Synthesis and Summary of Findings_IG Yr 1

                            Ohio  Deans  Compact  on  Exceptional  Children   Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grant   Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports     September  2016     Table  of  Contents     Executive  Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………     Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3     Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grants  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports   Priority  Area  #  1:  Marietta  College,  Ohio  Dominican  University,  Ohio  University,  Shawnee  State   University,  University  of  Rio  Grande,  Youngstown  State  University  ……………………………………………     Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grants  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports   Priority  Area  #  2:  Malone  University,  Ohio  Dominican  University,  University  of  Cincinnati………… 10     Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grants  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports   Priority  Area  #  3:  Shawnee  State  University,  University  of  Rio  Grande  …………………………………………13     Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grants  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports   Simultaneous  Renewal:  Kent  State  University,  Kent  State  University  (Salem  Campus),  Ohio   University,  Shawnee  State  University,  Youngstown  State  University…………………………………………….17           ii                   Ohio  Deans  Compact  on  Exceptional  Children   Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grant  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports     Executive  Summary   During  2015  –  2016,  the  Ohio  Deans  Compact  on  Exceptional  Children  funded  a  total  of  15  Incentive   Grants  to  a  total  of  11  Ohio  institutions  of  higher  education  (IHEs)  These  grants  supported  the   development  of  educational  programs  and  practices,  including  collective  conversation  among   educational  professionals,  that  would  improve  results  for  children  and  youth  in  Ohio  at  all  levels  of  the   educational  system     Priority  Areas   The  Compact  supported  two  major  initiatives:  incentive  grants,  and  simultaneous  renewal  grants  The   first  initiative  invited  Ohio  IHEs  to  submit  proposals  for  incentive  grants  to  develop  and  implement   sustainable  improvements  in  Ohio’s  personnel  preparation  and  development  system  for  teachers  and   administrators  The  second  initiative  challenged  Ohio  IHEs  to  engage  in  short-­‐term  development  efforts   to  support  shared  inquiry  into  common  problems  of  practice  related  to  improving  results  for  all  learners   Projects  resulting  from  this  effort  are  intended  to  improve  inclusive  leadership  preparation  and  develop   inclusive  leadership  models  for  educators  in  low  resources  areas  of  Ohio  Proposals  could  address  one  or   more  of  Priority    Areas  #1,  #2,  and  #3     The  purpose  of  Priority  Area  #  1  was  to  restructure  existing  general  and  special  education  teacher   preparation  programs  to  create  merged  programs  leading  to  dual  licensure  in  a  general  content  area   and  an  intervention  specialist  program  area  The  purpose  of  Priority  Area  #  2  was  to  foster  inclusive   instructional  educational  leadership  practice  through  course  redesign  or  program  overhaul  The  purpose   of  Priority  Area  #  3  was  to  strengthen  existing  intervention  specialist  programs  through  development  of   course  content  and  associated  field  experiences  in  sensory  impairments  through  development  of  a  set   of  courses  or  modules  Six  IHEs  were  funded  for  Priority  Area  #1,  three  were  funded  for  Priority  Area  #2,   and  two  collaborated  to  submit  a  combined  proposal  for  Priority  Area  #3   Incentive  Grants   Following  a  review  of  the  Incentive  Grants  Year  One  Annual  Reports  submitted  for  the  three  priority   areas,  the  Ohio  Deans  Compact  reports  the  following  findings:       • Grantees  have  leveraged  existing  internal  support  structures  and  practices  to  support  their   project  Use  of  resources,  such  as  technology  infrastructure,  meeting  space,  and  human   resources  was  also  mentioned  as  an  asset   • Existing  relationships  moved  the  work  forward  more  quickly  Collaboration  among  faculty  in   teacher  preparation  programs  was  critical  in  agreeing  upon  project  goals  and  reaching  out  to   potential  external  partners  Discussing  the  potential  of  the  project  with  university  leadership   secured  buy-­‐in  from  faculty  in  other  programs  whose  courses  would  be  impacted  by  a  merged   program     • • Buy-­‐in  from  and  active  engagement  with  K-­‐12  partners  were  best  secured  by  involving  them  in   decision  making  and  planning  early  in  the  project       Time  and  timing  have  been  a  challenge  in  meeting  grant  requirements,  but  grantees  