Technical Assistance and Dissemination Survey

Appendix A

Dear «Salutation» «Lastname»:

This letter is to introduce the National Evaluation of the IDEA Part D Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Program. The TA&D Evaluation is being conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

The overall goal of the evaluation is to provide descriptive information about the products or services provided by the TA&D Program centers, as well as to understand needs that State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Part C Lead Agencies have for technical assistance related to implementing IDEA. Through participation in this study you will have the opportunity to voice the needs for TA that your SEA may have and to express how well the TA&D Program grantees have met your needs. In addition, the information collected through the TA&D Evaluation will ultimately be included in a report to Congress and used to inform the next reauthorization of IDEA.

P

Websurvey: http://www.xxxxx.org

Your unique User Login is: XXXXX

Your password is: XXXXX

articipation will entail completing a survey focused on technical assistance related to a range of topic areas. A secure web survey for your SEA and more detailed study information is located at: http://www.xxxxx.org. You have been assigned a unique User Login that will provide access to the TA&D Survey.

Enclosed are step-by-step instructions on how to access the online TA&D survey. Please complete the survey no later than XX, 2011.

If you have questions about the survey, please direct them to Westat’s project director, Tamara Daley (888-xxx-xxxx or [email protected]) or to the Department of Education’s project officer, Meredith Bachman (202-219-2180 or [email protected]).

Thank you for collaborating in our efforts to collect reliable and meaningful information about the use of technical assistance by your SEA.

Sincerely,

Tamara Daley Project Director

Thomas A. Fiore Principal Investigator

Notice of Confidentiality

Information collected from the surveys comes under the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183).  Information that could identify an individual or institution will be separated from the survey responses submitted, kept in secured locations, and be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required. Survey responses will be used only for research purposes. States may be identified but only in reporting data about broad State need for and use of TA (data collected in Section I of the survey). The reports prepared for the study will summarize survey findings across focal topic areas and will not associate state responses with a specific TA&D center. We will not provide information that identifies the state education agency to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number.    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (EDGAR 34 CFR Part 75). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC  20210-4537 or email [email protected] and reference the OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX.

IDEA National Evaluation of the OSEP
Technical Assistance & Dissemination Program:

PART B SURVEY

Westat is conducting an evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program (TA&D Program) for the Institute of Education Science (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education. This survey has two sections: Section I asks questions about your SEA’s need for technical assistance (TA) products or services. Section II consists of separate modules that focus on specific topic areas. We ask that you begin with Section I. At the end of Section I you will be asked to assign Section II modules to other staff. Additional instructions are provided below.

SECTION I.

Purpose of the Study

State education agencies have a wide range of responsibilities associated with ensuring that districts and schools provide children with disabilities with the educational and other services they need to grow and learn. How does the OSEP TA&D Program provide SEAs with the technical assistance products or services they need to effectively carry out those responsibilities? This questionnaire is part of a new study to evaluate the OSEP TA&D Program. The purpose of the study is to understand (1) the needs that SEAs have for TA products or services to support the implementation of IDEA and support improvement of child outcomes and (2) the TA products or services that have been received by selected staff at the state level from OSEP TA&D Program centers and their satisfaction with those products or services .

Your responses will help the Department of Education understand the areas where technical assistance could be useful and the TA&D Program’s role in helping states to implement IDEA. The TA&D Program Evaluation also has important implications for the education of children with disabilities, as it will provide critical information to the Department of Education and Congress and inform the next reauthorization of IDEA. This independent evaluation is being conducted by IES, not by OSEP.

All states are required to participate in this survey. We are requesting that you and other state special education directors complete this questionnaire because you and your staff have the most knowledge about the need for TA products or services in your state. With your contribution, ED and Congress will gain a more accurate and complete understanding of how TA products or services are used to support the implementation of IDEA.

Section I Instructions and Definitions

On the following pages, you will be asked questions about the need for TA in your state.

