Technical Assistance with NCDB

1. Technical Assistancewith NCDB Sam Morgan Julie Durando NCDB Co-Director NCDB Evaluation Coordinator The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H326T180026. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Susan Weigert.

2. NCDB Revamped TA? • Similar to TA in the past but more structured • Increased focus on systems • More consistent between initiatives • Supporting collaboration and reducing duplication (as always) • Supporting and engaging states in systems change work

3. RFA Outcomes for NCDB • Increase ability of SDBPs to assist personnel in SEAs, LEAs, LAs, and EIS to use high-quality practices • Increase assistance to SDBPs in supporting families • Increase ability of school-based personnel to meet state-identified competencies • TA based on the current research in: • effectiveness of systems change efforts, capacity building, and inclusive practices • adult learning principles and implementation science • TA levels and dDelivery

4. Tiered TA

5. Universal • Overlap with information services -   • High-quality practices • Implementation examples • Independent use of products and information • One time consultation on a topic or issue

6. Targeted • Acknowledgement and readiness • Consultation • Peer Learning Communities (PLCs) driven by the needs of the group • A range of activities (group problem solving, case studies, study groups, professional development opportunities, resource sharing, work groups)

7. Intensive • Formal TA agreement w/readiness factors • State TA Plans, initiative specific - accompanying the systems guide • Consultation - Support plan development, state partnerships • Facilitation support in states • Low-incidence infrastructure development

8. Timing and Process • On the website - should be easy! • Targeted TA documents - end of April • Intensive TA Documents - end of June • Targeted TA ongoing - use of documents will start May • Intensive TA starts year 2 • some exceptions

9. Common Project Measures Julie Durando, NCDB Evaluation Coordinator and Sam Morgan, NCDB Co-Director The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H326T180026. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Susan Weigert.

10. What are Common Project Measures? • Project performance measures that will be consistently reported by all deaf-blind projects on the APR

11. Before throwing anything... Know the common project measures should: • Reduce time and effort in documenting and reporting • Help us as a network report consistently so data can be aggregated • Be focused on the RFA outcomes general enough to apply to all projects • Help us tell the story of our work beyond satisfaction and GPRA

12. History and Background Many projects have worked towards developing common project measures in the past. More recently: • 1999 - Lori Goetz at San Francisco State University - GPRA Indicators for Students who are Deaf-Blind • 2006 & 2008 - NTAC staff and many state projects collaboratively developed The NTAC Outcome and Performance Indicators

13. Challenges: Resources • Complex and unique project activities to meet the needs of our respective states and territories • Limited resources available for evaluation • Targeted outcomes difficult to measure within reporting cycles

14. Development Timeline October 2018 - Discussions with CIPP & OSEP January & February 2019 - Input from states, CIPP, & OSEP Summit today at 4:30 - Opportunity for more input February 28, 2019 – Deadline for input from SDBP Early March 2019 - Submit measures to OSEP May 2019 - Include common project measures in APR as proposed project measures (these may replace other project measures)

15. Data Usage and Support • Reported in addition to or can replace project measures • Data used to show performance including effort • Data to capture our long-term progress as a network • Support for implementation • Methodology • Benchmarking/milestones • Wording for explanation of progress • Support from CIPP to NCDB • Staggered reporting

16. Draft Measures (Slide 1 of 3) • Ratio of children newly identified to the total number on child count. • Ratio of intensive TA plans which include access to the general education curriculum to the total number of intensive TA plans. • Ratio of teams who have implemented an appropriate communication system and intervention to the total number of teams receiving intensive TA during.

17. Draft Measures (Slide 2 of 3) • Number of students whose teams received intensive TA who are involved in employment experiences • Number of interveners progressing towards or achieving certificate/credential. • Number of service providers completing training with increasing training quality (Measured to include worksheet/rubric)

18. Draft Measures (Slide 3 of 3) • Number of system change activities reflecting progress. (Measure to include worksheet/rubric)

19. Communication Progress Pilot • Exploring measurement of communication growth using the Communication Matrix • States may opt to participate • Information on participation this summer

20. Let’s talk more...today! We will be meeting in La Frontera Ballroom 1 during Discussion Session 1 at 4:30 – 5:30 • learn more about the crosswalk between RFA expected outcomes and these common project measures help us identify challenges that will impact you • share ideas for solutions to challenges • help us develop strong measures due to OSEP in March to be included in this APR