Presented by: Rona Pogrund, Ph.D. Lauren Newton, Ph.D. AER International Conference, Seattle, WA

1. Presented by: Rona Pogrund, Ph.D. Lauren Newton, Ph.D. AER International Conference, Seattle, WA July, 20 2012 Effectiveness of The Short-Term Program MODEL at A RESIDENTIAL School FOR STUDENTS WITHVisual Impairments

2. Outline of Presentation • Overview of Short Term Programs (STP) Model • Description of TTU Evaluation Study (2009-10) • Presentation of results of the study • Recommendations of study team • STP Strengths and Challenges • Questions and Answers

3. Short-Term Programs • At a Special School • In a Public School

4. TSBVI Short-Term Programs serve school-age children functioning at or close to grade level

5. TSBVI Instructional Services

6. What Short-Term Programs can offer • Focus on ECC skills that may be difficult to provide during the regular academic school day • Extended time to interact with peers with visual impairments

7. Full integrated day • School day instruction • Residential instruction Special considerations • Transportation at no cost • Students not counted absent from local school • Final reports • Homework

8. Referral & Acceptance Process Student’s TVI makes online referral STP staff selects students for class (two months before class) STP talks to TVI to discuss student goals and present level of performance (a month before student arrives)

9. Types of Classes • Weeklong Access to Academic Classes • Technology concepts, tools & skills • Math concepts, tools & skills • Extended Independence Weekend Classes • Elementary through secondary • Theme centered, skill based • Classes for Students with Low Vision

10. 2011 Fall Semester Classes •   Austin City Limits: Music & Songwriting (grades 8-12) • Elementary Access to Academic Skills (grades 3-5) • Elementary Tech/Math Series (Part 1 of 3): • “Tech for Tykes” or “Math for Munchkins” (grades 2-3) • Junior Access to Academic Skills (grades 6-8) • Low Vision Tools & Strategies: Elementary • College Prep (grades 9-12) • Accessible Math Tools Algebra, Geometry, and Beyond • Low Vision Tools & Strategies: Secondary • Junior Independence Weekend: Iron Chef (grades 6-8) • Elementary Independence Weekend (ages 6-8)

11. 2012 Spring Semester Classes •   Low Vision on the Road (secondary) • High School Access to Academic Skills (grades 9-12) • Elementary Access to Academic Skills (grades 3-5) • Junior Access to Academic Skills (grades 6-8) • Camping & Geocaching Weekend (grades 9-12) • Looking Good -self care, indep, sexuality, social (grds.7-12) • Astronomy (secondary) • Elementary Independence Weekend (ages 9-11) • In the Driver’s Seat: Intro to Safe Driving with Low Vision • High School Independence Weekend: Prom (grds. 10-12) • City Travel for COMS and Their Students (secondary)

12. Building tactile graphs with the APH graph board

13. Exploring platonic solid shapes using GeoMetros from APH

14. Practicing JAWS keyboard commands

15. Visiting with legislative aide at the Capitol - Capitol Experience Weekend

16. Working with adapted lab equipment during Chemistry Tools & Concepts Weekend

17. Student trying the bass guitar during ACL weekend

18. After School Instruction (ECC focus) Domestic Living • Food management • Housekeeping • Personal care • Money management Social Skills & Self-Determination • Appropriate interactions with others • Self-esteem & dealing with emotions • Problem solving - decision making Recreation and Leisure • Group and individual • Indoor and outdoor • Home and community (shop, travel, access information)

19. Students grilling out at the dorm

20. Cooking up a storm at the dorm

21. Everyone pitches in with housework

22. Making friends at the dorm

23. Student Attendance in STPs Students from 15 of the 20 Texas Educational Service Centers typically attend in a given year

24. Conducted by Rona Pogrund, Ph.D.Texas Tech UniversityAssisted by Graduate Assistants: Teryl Boland and Shannon DarstDate of Presentation: July 20, 2012 Evaluation Study of Short-Term Programs at Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired2009-2010 School Year

25. Purpose of the Study To determine parent, teacher, administrator, and student perspectives on the effectiveness of the short-term program model in meeting the educational needs of children with visual impairments.