Please note that information obtained in this section of the survey may be reported by state.

In this questionnaire, TA products or services refers to assistance to education personnel to facilitate implementation of IDEA and adoption or application of practices and policies aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities and their families. TA products or services includes dissemination of products and materials. All of the following below should be considered TA products or services:

• Accessing general information from a website

• Accessing training materials, practice guides, or toolkits from a website, including videos or printed materials

• Receiving telephone consultation on a substantive issue

• Receiving email consultation on a substantive issue

• Receiving consultation or training through web conferencing, including webinars

• Attending a conference, workshop, or training event

• Receiving customized consultation that may have included action plans, strategic plans, plans for implementation, or scaling up

When we use the word district in this questionnaire we are referring to LEAs, intermediate units, and similar regional or local educational service agencies.

When we specify the time period 2010-2011, we would like you to think about any 12-month period, which may be a fiscal year such as July 1-June 30, October 1-September 30, or a different 12-month period that is consistent with your state activities.

When we talk about TA products or services that are accessed, received or provided by SEA staff, we are also including in this the staff who are employed by the SEA to work at a regional level. These staff may include contracted personnel, if that is the structure the SEA uses to expand its presence to regional areas.

We estimate that it will take approximately 20 minutes to complete Section I. Thank you for joining us in our effort to understand the implementation of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program. We appreciate your time and cooperation.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this survey, contact:

Tamara Daley: 1-888-xxx-xxxx

e-mail: [email protected]

Section I Questions

1. We would like to know the areas where your SEA had any need for TA products or services during 2010-2011.

For each of the topic areas listed below, indicate whether your SEA needed TA products or services to improve your state’s implementation of IDEA or to help districts implement IDEA and improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

• Include topic areas where your SEA had any need for TA, whether or not TA was accessed or received.

• Include SEA needs for TA for both Part B-Section 619 Preschool Programs for Children with Disabilities and Part B serving students age 6 through 21.

• Include topic areas even if the SEA did not provide TA to districts in that area.

[When the respondent hovers over each of the topic areas below, suggestions of more specific areas on which the TA could focus will appear and areas to exclude in consideration of topic areas. These suggestions are intended to guide respondents to associate particular areas of TA with content areas in a more consistent way across respondents. See document ‘Areas where TA might focus.doc’]

TA topic area	SEA had a need for TA products or services in this area in 2010-2011
	Yes	No
Social/emotional development
Behavior, including positive behavioral and intervention support (PBIS)
Discipline
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
Identification (Child Find, screening, assessment)
Assistive technology
Autism
Deaf-blind
Low incidence disabilities
ESL/ELL and special education
General Supervision/monitoring
Disproportionality
Dispute resolution / procedural safeguards
Financing for special education
IDEA special education laws, policies, and regulations
Data systems or use of data for improvement
State/local assessment systems, including accommodations, modified standards, alternate standards, and alternate assessment
Inclusion and LRE (preschool, 3-5)
Inclusion and LRE (school age, 6-21)
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Parent and family involvement
Personnel recruitment/ certification/ licensure
Early childhood transition
Reading/early literacy (preschool, 3-5)
Reading/literacy (school age, 6-21)
Writing
Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM)
Student performance/achievement
Response to Intervention (RtI) (preschool, 3-5)
Response to Intervention (RtI) (school age, 6-22)
School completion/ dropout/ graduation
Secondary transition and post-school outcomes
Standards-based curriculum and instruction

2. During 2010-2011, in what other areas did your SEA have a need for TA products or services to improve your state’s implementation of IDEA or to help districts implement IDEA and improve child outcomes?
   
   

• Include topic areas where your SEA had any need for TA, whether or not TA was accessed or received.

• Include topic areas even if the SEA did not provide TA in that area.

• Please include only a brief topic area name. We are interested in the general area where you needed TA.

[programming will limit number of characters entered so that these content areas can be used in the following questions in section I.]