managed   those  challenges  through  creativity  and  flexibility  and  by  garnering  support  from  administrators   at  an  early  stage  to  secure  buy-­‐in  from  decision-­‐makers     • Unanticipated  changes  in  university  and  partner  personnel  created  challenges,  but  grantees   adapted  by  revising  workloads  or  accommodating  the  new  partner   • Faculty  from  different  areas  within  the  university’s  department  of  education  (educational   leadership  and  special  education)  see  the  necessity  for  and  value  of  redesigning  educational   leadership  courses  that  will  better  equip  principal  candidates  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  students         Simultaneous  Renewal   Five  IHEs  were  funded  for  Simultaneous  Renewal  projects  designed  to  improve  equitable  access  to  high-­‐ quality  instruction  that  results  in  equitable  outcomes  for  struggling  learners   Review  of  annual  reports  from  Simultaneous  Renewal  grants  revealed  the  following:     • Partnering  districts  and  schools—whether  long-­‐term  or  new  partners—were  eager  to   collaborate  early  on  with  higher  education  institutions  that  led  the  project  Both  IHEs  and   partners  recognized  the  need  to  either  sustain  existing  relationships  or  build  new  ones     • There  appeared  to  be  a  strong  interest  on  the  part  of  districts  and  schools  to  learn  about  and   implement  co-­‐teaching  processes  as  a  way  to  support  student  learning     • Potential  barriers,  such  as  difficulty  gaining  access  to  school  data,  were  overcome  through   adjustments  made  by  the  higher  education  institution  in  negotiating  with  district  partners     • Time  has  been  an  issue,  but  grantees  managed  this  challenge  by  allowing  partners  to  determine   many  of  the  meeting  days  and  times,  allowing  for  flexible  scheduling,  and  taking  advantage  of   teachers’  summer  break  to  facilitate  critical  professional  development             Introduction   The  Ohio  Deans  Compact  on  Exceptional  Children  promotes  shared  understanding  and  implementation   of  effective  practices  that  contribute  to  improved  results  for  all  children  and  youth  in  Ohio  While   primarily  focused  on  strategies  that  build  the  capacity  of  the  P-­‐16  system  to  improve  outcomes  for   children  and  youth  with  disabilities  and  other  marginalized  groups  of  learners,  the  Compact  promotes   collective  conversation  among  education  professionals  at  all  levels  of  the  system     The  goal  of  the  Compact  is  to  increase  the  level  of  collaborative  inquiry  among  Ohio's  Institutions  of   Higher  Education,  thereby  improving  the  capacity  of  teacher  education,  administration,  and  related   services  personnel  preparation  programs  in  Ohio  to  better  prepare  professional  educators  to  effectively   teach  and  support  every  child   To  that  end,  the  Compact  has  identified  four  priority/focus  areas  that  guide  the  work  of  institutions  of   higher  education  participating  in  the  Compact  These  are:   Identifying  and  infusing  targeted  knowledge,  skills,  and  dispositions  into  preservice  coursework;   Modifying  intervention  specialist  preparation  programs;   Developing  partnerships  to  facilitate  collaboration  among  systems  (e.g.,  higher  education,  P-­‐12,   etc.);  and   Identifying  strategies  for  increasing  the  number  of  credentialed  intervention  specialists  and   related  services  providers  in  low-­‐incidence  areas,  including  visual  impairment/blindness,  hearing   impairment,  and  orientation  and  mobility  challenges   In  September  2015,  Ohio  institutions  of  higher  education  were  invited  to  submit  proposals  for  incentive   grants  to  develop  and  implement  sustainable  improvements  in  Ohio’s  preparation  and  development   system  for  teachers  and  administrators  Proposals  could  address  one  or  more  of  the  following  three   priority  areas:   Priority  Area  #  1:  to  restructure  existing  general  and  special  education  teacher  preparation  programs  to   create  merged  programs  leading  to  dual  licensure  in  a  general  content  area  and  an  intervention   specialist  program  area;   Priority  Area  #  2:  to  foster  inclusive  instructional  educational  leadership  practice  through  course   redesign  or  program  overhaul;  and   Priority  Area  #  3:  to  strengthen  existing  intervention  specialist  programs  by  developing  course  content   and  associated  field  experiences  in  sensory  impairments  through  a  set  of  courses  or  modules         In  January  2016,  the  Compact  invited  Ohio  institutions  of  higher  education  to  submit  proposals  for   incentive  grants  These  grants  would  support  short-­‐term  development  efforts  to  encourage  shared   inquiry  into  common  problems  of  practice  related  to  improving  results  for  all  learners  and  result  in   products  to  be  used  by  Ohio  four-­‐year  institutions  