26. Methodology • Used both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods • Quantitative: Descriptive surveys with Likert scales and checklists • Qualitative: Open-ended questions and comments on the surveys; open-ended questions from face-to-face and telephone interviews; field notes from on-site observations

27. Methodology • Subjects: • Surveys: Parents, teachers, and administrators of students with visual impairments who attended at least one short-term program in the 2009-2010 school year • Interviews: students who attended at least one short-term program; TVIs; administrators

28. Methodology • Procedure • Surveys sent to all parents, TVIs and administrators of 2009-2010 STP students • 107 parents • 87 TVIs • 26 administrators • Five parents, five TVIs, and three administrators participated in telephone interviews • Six students participated in the on-site observations

29. ResultsQuestion: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your child’s/student’s experiences in the TSBVI short-term class he/she attended? (n=126)

30. Results Question: Is your child/student continuing to use the new skills learnedduring the short-term program he/she attended? Please give specific examples.(n=127) • Parents n= 31 (20.4% response rate) • Parents noted the following areas most frequently as new skills learned at TSBVI short-term programs were being used by their children in their LEA: • assistive technology • independent living skills • self-determination • communication

31. Results Question: Is your child/student continuing to use the new skills learnedduring the short-term program he/she attended? Please give specific examples.(n=127) • Teachers n= 88 (57.9% response rate) • Teachers noted the following areas most frequently as new skills learned at TSBVI short-term programs that were being used by the students in their LEA: • assistive technology • self-determination • social skills • Independent living skills • math skills • O&M skills • Administrators n=8 (20.5% response rate) • Administrators commented that career education and social skills were skill areas learned by students in short-term programs that continued to be used most when back at the students’ LEA.

32. ResultsQuestion: Do you feel that short-term programs are an effective tool in meeting the specific needs of students with visual impairments? Please explain your answer. (n=83) • Parents • Fifteen (71.4%) felt that the programs were effective in meeting their child’s needs. • All parents felt the programs did meet some of their child’s needs. • Teachers • Forty-seven (82.5%) of teacher respondents felt the programs were effective in meeting student needs. • Two (3.7%) did not feel the programs met student needs effectively. • They praised TSBVI-STP TVIs for having such specialized expertise in specific need areas. • They felt that their students benefitted greatly from being around peers with visual impairments.

33. ResultsQuestion: Do you feel that short-term programs are an effective tool in meeting the specific needs of students with visual impairments? Please explain your answer. (n=83) • Administrators • All who responded felt STPs were effective in meeting their student’s needs. • One noted that independent living skills taught during STP were invaluable.

34. ResultsQuestion: Did your child’s/student’s performance and/or confidence improve in any of the following areas? What area(s) showed the most improvement?(n=127)

35. ResultsQuestion: Do the short-term programs offered by TSBVI provide the necessary follow-up to ensure that the new skills continue upon return to the home school? Why or why not? If not, what type of follow-up would be more beneficial?(n=83) • Parents: • Three indicated that TSBVI provided necessary follow-up for their students. • One parent remarked that follow-up was not provided. • Two were not sure about the follow-up. • Teachers : • Forty-five percent referred to follow-up as the post-short-term program written report. • Twenty felt that the necessary follow-up was provided, • Seventeen felt that the necessary follow-up was not provided. • Administrators • Four who responded indicated that they were unsure of the follow-up. • Two other administrators said they felt that the necessary follow-up received from TSBVI was provided. • Two others said the follow-up was not provided.

36. ResultsQuestion: Would you ever be interested in a short-term class that lasted longer than one week- i.e., anywhere from two weeks up to a one-semester class? If so, please describe.(n=83) • Parents n= 21 (19.6% response rate) • Ten (47.6%) of the parent respondents were in favor of programs lasting longer than one week. • Two (9.5%) were opposed to programs lasting longer than one week. • Teachers n= 54 (62.1% response rate) • Fifteen (27.8%) of teacher respondents were in favor of programs lasting longer than one week. • Eighteen (33.3%) were opposed to programs lasting longer than one week. • Administrators n= 8 (20.5% response rate) • One administrator was in favor of longer programs, while three others were opposed to longer programs during the school year, but suggested longer programs during the summer only.