Other TA topic areas where SEA needed TA products or services

3. The topic areas where you indicated a need for TA products or services in questions I-1 and I-2 are listed below. Please rank the three areas where your SEA’s needs for TA products or services were the greatest during 2010-2011.

Include areas whether or not the need was addressed. Rank the area of greatest need with a “1.”

[Pre-fill of all areas checked from among those where a need was indicated; respondent can rank up to three]

TA topic area	Rank top 3

4. The topic areas where you indicated a need for TA products or services are listed below. For each of the topic areas listed, did your SEA access or receive TA products or services during 2010-2011 from any technical assistance source or provider?

[Pre-fill of all areas checked as having a need for TA, including ‘others’ in QI-2]

TA topic area	No, TA was not sought	No, TA was sought but not received	Yes, TA was accessed or received and is ongoing	Yes, TA was accessed or received and is done

5. The topic areas where you received TA products or services during 2010-2011 are listed below. For each topic area listed, please indicate whether your SEA’s needs for TA products or services were largely addressed, partially addressed, or not at all addressed by any technical assistance source or provider.

[Pre-fill of all areas checked as received TA and ongoing or received TA and complete in I-4]]

TA topic area	Needs for TA products or services LARGELY addressed	Needs for TA products or services PARTIALLY addressed	Needs for TA products or services NOT AT ALL addressed

We would like more detailed information about TA products or services in a few specific topic areas. These areas were selected to represent areas in which current TA&D Program centers provide support to states and other customers.

6. Each topic area listed in the table below will lead to a set of additional questions about (a) your SEA’s specific needs for TA products or services, (b) the TA products or services that SEA staff accessed or received in the past year, and (c) the TA that the SEA has provided to others in this topic area. Because we would like the most appropriate SEA staff to respond to these additional questions, please complete the table below according to these instructions:

• For each topic area below, please enter the name and email address of the SEA staff member who is currently most responsible for providing or overseeing TA for districts. We will encourage this staff member to collaborate with other staff members to complete the survey.

• If you are the individual most responsible for providing or overseeing TA in any area below, please enter your own name and email address.

• If there is no SEA staff member responsible for providing or overseeing TA in an area, please enter the name of the staff member most knowledgeable about the content area.

Each additional set of questions will take approximately 1 hour to complete.

TA content area	Name of person to complete additional questions	Email address of person to complete additional questions
Behavior, including positive behavioral and intervention support (PBIS)
Deaf-Blind
Disproportionality
Early childhood / Preschool Special Education
General Supervision/monitoring
Inclusion/LRE
Procedural safeguards/ dispute resolution
Response to Intervention
School completion/ dropout/graduation
Secondary transition and post-school outcomes
State/local assessment systems, including accommodations, modified standards, alternate standards, and alternate assessment

Section I Respondent information

Your name:	     
Email:	     
Phone number:	     
How long have you served in your current position?	     Years      Months
Please estimate how long it took to complete this survey	Minutes:

[To be distributed to staff designated above by the State Director of Special Education. Each of the focal topic areas will have a separate module/Section II, although we will not refer to this as ‘Section II’ in this section since the respondent will not have received Section I unless they are the state director.]

SECTION II. [focal topic area]

Purpose of the Study

State education agencies have a wide range of responsibilities associated with ensuring that districts and schools provide children with disabilities with the educational and other services they need to grow and learn. How does the OSEP TA&D Program provide SEAs with the technical assistance products or services they need to effectively carry out those responsibilities? This questionnaire is part of a new study to evaluate the OSEP TA&D Program. The purpose of the study is to understand (1) the needs that SEAs have for TA products or services to support the implementation of IDEA and support improvement of child outcomes and (2) the TA products or services that have been received by selected staff at the state level from OSEP TA&D Program centers and their satisfaction with those products or services .