of  higher  education  to  improve  inclusive  leadership   preparation  and  by  school  districts  to  support  the  ongoing  development  of  inclusive  leadership  models   for  educators  in  low  resources  areas  of  Ohio  These  Simultaneous  Renewal  projects  were  designed  to   improve  equitable  access  to  high-­‐quality  instruction  and  equitable  outcomes  for  struggling  learners   Institutions  of  higher  education  that  were  awarded  the  Priority  Area  grants  and  the  Simultaneous   Renewal  grants  were  required  to  submit  annual  reports  to  the  Compact  at  the  end  of  Year  One  (July   2016)  This  report  provides  a  synthesis  and  summary  of  findings  from  the  Incentive  Grant  Institutions   Year  One  Annual  Reports               Synthesis  and  Summary  of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grant  Institutions’  Annual  Reports     Priority  Area  #  1     Priority  Area  #  1  required  institutions  of  higher  education  (IHE)  to  develop  viable  models  for   restructuring  existing  general  and  special  education  teacher  preparation  programs—undergraduate  or   graduate-­‐-­‐to  create  merged,  dual  licensure  programs  leading  to  licensure  in  both  a  general  content  area   and  an  intervention  specialist  program  area  Participating  candidates  would  be  eligible  to  receive  both   credentials  within  a  four-­‐year  period  Higher  education  institutions  seeking  support  for  planning  and   implementing  Priority  Area  #  1  included  Marietta  College,  Ohio  Dominican  University,  Ohio  University,   Shawnee  State  University,  University  of  Rio  Grande,  and  Youngstown  State  University     Project  Description   All  IHEs  identified  between  five  to  seven  early  childhood  and  special  education  faculty  members,  who   served  as  a  core  team,  to  lead  the  planning  of  their  project,  sometimes  including  IHE  faculty  members   from  other  areas  (e.g.,  arts  and  sciences,  Teaching  English  to  Speakers  of  Other  Languages)  and  a   teacher  education  or  university  advisory  board  Smaller  teams,  such  as  clinical  teams,  were  sometimes   created  to  address  specific  project  requirements  Partnerships  were  a  required  component  of  the  grant   The  numbers  and  types  of  IHE  partners  varied,  ranging  from  one  to  three  district  partners,  and  at  times   including  a  board  made  up  of  specialists  in  developmental  disabilities,  child  development,  Head  Start   programs,  and  educational  service  centers     Issues   Grantees’  reports  mentioned  a  number  of  issues  arising  during  project  planning  The  challenge  most   often  cited  was  the  lack  of  time,  which  impacted  availability  to  meet,  including  the  external  evaluator   meeting  with  the  core  team;  working  around  K-­‐12  school  calendars;  timing  of  the  release  of  grant  funds;   and  institutional  requirements  for  course  approval  Institutions  resolved  these  challenges  in  several   ways,  including  teleconferencing  to  accommodate  schedules  and  save  on  costs;  being  flexible  with  K-­‐12   school  calendars  (even  meeting  on  Saturdays);  and  garnering  support  from  administrators  (deans  and   heads  of  departments)  at  an  early  stage  to  secure  buy-­‐in  from  decision  makers  Institutional  course   approval  proved  to  be  more  of  a  barrier  at  large  universities  because  of  their  governance  processes  and   requirements;  the  smaller  IHEs  indicated  they  had  no  problem,  or  did  not  anticipate  a  problem,  with   course  approval  However,  smaller  IHEs  noted  that  their  small  staff  was  impacted  by  an  increase  in   workload  distribution  as  a  result  of  grant  activities     Another  challenge  cited  was  accommodating  all  courses  of  the  revised  program  into  a  four-­‐year  time   period,  as  many  courses  were  offered  only  once  a  year  or  were  offered  only  as  one  section  This  barrier   was  addressed  through  careful  curriculum  mapping  to  identify  courses  that  could  be  flexible  (i.e.,  a   course  formerly  in  the  teacher  education  curriculum  was  moved  to  become  a  general  education   requirement)  or  could  be  removed  altogether  from  the  education  course  sequence         In  several  instances,  personnel  changes  were  unanticipated,  but  the  grantees  adapted  without  much   delay  When  such  changes  occurred  at  their  institutions,  IHEs  contracted  out  faculty  to  teach  some  of   their  courses  When  changes  occurred  with  partners,  IHEs  worked  collaboratively  to  fully  apprise  the   partner  about  the  project     Collaboration  and  Readiness   All  grantees  met  regularly  and  often,  particularly  in  the  beginning  of  the  project,  to  build  relationships   and  develop  a  common  understanding  of  the  grant  Before  their  first  meeting,  most  IHEs  had  already   identified  and  reached  out  to  their  potential  K-­‐12  and  other  partners  and  inquired  about  their  