered for teacher preparedness only in the area of dropouts, but few resources are being targeted in this area.


27

More SLIIDEA Findings

www.abt.sliidea.orgFor more information contact:

Ellen Schiller

Project Director

Abt Associates Inc.

(301) 634-1822

Documents

A Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education