Your responses will help the Department of Education (ED) understand the areas where technical assistance could be useful and the TA&D Program’s role in helping states to implement IDEA. The TA&D Program Evaluation also has important implications for the education of children with disabilities, as it will provide critical information to the Department of Education and Congress and inform the next reauthorization of IDEA. This independent evaluation is being conducted by IES, not by OSEP.

All information that would permit identification of the individual respondents to this survey will be held in strict confidence, will be used only by persons engaged in and for the purposes of the survey, and will not be disclosed or released to others for any purpose except as required by law.

All states are required to participate in this survey. We are requesting that you complete this questionnaire because your State Director identified you as having knowledge about the need for TA products or services in your state in this topic area. You are encouraged to seek the input of other staff who may be able to provide assistance to you. With your contribution, ED and Congress will gain a more accurate and complete understanding of how TA products or services are used to support the implementation of IDEA.

This questionnaire focuses specifically on the area of [focal topic area]

SECTION II Instructions and Definitions

The items in this questionnaire are specifically about technical assistance in the area of [focal topic area] that is received by SEA staff and provided to districts to improve child outcomes. That is, we are interested in learning where SEA staff had any need for TA to support districts in implementing IDEA during 2010-2011, as well as the TA related to [focal topic area] that your SEA provided to districts and others at the local level. The State Director of Special Education designated you as the staff member most appropriate for responding to these questions.

In this questionnaire, TA products or services refers to assistance to education personnel to facilitate implementation of IDEA and adoption or application of practices and policies aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities and their families. TA products or services includes dissemination of products and materials. All of the following below should be considered TA products or services:

• Accessing general information from a website

• Accessing training materials from a website, including videos or printed materials

• Receiving telephone consultation on a substantive issue

• Receiving email consultation on a substantive issue

• Receiving consultation or training through web conferencing, including webinars

• Attending a conference, workshop, or training event

• Receiving customized consultation that may have included action plans, strategic plans, plans for implementation, or scaling up

When we use the word district in this questionnaire we are referring to LEAs, intermediate units, and similar regional or local educational service agencies.

When we specify the time period 2010-2011, we would like you to think about any 12-month period, which may be a fiscal year such as July 1-June 30, October 1-September 30, or a different 12-month period that is consistent with your state activities.

When we talk about TA products or services that are accessed, received or provided by SEA staff, we are also including in this the staff who are employed by the SEA to work at a regional level. These staff may include contracted personnel, if that is the structure the SEA uses to expand its presence to regional areas. You are encouraged to seek the input of other staff who may be able to provide assistance to you.

We estimate that it will take approximately 1 hour to complete this survey. Thank you for joining us in our effort to understand the implementation of IDEA 2004. We appreciate your time and assistance.

Notice of Confidentiality

Information collected from the surveys comes under the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183).  Information that could identify an individual or institution will be separated from the survey responses submitted, kept in secured locations, and be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required. Survey responses will be used only for research purposes. States may be identified but only in reporting data about broad State need for and use of TA (data collected in Section I of the survey). The reports prepared for the study will summarize survey findings across focal topic areas and will not associate state responses with a specific TA&D center. We will not provide information that identifies the state education agency to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes (1 hour) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (EDGAR 34 CFR Part 75). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC  20210-4537 or email [email protected] and reference the OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this survey, contact:

Tamara Daley: 1-888-xxx-xxxx

e-mail: [email protected]

SECTION II Questions

1. Complete the table below about TA areas of need related to [focal topic area] during 2010-2011.

Related to the topic of [focal topic area], check whether your SEA needed TA products or services for each of the following. Check “yes” if your SEA had a need, whether or not TA products or services were accessed or received.