37. Results – Student InterviewsQuestion: Do you feel the time you spent at the short-term programwas helpful to you? (n=6) • All six students agreed that short-term programs were helpful to them. • Students felt they improved in skills and used them at home the most after short-term programs in the following areas: • O&M • Recreation and leisure skills • Independent living skills • Career education

38. Results – Student InterviewsQuestion: Do you feel that the short-term programs at TSBVI are a good way to learn things you may not be learning in your regular school program? Why or why not?(n=6) • All six students stated that short-term programs are a good way to learn things that they might not learn through their regular LEA school programs. • Student quotes for this question included: • “You’re around your peers, people that you know you can be yourself around, and you can actually talk to people there, as far as people around your age, and they understand you.” • “You learn, you have time, and the people there, they help you understand what you don’t understand. In regular school, everything is so fast, that you go to your regular classes, and everything just goes so fast that it is hard for you to have access to these things, you know, to learn, because it’s just so…I don’t know…it just goes so fast.”

39. Results – Student InterviewsQuestion: Is it hard to leave your regular school classes while you go to learn things at TSBVI? If so, what makes it hard? Do you have any ideas how it might be easier to be able to attend the short-term programs?(n=6) • Five of the six students interviewed said that it was not hard to leave their regular school classes to attend short-term program. • Some students suggested that missing school in their regular school districts would be easier if they could ensure that their week’s worth of homework was prepared and brought with them to do while they were at TSBVI.

40. Results – Student Interview Quotes • One student said, “They do a very good job on how they make you participate in all the activities, how they encourage you, [how] you are treated equally as everyone else, and you feel like you’re part of a group, you are not left out, you’re part of that group, and you’re important to them…so they do a very good job of that…with involving people in activities.” • Another student said, “They’re always complimenting you, so it is always like they have something good to say about you. So it makes you feel special, like a special individual, not like you are better than others, but you are special because you are unique. You have your own special talents and skills. They make you see that in yourself!”

41. Recommendations • Eligibility criteria should be reconsidered to include students who may not be on grade level. • Longer programs for specific topics should be considered. • For skill generalization purposes, the programming model for repeating certain topics multiple times throughout the school year for the same set of students is suggested.

42. Recommendations • For future program topics, the following subjects should take top priority when planning for short-term programs, based on respondent suggestions: • math and math-related topics • science • assistive technology • social skills • independent living skills • English/language arts • music-related topics

43. Recommendations • Better communication between school day staff and dorm staff may facilitate a more cohesive program. • Follow-up beyond written report • Consistent and timely dissemination of program reports to parents and TVIs following each short-term program is recommended. • It is recommended that a connection be established between short-term programs and the LEA program prior to short-term program attendance and upon the student’s return to ensure that a sufficient amount of time and support is available to the student from the local TVI.

44. Program Strengths • Significant student benefits • Acquisition of new skills • Transformation of personal identity and attitude • Specialized instruction during residential programming • Formal instruction in ECC • Casual interactions • ECC skills infused into a wide range of topics with high student appeal

45. Laughing while waiting for the bus

46. Graphing a parabola using the audio graphing calculator and the laptop

47. Program Strengths (continued) • Wide variety of program models • Students return for 3-part class • Local TVIs & COMS participate in programs • Conference format for students and parents • Program offered at Regional Service Centers • Classes address special needs areas • High level of expertise in teaching staff • TSBVI Short-Term and Outreach staff • National experts brought to campus • Wide range of special resources available in Austin area

48. Learning to flip pancakes in the dorm

49. Exploring dinosaur bones

50. Program Strengths (continued) Responsive to requests for varied programming • Length of classes • Types of classes (new topics or models) • Transportation costs eliminated to provide equal access to all students • Additional resources for maintaining acquired skills