interest  in   formally  collaborating  When  meeting  for  the  first  time,  topics  included  understanding  project  goals  and   discussing  roles  of  the  IHE  and  its  partners  Subsequent  meetings—often  held  weekly  by  the  core   team—focused  on  sharing  information  on  competency  standards,  clinical  experiences,  and  modes  of   course  delivery    Further  conversation  about  planning  occurred  through  a  review  and  analysis  of  syllabi   to  align  course  competencies  to  develop  a  crosswalk  of  standards  In  some  cases,  the  IHE  core  team  also   created  surveys  and  questionnaires  to  distribute  to  their  partners;  these  allowed  IHEs  to  gauge  their   partners’  perceptions  of  their  needs  with  regard  to  serving  all  students,  particularly  those  with   disabilities,  and  which  subsequently  informed  their  course  and  syllabi  development  as  well  as  their  field   and  clinical  experiences     Standards,  practices,  and  frameworks  that  were  examined  included  the  National  Association  for  the   Education  of  Young  Children  (NAEYC);  Council  for  Exceptional  Children  (CEC);  Ohio  Department  of  Higher   Education  (ODHE);  Ohio  Standards  for  the  Teaching  Profession  (OSTP);  Interstate  Teacher  Assessment   and  Support  Consortium  (INTASC);  Council  for  the  Accreditation  of  Educator  Preparation  (CAEP);  the   Ohio  Improvement  Process  (OIP);  the  Ohio  Leadership  Advisory  Council  (OLAC); Ohio  Leadership  for   Inclusion,  Implementation,  &  Instructional  Improvement  (OLi4);  various  Specialized  Professional   Associations  (SPA);    Ohio  Learning  Standards  (OLS);  Ohio  Early  Learning  and  Development  Standards   (OLEDS);  Ohio  Extended  Learning  Standards  (OELS);  and  Association  for  Middle  Level  Education  (AMLE)     Existing  program  outcomes,  learning  objectives,  and  key  assessments  were  also  reviewed  by  the  IHE   core  team  and  revised  when  necessary  to  align  to  the  standards  and  frameworks       All  institutions  reported  that  by  the  end  of  Year  1  they  were  ready  to  make  or  had  made  changes  to  their   curriculum  to  reflect  the  merged  program  Some  IHEs  indicated  they  still  needed  institutional  program   approval,  while  others  had  already  received  it  and  will  submit  their  proposed  program  to  the  Ohio   Department  of  Higher  Education  in  fall  2016       Grantees  reported  that  professional  development  was  very  helpful  in  further  developing  their  and  their   partners’  knowledge  and  skills  in  understanding  the  processes  for  and  benefits  of  a  merged  early   childhood  and  special  education  program  Professional  learning  events  included  attending  the  annual   Ohio  Deans  Compact  Conference,  the  CEEDAR  Conference,  and  networking  with  former  grantees  to   learn  about  best  practices  and  processes  for  blending  curriculum  and  creating  a  four-­‐year  plan    Some   IHEs  participated  in  other  professional  development  events  with  their  K-­‐12  partners,  including   technology  training         Project  Description   Grantees  ranged  from  small  private  institutions  (1,200  students)  to  large  public  institutions  (over  23,000   students)  Most  serve  students  in-­‐state,  though  one  online  program  serves  students  across  the  state  and   in  neighboring  states       Funding   Institutions  reported  that  the  funding  they  received  through  the  grant  was  valuable  and  contributed  to   their  ability  to  effectively  plan  their  project  Funding  was  most  often  used  for  personnel  costs  (faculty   and  partner  stipends;  faculty  release  time;  external  evaluators;  graduate  assistants)  professional   development  (conferences,  retreats,  technology  training);  and  materials  (books,  videos,  online   modules)     Implementation  –  Process  and  Steps   All  grantees  met  with  their  institution’s  faculty  and  administrators  early  in  the  project  Many  also  met   with  partners,  often  at  their  partner  sites  Several  mentioned  the  importance  of  meeting  face-­‐to-­‐face   with  administrators  in  their  partner  K-­‐12  sites  to  be  able  to  fully  explain  and  garner  support  for  the   project    Grantees  reported  that  they  developed  and  followed  a  strategic  timeline  for  grant  activities  and   solicited  feedback  from  stakeholders  to  adapt  planning  as  needed       Research  on  change  models  used  by  grantees  in  project  planning  varied  widely  and  included  Fullan’s   Educational  Change  Model,  Weiss’s  research  on  theories  of  change;  constant  comparison  and  iterative   processes,  Ohio’s  Leadership  Development  Framework,  and  Ontario’s  research  on  early  learning   experiences  of  English  language  learners       With  regard  to  planning  for  implementation  in  2016-­‐2017,  most  institutions  reported  they  foresee  that  a   great  deal  of  professional  learning  will  need  to  occur  for  faculty,  partners,  or  both  Topics  they  