TA areas related to [focal topic area]	SEA staff had a need for TA products or services in 2010-2011
	Yes	No	Not applicable
Needs assessment at the state or local level related to [focal topic area]
Support related to SPP/APR indicators related to [focal topic area]
Data collection or data management related to [focal topic area]
Development or dissemination of materials on effective practices related to [focal topic area]
Training and other personnel development activities (preservice or inservice) related to [focal topic area]
State and local capacity-building to enhance service delivery and scale up effective practice related to [focal topic area]
Support related to finance systems and funding sources related to [focal topic area]
Evaluation of practices or activities related to [focal topic area]
Support related to policies and procedures related to [focal topic area]
Collaboration with other agencies, stakeholders, groups and participation in communities of practice related to [focal topic area]
Work with parents/families or parent-focused organizations related to [focal topic area]
Other (specify:      )
Other (specify:      )
Other (specify:      )

2. The TA areas related to [focal topic area] where you indicated a need for TA products or services in Question II-1 are listed below. Please rank up to three areas where your SEA’s needs for TA products or services were the greatest during 2010-2011.

Rank areas whether or not the need was met. Rank the area of greatest need with a “1.”

[Pre-fill of all areas checked from among those where a need was indicated; respondent can rank up to three]

TA areas related to [focal topic area]	Rank top 3

3. The TA areas related to [focal topic area] where you indicated a need for TA products or services in Question II-1 are listed below. For each of the TA areas listed, did you access or receive TA products or services during 2010-2011 from any technical assistance source or provider?

[Pre-fill of all areas checked as having a need for TA in 2010-2011, including Other]

TA area related to [focal topic area]	No, TA was not sought	No, TA was sought but not received	Yes, TA was accessed or received and is ongoing	Yes, TA was accessed or received and is done

4. The TA areas related to [focal topic area] where you accessed or received TA products or services during 2010-2011 are listed below. For each TA area listed, indicate whether your SEA’s needs for TA products or services were largely addressed, partially addressed, or not at all addressed by any technical assistance source or provider. Please consult with your colleagues as needed.

[Pre-fill of all areas checked as received TA and ongoing or received TA and complete in II-3]]

TA area related to [focal topic area]	Needs for TA products or services LARGELY addressed	Needs for TA products or services PARTIALLY addressed	Needs for TA products or services NOT AT ALL addressed

For the remaining questions, we would like to learn more about the TA products or services you or SEA staff with whom you work closely have accessed or received. Consider all TA areas related to [focal topic area].

5. We are interested first in the TA&D Program centers. From the list below, please check all centers from which you accessed or received TA products or services in the area of [focal topic area] during 2010-2011. This includes information or materials retrieved from a center’s website or other medium that did not require direct contact with staff from that center. For more information about any of these centers, you can roll over the name of the center. Please consult with your colleagues as needed.

TA&D Program centers

Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERRC)

Mid-South Regional Resource Center (MSRRC)

North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC)

Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC)

Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC)

Western Regional Resource Center (WRRC)

Center for Early Literacy Learning (CELL)

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC)

Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children (TACSEI)

Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO)

Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

National Center on Response to Intervention (RTI)

National Center on Education Outcomes (NCEO)

National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSO)

National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD)

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC)

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)

National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB)

State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP)

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NDC/NICHCY)

Project Forum

Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC)

IDEA Partnership

PEPNet-Northeast

PEPNet-Midwest

PEPNet-South

PEPNet-West

State-specific deaf-blind project

6. Please indicate the methods by which you accessed or received TA products or services related to [focal topic area] from [center1] during 2010-2011 and estimate the frequency of this contact. Check only where SEA staff themselves (as opposed to local level staff) accessed or received TA products or services. Please consult with your colleagues as needed.

[Will be asked for each center listed from which TA was received]

TA method	Estimated frequency of occurrences during 2010-2011
	Never	One or two times	Many times	On an ongoing basis during 2010-2011
Accessed general information from the center website
Accessed training materials, practice guides, or toolkits from the center website, including videos or printed materials
Received telephone consultation on a substantive issue
Received email consultation on a substantive issue
Received consultation or training through web conferencing, including webinars
Attended a conference, workshop, or training event sponsored or organized by the center
Received customized consultation that may have included action plans, strategic plans, plans for implementation, or scaling up
Other (Specify:      )
Other (Specify:      )

7. Related to [focal topic area], we would like to know more about the customized consultation that you indicated in the previous question that you received from [center 1]. Please respond yes or no for each of the following questions.

