1 / 27

Improving Teachers' Instructional Capacity: Impact of Resources in State and Local Implementation of IDEA

This study examines the impact of resources on teachers' instructional capacity in the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It investigates the availability and effectiveness of resources at the state, district, and school levels in improving student outcomes for students with disabilities. The study findings highlight the importance of school resources, such as financial assistance, technical assistance, and professional development, in enhancing teachers' preparedness and facilitating student success.

ssthilaire
Download Presentation

Improving Teachers' Instructional Capacity: Impact of Resources in State and Local Implementation of IDEA

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. The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs,U.S. Department of EducationConducted by Abt Associates Inc.and its subcontractors, Westat and SRI

  2. 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 ConferenceLouisville, KYMarch 2005

  3. Study Overview

  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. General Education Teachers Special Education Teachers Staff Preparedness 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. Dropout Prevention Performance Participation Access

  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. Financial assistance Technical assistance Professional development Designated staff School Resources Participation Performance Dropout Prevention Access

  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. Participated in PD Did not participate in PD General Educators Participation** Performance** Dropout Prevention* Access**

  20. Participated in PD Did not participate in PD Special Educators Participation* Performance* Dropout Prevention** Access*

  21. Special Educators Received resource Did not receive resource Technical Assistance** District Professional Development**

  22. Had resource Did not have resource Special Educators Designated staff* Financial Assistance*

  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. < 250 students 250-750 students > 750 students Which Schools Have These Resources? 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.org For more information contact: Ellen Schiller Project Director Abt Associates Inc. (301) 634-1822

More Related