intend  to   address  include  co-­‐teaching,  differentiated  instruction,  use  of  technology,  formative  and  performance-­‐ based  assessments,  backward  design,  and  training  in  IRIS,  OLAC,  and  OCALI  resources  Project   implementation  timelines  for  the  upcoming  year  vary  according  to  the  progress  IHEs  have  made  thus   far  All  have  completed  the  grant  requirement  of  developing  a  crosswalk  of  standards  and  have  merged   or  are  ready  to  merge  coursework  Some  have  already  received  institutional  approval  for  their  blended   program  and  are  ready  to  submit  their  new  program  to  the  Ohio  Department  of  Higher  Education  Other   grantees  are  awaiting  authorization  by  their  institution  and  plan  to  submit  their  program  as  soon  as   possible  for  state  approval  Creating  resources,  such  as  field  experience  handbooks,  training  and   marketing  videos,  student  field  evaluations,  evaluations  for  future  professional  development,  and  end  of   project  surveys  were  identified  as  activities  for  2016-­‐2017       Deliverables   All  grantees  reported  their  deliverables  as  required  by  the  project:  a  standards  checklist  and  crosswalks;   course  sequence,  alignment  of  courses  with  appropriate  standards  and  the  Ohio  Improvement  Process   and  Ohio  Leadership  Advisory  Council  modules,  as  well  as  field  experiences  Fiscal  impact  statements       were  also  included  Several  institutions  provided  a  revised  outline  of  course  sequence,  draft  syllabi,  field   expectations,  and  observation  rubrics       Impact   Institutions  identified  the  following  methods  for  evaluating  program  impact—both  immediate  and  long   term  and  at  different  levels     University  Level   • Number  of  candidates  recruited  for  the  program   • Improved  results  on  key  assessments   • Course  evaluations   • Candidate  observation  data   • Candidate  portfolios   • Pass/fail  data  to  assess  course  and  program  effectiveness     • Number  of  program  completers  (2018-­‐19)   • Candidate  surveys  (pre-­‐  and  post-­‐program  implementation)   • Cooperating  teacher  surveys  (pre-­‐  and  post-­‐program  implementation)   • Faculty  surveys  (pre-­‐  and  post-­‐program  implementation)     State  Level   • Ohio  Department  of  Higher  Education  program  approval   • Results  from  the  Ohio  Assessment  of  Educators  and  edTPA     Stakeholder  Level   • Hiring  statistics   • Value-­‐added  data     National  Level   • Program  assessment  feedback  from  the  Council  for  the  Accreditation  of  Teacher  Preparation     Several  reports  identified  the  practice  of  progress  monitoring  as  important  to  determining  their   institution’s  success  or  effectiveness  at  implementing  the  program  in  Year  2       Common  Themes   The  following  themes  emerged  from  a  review  of  Priority  Area  #  1,  Year  1  annual  reports       Grantees  have  leveraged  existing  internal  support  structures  and  practices  to  support  their   projects  Use  of  resources,  such  as  technology  infrastructure  and  meeting  space  at  universities   and  partner  locations  was  reported  as  important  to  the  work  Human  resources,  such  as  other   graduate  assistants  and  librarians,  were  also  mentioned  as  an  asset     Existing  (internal/external)  relationships  moved  the  work  forward  more  quickly  Collaboration   among  faculty  in  teacher  preparation  programs  was  critical  in  agreeing  upon  the  project  goals   and  reaching  out  to  potential  external  partners  When  IHEs  had  established  partners,   particularly  with  K-­‐12  schools,  those  partners  signed  on  to  the  project  at  an  early  stage  Also,   discussing  the  potential  of  the  project  with  university  leadership  proved  to  be  a  strategic  move   that  secured  buy-­‐in  from  faculty  in  other  programs  whose  courses  would  be  impacted  by  a   merged  program       Buy-­‐in  from  and  active  engagement  with  K-­‐12  partners  were  best  secured  by  involving  them  in   decision  making  and  planning  early  in  the  project  When  institutions  included  their  partners  in   the  actual  planning  process,  their  commitment  to  active  engagement  in  the  work  was  strong   and  sustained  through  Year  1  K-­‐12  partners  agreed  to  meet  outside  of  the  school  day  to  ensure   the  progress  of  the  project     Time  (e.g.,  planning,  meeting,  working  around  K-­‐12  school  calendars,  release  of  grant  funds,   institutional  requirements  for  course  approval,  evaluator  inability  to  attend  most  meetings)  has   been  a  challenge,  but  grantees  managed  those  challenges  through  creativity  and  flexibility,   through  teleconferencing  to  accommodate  schedules  and  save  on  costs;  being  flexible  with  K-­‐12   school  calendars  (even  meeting  on  Saturdays);  and  garnering  support  from  administrators   (provosts,  deans,  and  heads  of  departments)  at  an  early  stage  to  secure  