[Will be asked for each center from which respondent indicated in QII-6 that they received any customized consultation]

Special relationship or customized consultation	Yes	No
Did your SEA go through a formal application procedure to receive TA from [center1]?
Did [center1] develop a formal individualized plan for TA for your SEA?
Did [center 1] staff visit your state to provide services?
As a prerequisite to receiving TA from [center1], was your SEA required to commit funds or resources within the SEA?
Did your SEA pay [center1] for services or reimburse the center for expenses they incurred?

8. To the best of your knowledge, how many years has your SEA been working with [center1] in the area of [focal topic area]?

[Will be asked for each center from which respondent indicated in QII-6 that they received any customized consultation]

9. To the best of your knowledge, are you the individual within your SEA who has worked most closely with [center1] in the area of [focal topic area]?

[If no, we will include an error message that would request respondent to seek consultation with this person if possible]

Yes

No

10. Please consider all TA products or services you accessed or received from [center1] related to [focal topic area] during 2010-2011. Rate how satisfied you were with the center’s performance in relation to the specific issues listed. Please consult with your colleagues as needed.

[Will be asked for each center listed from which TA was received]

	Very satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	NA
TA provider’s or center’s receptiveness to requests
Timeliness with which information or assistance was provided
Depth of information or assistance
Relevance of information or assistance to our specific need
Understanding state context and culture, including understanding how an SEA operates and the constraints it faces
TA provider or center staff’s establishment of positive working relationships with SEA staff
Provision of information or assistance that could be translated into implementation at the local level
Results of TA received on SEA’s capacity to help LEAs implement new practices, models, or other activities
Overall satisfaction with the TA you received from the TA provider or center

We now turn to other sources from which you or SEA staff with whom you work closely have accessed or received TA products or services related to [focal topic area].

11. From the list below, please check all sources from which you accessed or received TA products or services in the area of [focal topic area] during 2010-2011. Please consult with your colleagues as needed.

(Note: you will not be asked any follow-up questions about these sources.)

Other OSEP funded TA&D Centers:

Data Accountability Center (DAC)

CONNECT: The Center to Mobilize Early Childhood Knowledge

National Professional Development Center on Inclusion (NPDCI)

IRIS Center for Training Enhancements

Monarch Center II

National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel (Personnel Improvement Center)

National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development (NCIPP)

National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders

Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd)

Family Center on Technology and Disability (FCTD)

National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM)

National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI)—LeadScape

Reading Rockets

National Parent Technical Assistance Center (TA Alliance)

Any of the 6 regional parent technical assistance center (RPTACs)

U.S. Department of Education Comprehensive Centers:

Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (at WestEd)

Center on Innovation and Improvement (at ADI)

Center on Instruction (at RMC)

National High School Center (at AIR)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (at Learning Point)

Any of the 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers (such as Texas or Great Lakes West)

U.S. Department of Education Equity Assistance Centers

Any of the 10 Equity Assistance Centers (such as NEEAC or South Central)

U.S. Department of Education Regional Education Laboratories

Any of the 10 Regional Education Laboratories (RELs)

Other sources of TA:

OSEP staff

Infant and Toddlers Coordination Association (ITCA)

Staff of other U.S. Department of Education offices

Professional associations (e.g., CEC, Council of Chief State School Officers, NASDSE)

Other Part B SEAs

Consulting firms or private contractors

IHE faculty (not working under the auspices of one of the sources already checked)

12. During 2010-2011, to whom did your SEA provide, either directly by SEA staff or through a contractual or brokered arrangement, any TA to regional or local personnel in the area of [focal topic area]? Check all that apply.

