ERIC ED378741: State Incentive Grant District 75/Citywide Special Education Staff Development Program (SIG) 1993-94. OER Report.

43 Pages·1994·0.65 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 303 638
ED 378 741
State Incentive Grant District 75/Citywide Special
TITLE
Education Staff Development Program (SIG) 1993-94.
DER Report.
New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, NY.
INSTITUTION
Office of Educational Research.
PUB DATE
94
45p.; For the 1992-93 OREA report, see ED 369 194.
NOTE
The evaluation was conducted by the Student Progress
Evaluation Unit.
Stua..t Progress Evaluation Unit, Office of
AVAILABLE FROM
Educational Research, Board of Education of the City
of New York, 110 Livingston Street, Room 734,
Brooklyn, NY 11201.
Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
PUB TYPE Reports
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
'Advisory Committees; Conferences; *Disabilities;
DESCRIPTORS
Educational Planning; Elementary Secondary Education;
Incentives; *Inservice Teacher Education; Meetings;
Professional Development; Program Effectiveness;
Program Evaluation; *Special Education. Teachers;
*Staff Development; *State Aid; Teamwork; Training
Allowances; Workshops
*New York City Board of Education
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
This evaluation of the State Incentive Grant (SIG)
training program in 1993-94 compared five schools in the city of New
York with relatively high involvement in SIG training and good
planning with five schools reported to have low SIG involvement and
poor planning. The evaluation also included a sampling of workshops
at the District 75 annual conference and an assessment of Central
Consultation Committee (CCC) meetings. Interviews with educators
found that the highly involved schools were more aware of the role
and function of the school-based advisory committees (SBACs), their
SBACs had adopted more strategies to inform staff about SIG options,
the SBACs more actively sought input from staff regarding their
professional interests, and their administrators participated more at
SBAC meetings and encouraged SBAC initiatives. The District 75 annual
conference attracted more educators than the previous year, and most
workshops were well received by participants. The CCC appeared to be
committed to developing strategies to maximize staff participation
and improve the way staff development is delivered. Recommendations
include: increase staff participation in SIG and enhance the
effectiveness of the SBACs, capitalize on the successes of previous
annual staff conferences, improve the effectiveness of the SIG
Coordinator, and expand CCC's influence on the performance of the
SBACs. Appendices provide supporting data.
(JDD)
***********************************************************************
*
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
--.1:Cieseessansaieem
u s DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
Offrce of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
0.!s document has teen reproduced as
received from the person or organization
Originating it
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality
Points of view or opinions stated in th is docu-
mint do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy
State Incentive Grant
District 75/Citywide Special Education
Staff Development Program
(SIG)
1993-94
(c)
THIS
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE
BY
MATETL HAS BEEN GRANTED
MD
e., Iw AMU attilll ADI
cJ
I
Ni.
''FsOURC,ES
_71
1141*-
Yie
11111M3iir_
State Incentive Grant
District 75/Citywide Special Education
Staff Development Program
(SIG)
1993-94
3
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Carol A. Gresser
President
Irene H. Impel Hued
Vice President
Louis DeSario
Sandra E. Lerner
Luis 0. Reyes
Ninfa Segarra-Velez
William C. Thompson, Jr.
Members
Tiffany Raspberry
Student Advisory Member
Ramon C. Cortines
Chancellor
8.194
basis
It is the policy of the Board 01 Education ct the City School 0.slr.ct of the City of New York not to discriminate on the
or race. color creed religion national origin. age disability manfal status sexual orientation or Sex in its educational
programs actixitieS and ernPlOyInent poircies and to maintain an environment wee of sexual harassment. as required
Director (Acting)
Frederick A Nih Jr
.aw InduirieS regarding compliance win apProonate laws may be directed to
935.3320
Office of Equal Obontunity 110 LoongSton Street. Rom 60' Brooklyn New York 11201 Telephone (718)
A
4
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
The Office of Educational Research's (0ERs) evaluation of
the SIG training program in 1993-94 focused on a comparison of
five schools with relatively high involvement in SIG training and
good planning in previous years (A schools) with five schools
reported to have low SIG involvement and poor planning (B
The evaluation also included a sampling of workshops
schools).
at the District 75 annual spring conference and an assessment .of
meetings.
a few Central Consultation Committee (C.C.C.)
Interviews with chairpeople of school-based advisory
committees (SBACs), teachers, paraprofessionals, RSPs, and school
administrators, and a survey of all staff at the ten
participating schools suggest that, compared to the B schools,
the A schools as a group were more actively involved in the SIG
process, and more aware of the role and function of the SBACs.
In addition, the SBACs in the A schools had adopted a greater
variety of strategies to inform staff about SIG options, and more
actively sought input from staff regarding their professional
The findings in the B schools, however, were not
interests.
consistent, in that some B schools did as well or better than A
Another factor found more
schools on a few of the variables.
often in A schools was the influence administrators were having
Administrators in A
on their staffs' participation in SIG.
schools were more active in their participation at SBAC meetings
Finally, the
and in their encouragement of SBAC initiatives.
survey data in,licates that A school respondents benefited to a
greater extent from SIG training in 1992-93 than their B school
counterparts.