buy-­‐in  from  decision   makers     Unanticipated  changes  in  university  and  partner  personnel  created  challenges,  but  grantees   adapted  Often,  the  changes  involved  a  key  individual  (faculty  member;  head  of  a  child   development  center;  principal  of  a  potential  school  partner)  However,  the  grantees  remained   adaptable  and  worked  to  quickly  revise  the  workload  (for  new  faculty)  or  accommodate  the  new   partner             Priority  Area  #  2     Priority  Area  #  2  required  institutions  of  higher  education  (IHE)  to  build  on  the  work  of  the  Ohio  Deans   Compact  in  supporting  the  incorporation  of  course  content  related  to  collaborative  and  inclusive   practices  in  educational  leadership/administration  preparation  programs  Projects  could  focus  on  Area  A   (course  redesign)  or  Area  B  (program  overhaul)  Higher  education  institutions  seeing  support  for  Priority   Area  #  2  included  Malone  University,  Ohio  Dominican  University,  and  the  University  of  Cincinnati;  all   grantees  focused  on  Area  A  (course  redesign)   Project  Description   All  IHEs  identified  between  2  and  12  full-­‐time  and  adjunct  members  (some  of  whom  served  on  smaller   committees)  and  college  of  education  administrative  leadership  to  plan  their  project  The  focus  of  the   projects  ranged  from  increasing  numbers  of  trained  educational  leaders  through  development  of   inclusive  educational  leadership  programs  that  provide  more  flexible  degree  options—such  as  revising   existing  courses  with  modules  that  increase  the  presence  of  inclusive  practices  in  those  courses  —to   developing  authentic,  diverse  clinical  experiences  for  principals  in  training  so  that  they  are  better   prepared  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  students,  including  those  with  disabilities       Issues   No  major  issues  were  noted  by  any  of  the  IHEs,  with  the  exception  of  making  adjustments  to  their   schedules  so  they  could  meet  and  plan  for  their  project     Collaboration  and  Readiness   University  faculty  met  internally  at  first  to  discuss  strategies  they  would  use  for  project  planning  and   implementation  One  grantee  focused  on  a  review  of  existing  courses,  with  a  goal  of  integrating  content   reflective  of  special  education  into  their  leadership  program  Another  sought  to  assess  their  current   educational  leadership  program  and  work  with  school  partners  to  identify  specific  areas  in  need  of   change  with  the  goal  of  redesigning  online  course  content  where  necessary  A  third  IHE  created  a   monthly  implementation  plan  aligned  to  the  deliverables  and  goals  of  the  grant  All  grantees  mentioned   that  collegiality  and  willingness  to  serve  on  committees  were  an  asset  to  their  project       Standards,  practices,  and  frameworks  that  informed  the  work  of  the  IHEs  included  the  Ohio  Principal   Standards  (OPS);  Council  for  Exceptional  Children  (CEC);  Educational  Leadership  Constituent  Council   (ELLC);  Professional  Standards  for  Educational  Leaders  (PSEL);  CEEDAR  resources;  Ohio  Council  for   Professors  of  Educational  Administration  (OCPEA);  the  Ohio  Leadership  Advisory  Council  (OLAC)  and  the   Ohio  Leadership  for  Inclusion,  Implementation,  &  Instructional  Improvement  (OLi4)     Project  Description   Grantees  ranged  from  small  private  institutions  (1,500  students)  to  a  large  public  institution  (over   23,000  students),  representing  suburban,  urban,  and  rural  areas       10     Funding   Institutions  reported  that  the  funding  they  received  through  the  grant  allowed  for  flexibility  in  fulfilling   their  grant  requirements  Funding  was  used  to  compensate  faculty,  employ  graduate  assistants,  incur   meeting  expenses,  cover  professional  development  expenses,  and  purchase  resources  for  retreat   meetings       Implementation  –  Process  and  Steps   All  grantees  met  with  their  institution’s  faculty  and  administrators  (when  appropriate)  early  in  the   project  and  to  map  out  a  direction  for  their  work  In  one  instance,  the  IHE  began  by  creating  and   distributing  a  survey  to  teachers  and  prospective  teachers  to  determine  their  level  of  interest  in  a  new   educational  leadership  program  In  addition,  the  IHE  provided  a  survey  to  the  field  to  identify  the   strengths,  weaknesses,  and  changes  the  university  should  make  to  its  existing  principal  leadership   program  Their  subcommittees  also  met  to  analyze  course  syllabi,  develop  new  learning  objectives,  and   key  assessments  aligned  to  CAEP  standards  Members  of  another  IHE  came  together  regularly  to  explore   integration  of  special  education  and  educational  leadership  courses  and  identified  where  the  newly   developed  modules  could  be  included  in  existing  courses  The  third  grantee  