[This question will only be received if respondent has checked one or more centers in II-5, e.g., we are not interested in TA provided in the focal topic area if TA was not received from a TA&D Program grantee.]

TA was not provided in the area of [focal topic area] during 2010-2011 [ skip to II-14]

Administrators of local Part C programs

Administrators or staff of regional education units/intermediate unit offices

Early intervention providers/practitioners

General or special education teachers

IHE faculty

LEA central office general or special education administrators or staff

Parents/families or parent-focused organizations

Professional development coordinators

Related services personnel

School-based administrators

Technical assistance and training providers

Other (specify:      )

Other (specify:      )

Other (specify:      )

13. During 2010-2011, what challenges has your SEA experienced in transferring the TA you have received in the area of [focal topic area] to the local level? Check all that apply.

Lack of SEA staff expertise in the area of implementation

Limitations of SEA staff time

Funding limitations

SEA lack of credibility at the local level

LEA resistance to implementation

Insufficient support from the TA provider

Other (     )

We have not experienced any challenges

14. Is there anything else related to TA accessed, received or provided by your SEA that you would like to share with us?

     

[Respondent will receive closing information and be informed about items left blank or partially blank, followed by information on submitting survey]

Section II Respondent information

Your name:	     
Email:	     
Phone number:	     
How long have you served in your current position?	     Years,      Months
Please list the number of other individuals who were consulted while completing this survey:	     
Please estimate how long it took to complete this survey	Minutes:

This table will be downloadable and when respondents hover over the item, they will see the definition.