The District annual conference in spring 1994 attracted a
total of 1,972 special educators and 271 non-district staff, an
Of the 11
increase of eleven percent over the previous year.
workshops evaluated by OER three received outstanding ratings
from the participants: "How to Deal With Verbal Abuse",
Most of
"Attention Deficit Disorders" and "Conflict Resolution".
the other workshops were also well received by the participants.
The SIG C.C.C. appeared to be committed to the task of
developing strategies to maximize staff participation and improve
However,
the way staff development is delivered in District 75.
the decision-making roles of the committee and the SIG
Coordinator appear to overlap at times, thus raising the question
Some clarification about
about the primary role of the C.C.C.
their respective roles is needed in order for the C.C.C. and the
SIG Coordinator to achieve the collaboration noted in the
District 75 SIG Implementation Plan Highlights.
r-
These findings indicate that SIG staff development should be
continued next year, with the implementation of the following
suggestions:
To increase staff participation in SIG and enhance the
effectiveness of the SBACs:
The SBACs should, at their next citywide meeting, discuss
and share some of the successful strategies employed by the
A schools designed to inform staff about SIG options and
encourage their input in the planning and implementation
process.
The C.C.C. should encourage school-based administrators to
become more involved in SIG as active members of their
SBACs.
Members of the C.C.C. should provide on-site assistance to
SBACs at schools where staff interest and participation in
SIG is less than desirable.
Schools should be encouraged to share their staff
Joint planning and
development experiences and successes.
implementation of SIG options between neighboring schools
would stimulate interest and make for more effective
utilization of skilled presenters.
To capitalize on the successes of last year's annual staff
conference:
Workshops that attracted large audiences and received high
ratings from participants should be repeated to accommodate
Identify the reasons for the poorly
wider participation.
attended and/or less successful workshops and adopt
necessary scheduling and presenter changes.
Hold the conference earlier in the school year to give
participants an opportunity to identify areas of particular
relevance to their school's needs, ena;Aing SBAC members to
tap into a resource pool of potential presenters.
Consider hclding borough SBAC workshops to encourage
intra-school SIG staff development activities.
To improve the effectiveness of the SIG Coordinator, and
expand C.C.C.'s influence on the performance of the SBACs:
Members of the C.C.C. should begin the practice of making
site visits to schools to provide support and technical
The main goal of
assistance to administrators and SBACs.
ii
the C.C.C. representatives would be to help schools obtain a
consensus on what constitutes their greatest needs or
highest priorities, from which the SIG options can be
developed.
The advisory and decision-making roles of the
C.C.C.should be clarified and the decision-making
responsibilities of the SIG Coordinator clearly defined.
It
appears that the best interests of the SIG program would be
served by a more collaborative working relationship between
the C.C.C. and the SIG Coordinator.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report has been prepared by the Office of Educational
Research, Student Progress Evaluation Unit, under the direction
Milton Chaikin served as the project
of Henry Solomon.
coordinator.
to Arthur Fusco, facilitator of the District
due
Thanks are
was accessible to OER staff for numerous
who
SIG program,
75
to the Central Consultation Committee for
and
consultations,
their wise counsel.
This report could not have been completed without the
participation of Abe Strum, David Miller, and Renee Schmerler,
who were essential to the data collection aspects of the project.
We are also thankful to Carol Meyer for her editorial comments
and advice.
Additional copies of this report are available by writing
to:
Dr. Henry Solomon
Student Progress Evaluation Unit
110 Livingston Street - Room 734
Brooklyn, New York 11201.
iv
Contents
Page
Introduction
I.
1
Program Background
1
Program Structure for Current Year
2
SIG Goals and Options in 1993-94
2
Evaluation Methodology
3
Evaluation Questions
4
Scope of This Report
4
Findings
II.
6
Comparison of A and B Schools
6
District 75 Annual Staff Conference
14
Observations of the Central Consultation Committee
20
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
22
Conclusions
22
Recommendations
23
Comments by Evaluators
Appendix A.
25
Survey Tables
Appendix B.
27
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Participation in SIG Reported by SBAC
Table 1:
Chairpeople
7
Interviews of Teachers, Paras and RSPs at A
Table 2:
and B Schools
8
Interviews of Teachers, Paras and RSPs at A
Table 3:
and B Schools
12
Participants Attending District 75 Annual
Table 4:
15
Conference
16
Ratings of Workshops by Participants
Table 5:
Percentage of Respondents Who Indicated That
Table 6:
Their Professional Interests Were Met
17
Percentage of Respondent Comments
18
Table 7:
Most Frequent Comments and Suggestions
Table 8:
Made by Respondents
19
vi
JO