1 / 15

Minnesota FAED Project Survey

Minnesota FAED Project Survey. Deaf Education Summit April 22, 2010. Survey Background. New Minnesota legislation requires reporting of performance data for D/HH students Teachers were surveyed to identify a common accountability database regarding student performance. Survey Objectives.

huslu
Download Presentation

Minnesota FAED Project Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MinnesotaFAED Project Survey Deaf Education Summit April 22, 2010

  2. Survey Background • New Minnesota legislation requires reporting of performance data for D/HH students • Teachers were surveyed to identify a common accountability database regarding student performance.

  3. Survey Objectives • To identify performance data currently collected on D/HH students • To identify how data collected is used • To identify professional development priorities

  4. Participants • 74 responses • 93% D/HH teachers • 54% itinerant teachers • 50% >15 years experience

  5. Students Served by Respondents • Direct service: 810 students • Indirect service: 277 students • Compensatory/self-advocacy instruction only: 158 students • 504 only: 86 students • 18% of school districts had a policy regarding direct vs. indirect services

  6. Student Performance Indicators • Below grade level in reading: 61% • At grade level in reading: 28% • Above grade level in reading:13% • Please note that averages do not add to exactly 100% because data entered by participants did not always equal 100%.

  7. Student Performance Indicators • Below grade level in content areas (e.g., math, science): 137% • (data possibly entered incorrectly) • At grade level in content areas: 35% • Above grade level in content areas: 11%

  8. Data Used to Determine Performance • Achievement test data (N = 56) • Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) (N = 52) • General education teacher reports (N = 49) • Northwest Evaluation Association: Monitoring Academic Progress (NWEA: MAP) (N = 41) • Report cards (N = 38) • Diagnostic test data (N = 35) • Psychology reports (N = 15)

  9. How Data is Utilized • NWEA data • Develop IEP goals and objectives: (N = 32) • Establish benchmarks: (N = 27) • Set instructional goals: (N = 26) • Develop instructional strategies: (N = 25) • Determine instructional effectiveness: (N = 24) • Determine service delivery time: (N = 15) • Create lesson plans: (N = 13) • MCA data • Develop IEP goals and objectives: (N = 27) • Establish benchmarks: (N = 26) • Determine instructional effectiveness: (N = 25) • Set instructional goals: (N = 22) • Develop instructional strategies: (N = 21) • Determine service delivery time: (N = 13) • Create lesson plans: (N = 8)

  10. Student Progress Monitoring • Classroom-based assessments: (N = 60) • Running records: (N = 52) • District-wide measures: (N = 52) • Compensatory Skills Checklist: (N = 52) • Cumulative records: (N = 48) • Portfolio: (N = 24)

  11. Professional Development Needs • Top Three Rated as “Most Important:” • Use of data to determine service delivery models • Progress monitoring practices • Collaboration practices with general education and special education teachers

  12. Professional Development Needs • Top Three Rated as “Most Challenging:” • Due Process • Identify the role of the D/HH teacher as different from the SLP, LD or general special education teacher • Resources and instructional materials

  13. Recommendations to Improve Services for D/HH Students • Comprehensive curriculum with teacher supports; best practices resources (7) • Increased collaboration between professionals (4) • Networking opportunities for teachers of deaf and hard of hearing (4) • Built in time for due process paperwork; simplified paperwork (3) • Computers and other technology such as videophones available in the classroom (3) • Administrative supports (2) • Manageable caseloads (2) • Compensatory skills curriculum/resources available (1) • Classroom data from regular education teachers (1) • D/HH teacher advocacy training (1) • Communication methods trainings (1) • Consistency of information (1) • Visual phonics information (1) • Greater recognition of ASL as a true language (1) • Districts collaborating together (1) • Support or recognition from MDE of unique needs of DHH students (1) • Additional prep time (1) • High interest, low reading level materials in all subject areas (1) • Role of interpreter training to other professionals (1)

  14. Additional Challenges • Need additional staff trained in ASL or sign language • HS transition courses round table needed • Monetary resources lacking • Working with DHH students whose home language is not English • Challenging trying to obtain appropriate CEUs (esp. 60 hours of ASL for itinerant teachers) • Why do students whose primary language is spoken English not qualify for an interpreter? • Would like additional information about visual materials • Administrative supports needed • Providing mental health services to students • Ordering appropriate textbooks and workbooks for each content area and grade level • Additional preparation needed when working with students that have a difficult time communicating with their family • Lack of parental involvement • Spread thin • Incessant paperwork • Service delivery concerns – issues with cross-categorical teaching model • Becoming more difficult for students with hearing loss to make social connections with general education peers • Difficult finding licensed DHH teachers

  15. Next Steps? • Identify a process of collecting common accountability data • Provide instructional support to teachers regarding how to use the data to inform teaching

More Related