Part B TA topic area	Some areas that the TA might have focused on
Social/emotional development	Early identification; evaluation and assessment; strategies for social/emotional development; strategies to address challenging behaviors; evidenced-based practice; and family and caregiver strategies.
Behavior, including positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS)	Positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS), including scaling up of PBIS.
Discipline	Suspension/expulsion; SPP/APR Indicator B4.
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)	CEIS refers to the allowance for Part B funds to be used by LEAs to develop and provide services for students who are currently not identified as needing special education but are in need of academic or behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. Among others, topics of TA could include tracking children who receive CEIS; determining appropriate use of CEIS, and examining impact on disproportionality.
Identification (Child Find, screening, assessment)	Federal requirements; policies and practices related to identification of children who may need evaluation; tools for screening, evaluation and assessment; imparting public awareness and Child Find activities; SPP/APR Indicator B11.
Assistive technology	Assessing needs for AT; family role and AT; implementation and use of AT devices and services, updates on the latest technology; Universal Design for Learning.
Autism	Curriculum and evidence-based intervention; use of ABA, TEACCH, etc; evaluation/assessment and eligibility; ensuring appropriate services for children with autism; family services and supports; other issues specific to autism.
Deaf-blind	For this population, evaluation and assessment; family supports; curriculum and instruction; other issues specific to deaf-blindness.
Low incidence disabilities	Low-incidence disabilities include: visual impairment, hearing impairment, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic impairment, and multiple disabilities. Curriculum and instruction, eligibility requirements, other issues specific to low incidence disabilities. [Exclude assistance on deaf-blindness and autism, which are separate topic areas.]
ESL/ELL and special education	Special education identification of ESL/ELL students; curriculum and instruction; implementing culturally responsive and evidenced-based practices.
General Supervision/monitoring	Monitoring activities; data collection methods and required measurements for indicators under SPP/APR; developing the SPP/APR; setting baselines and establishing targets for the SPP/APR; tracking identification and verification of timely correction of noncompliance; making local determinations; developing formats for public reporting; SPP/APR Indicator 15. [Exclude dispute resolution/ procedural safeguards, which is a separate topic area.]
Disproportionality	Equity, assessment and intervention strategies states might use with LEAs; calculation methods for disproportionality; strategies for reviewing local policies, procedures, and practices to determine whether disproportionate representation exists; strategies for reducing disproportionality; SPP/APR Indicators B9 and B10.
Dispute resolution / Procedural safeguards	Federal requirements; written prior notice and consent; Parent Rights statements; forms and procedures to meet federal requirements; development of policies and procedures; training; complaint process; due process hearings; mediation; confidentiality; facilitated IEPs; SPP/APR Indicators B16, B17, B18, and B19.
Financing for special education	Ways of redesigning systems to use resources effectively; innovations in use of funds; application of funds; use of ARRA, Medicaid, and other funds; maintenance of effort requirement. [Exclude assistance in the area of CEIS, which is a separate topic area.]
IDEA special education laws, policies, and regulations	Understanding federal requirements; developing state regulations, policies and procedures to meet federal requirements; interpretation of special education laws, policies, and regulations to necessary changes in practice; training for local providers and families; updates on new developments/changes.
Data systems or use of data for improvement	Development of new state or local data systems; modifications to existing state or local data systems; analyzing and using data to make improvements at the state or local levels.
State/local assessment systems, including accommodations, modified standards, alternate standards, and alternate assessment	Assessment accommodations; modified standards; alternate assessment; alternate standards, monitoring for high stakes assessment; SPP/APR Indicator B3.
Inclusion and LRE (preschool, 3-5)	Among 3-5 year olds: strategies to support access to the general education curriculum; staffing patterns; models of instruction; reporting LRE data under IDEA Section 618 requirements; SPP/APR Indicator B6.
Inclusion and LRE (school age, 6-21)	Strategies to support access to the general education curriculum; staffing patterns; models of instruction; reporting LRE data under IDEA Section 618 requirements; SPP/APR Indicator B5.
Individualized Education Program (IEP)	Appropriate IEP format and completion; standards-based IEPs; improving the quality of IEPs.
Parent and family involvement	Strategies to engage parents/families, development and analysis of parent/ family surveys; SPP/APR Indicator B8.
Personnel recruitment/ certification/ licensure	Federal requirements related to personnel; recruitment and retention of highly qualified special education staff; recruiting a diverse workforce.
Early childhood transition	Among 3-5 year olds: Effective transition practices from Part C to Part B and from preschool to kindergarten; Part C federal requirements related to transition from Part C; designing and implementing effective transition processes; interagency coordination; transition timelines; parent consent and opt-out; SPP/APR Part B Indicator 12
Reading/ early literacy (Preschool, 3-5)	Among 3-5 year olds: Implementation and use of evidence-based strategies in the area of reading and literacy.
Reading/literacy (school age, 6-21)	Implementation and use of evidence-based strategies. [Exclude assistance on Response to Intervention, which is a separate topic area.]
Writing	Implementation and use of evidence-based strategies. [Exclude assistance on Response to Intervention, which is a separate topic area.]
Mathematics	Implementation and use of evidence-based strategies. [Exclude assistance on Response to Intervention, which is a separate topic area.]
Student performance/ achievement	Strategies aimed at improving results and student achievement; AYP for students with disabilities; inclusive assessment [Exclude post-school outcomes, which appears as a separate topic area]
Preschool Response to Intervention (RtI) (preschool, 3-5)	Among 3-5 year olds: Implementing RtI; identifying students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitoring student progress; assessing the effectiveness of interventions; scaling up of RtI.
Response to Intervention (RtI) (school age, 6-21)	Implementing RtI; identifying students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitoring student progress; assessing the effectiveness of interventions; scaling up of RtI.
School completion/ dropout/ graduation	Data collection and measurement of graduation/dropout rates; evidenced-based practices for increasing school completion rates; implementing evidenced-based dropout prevention programs; scaling up programs; SPP/APR Indicators B1 and B2.
Secondary transition and post-school outcomes	Measuring and assessing secondary transition and post-school outcomes; developing post-secondary IEP goals; job development and job trends; SPP/APR Indicators B13 and B14.
Standards-based curriculum and instruction	Academic content standards; evidence-based instruction.

7/27/11