held  monthly  retreats  to   determine  their  direction,  discuss  the  logic  model  they  would  use  for  program  revision,  develop  an   action  plan  for  evaluation,  analyze  syllabi  and  educational  leadership  standards,  determine  standards   alignment  of  coursework  and  field  experiences,  and  discuss  the  challenges  of  pre-­‐service  principals   authentically  engaging  in  internships     One  IHE  acknowledged  difficulty  in  conducting  the  course  and  syllabi  analysis  due  to  the  new   professional  leadership  standards  and  their  relationship  to  the  existing  state  standards  and  OLAC   modules  To  address  this  issue,  the  grantee  determined  that  alignment  with  the  Ohio  Principal   Standards  and  Council  for  Exceptional  Children  standards  was  necessary     Research  on  change  models  used  by  grantees  in  project  planning  included  Fullan’s  research  on   relationships,  and  CEEDAR  Leadership  Dimensions,  as  well  as  the  previously  mentioned  standards,   practices,  and  frameworks  that  informed  the  work  of  course  redesign     Deliverables   Grantees  reported  their  deliverables  as  required  by  the  project:    standards  crosswalks;  revised  syllabi,   learning  objectives,  and  key  assessments  with  appropriate  standards;  and  a  clinical  internship  matrix,   which  identifies  in  what  courses  principal  candidates  complete  field  experiences   11     Impact   Institutions  identified  the  following  methods  for  evaluating  program  impact—both  immediate  and  long   term   • Adjuncts  instructing  redesigned  educational  leadership  courses,  which  contain  inclusive   leadership  practices,  will  gather  student  feedback  following  course  completion   • Feedback  from  Board  of  Advisors  (for  one  IHE)  has  informed  the  focus  of  newly  developed   principal  internships   • Interest  in  exploring  long-­‐term  methods  to  evaluate  success  of  IHE  program  completers     Stakeholders  identified  by  grantees  as  likely  to  be  positively  impacted  by  their  course  redesign  efforts   include  principal  candidates,  university  instructors,  district  and  school  partners,  and  the  K  –  12  students   they  serve     Common  Themes   The  following  themes  emerged  from  a  review  of  Priority  Area  #  2,  Year  1  annual  reports       Faculty  from  different  areas  within  the  university’s  department  of  education  (educational   leadership  and  special  education)  see  the  necessity  for  and  value  of  redesigning  educational   leadership  courses  that  will  better  equip  principal  candidates  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  students       While  time  to  schedule  faculty  meetings  was  mentioned  as  something  of  a  challenge,  faculty   were  able  to  complete  their  obligations  to  the  grant  by  working  independently  and  in  sub-­‐ committees  to  productively  accomplish  their  tasks                 12               Priority  Area  #  3     Priority  Area  #  3  required  institutions  of  higher  education  (IHE)  to  design  course  content    that  leads  to   teacher  candidates  earning  an  endorsement  in  sensory  impairment  (visual  impairment,  hearing   impairment,  combined  vision-­‐hearing  impairment)  While  no  credential  currently  exists,  the  Ohio  Deans   Compact,  in  cooperation  with  the  Ohio  Department  of  Education  and  the  Ohio  Department  of  Higher   Education,  seeks  to  pursue  the  creation  of  such  a  credential  This  priority  also  supports  modules  in   sensory  impairment  that  can  be  integrated  into  existing  intervention  specialists’  preparation  programs,   as  well  as  be  used  for  professional  development  purposes   Two  higher  education  institutions  have  collaborated  on  a  grant  for  planning  and  implementing  Priority   Area  #  3:  Shawnee  State  University  and  the  University  of  Rio  Grande     Project  Description   This  project,  entitled  “Broadening  Horizons”  was  created  to  develop  a  sensory  impairment   endorsement,  including  coursework,  field  experiences,  and  key  assessments  The  leadership  team  is   comprised  of  one  faculty  member  from  each  IHE  External  reviewers  and  an  external  evaluator  have  also   been  identified  as  part  of  the  team  Project  stakeholders  representing  15  counties  in  Ohio  were   nominated  from  local  educational  service  centers,  state  support  teams,  and  districts     Issues   Five  issues  materialized  as  the  IHE  team  met  to  discuss  the  new  endorsement,  which  the  team  seeks  to   address   • The  perception  that  this  initiative  is  a  preparation  program  for  both  intervention  specialist   teachers  of  students  with  visual  impairments  and  intervention  specialist  teachers  of  students   with  hearing  impairments   • The  potential  problem  of  not  being  able  to  identify  a  practicing  teacher  of  students  with  visual   impairments  or  hearing  impairments  to  support  an  individual  pursuing  the  endorsement       • Identifying  field  experience  settings  for  individuals  pursuing  the  endorsement  who  are  already   full-­‐time  teachers   • The  inclusion  of  an  early  childhood  intervention  specialist  license  as  an  option  to  which  the   endorsement  can  be  added   • The  amount  of  Braille  and  sign  language  education  required  for  the  endorsement     13     Collaboration  and  Readiness   Project  leaders  met  with  P  –  12  partners  at  a  retreat  focused  on  clarifying  the  purpose  of  the  program,   identifying  relevant  standards,  and  discussing  field  experience  options  Two  additional  stakeholder   meetings  are  scheduled  for  fall  2016  In  the  first,  participants  will  write  course  descriptions,  develop   rubrics  for  program  key  assessments,  and  outline  field  requirements  for  the  sensory  impairment   endorsement  program  In  the  second  session,  participants  will  review  and  revise,  as  needed,  the  draft   syllabi,  rubrics,  and  field  expectations  Each  IHE  will  then  apply  for  its  own  institutional  approval  for  the   addition  of  the  endorsement,  and  submit  the  program  to  the  Ohio  Department  of  Higher  Education  for   state  approval,  upon  which  the  IHEs  will  offer  the  endorsement  coursework  in  the  fall  of  2017     The  report  notes  that  it  was  important  from  the  beginning  that  nomination  of  individuals  representing   the  stakeholder  group  be  diverse  enough  to  present  a  variety  of  perspectives  that  adequately  addressed   the  needs  of  the  proposed  endorsement    Moreover,  the  clarity  that  the  leadership  of  each  IHE  provided   was  essential  in  helping  stakeholders  understand  the  complexity  of  the  project       Project  Description   Both  the  University  of  Rio  Grande  and  Shawnee  State  University  are  located  in  rural  Southeastern  Ohio   Many  individuals  located  around  each  IHE  experience  high  poverty  and  high  unemployment  Both  IHEs   work  closely  with  local  school  districts,  and  indicate  that  one  of  the  few  career  paths  for  employment  in   the  region  is  in  the  teaching  field  However,  local  school  districts  are  challenged  by  the  difficulty  in   recruiting  and  retaining  teachers  from  outside  the  area,  particularly  in  high-­‐demand  fields,  such  as   special  education  Both  IHEs  offer  the  Intervention  Specialist  Mild  to  Moderate  and  Early  Childhood   Intervention  Specialist  programs     Stakeholders  include  educational  service  centers’  directors  and  supervisors  of  special  education   programs;  administrators  from  a  local  board  of  developmental  disabilities;  members  of  state  support   teams;  K  –  12  school  administrators;  special  education  teachers,  including  early  childhood  intervention   specialists  and  teachers  of  students  with  hearing  impairments;  and  parents  of  children  with  sensory   impairments       In  addition  to  the  regional  challenges  identified  earlier,  other  barriers  to  the  project  include  a  lack  of   overall  public  recognition  and  statewide  exposure  for  recruitment  of  prospective  candidates  for  this   endorsement  Additional  concerns  noted  were  “selling”  the  program  and  potential  lack  of  field   placements  Given  these  challenges,  practitioner  input  was  seen  as  a  critical  aspect  in  the  development   of  the  program     14     Standards  used  to  align  coursework  for  the  endorsement  include  the  Council  for  Exceptional  Children   Blind/Visually  Impaired  and  Deaf/Hard  of  Hearing  and  Deaf/Blind  teacher  preparation  standards   Stakeholders  reviewed  these  standards  and  selected  those  that  would  be  appropriate  for  development   of  the  sensory  impairment  endorsement  Chosen  standards  were  then  aligned  to  courses  that  will  be   required;  a  review  of  this  alignment  was  subsequently  conducted  by  external  advisors,  whose  feedback   was  then  returned  to  stakeholders  for  review     Successes  identified  with  this  process  included  the  collaboration  and  expertise  of  the  stakeholder  group   and  their  ability  to  consider  authentic  teaching  and  learning  scenarios  for  prospective  candidates  A   challenge  mentioned  was  the  lack  of  a  mentor  or  program  supervisor  who  would  oversee   implementation  of  the  program  and  field  placement  settings  An  issue  still  to  be  addressed  is  that   although  standards  for  deafblind  education  are  included  in  coursework,  there  is  no  stand-­‐alone   deafblind  or  dual  sensory  course  in  the  program       Funding   Funding  for  the  grant  was  used  for  costs  (travel,  lodging,  meals)  associated  with  the  retreat  where   stakeholders  engaged  in  the  standards  and  course  alignment  process;  stipends  provided  for  university   leadership;  student  workers;  costs  associated  with  attendance  at  the  Ohio  Deans  Compact  meetings,   joint  IHE  meetings,  and  travel  to  a  technology  fair  focused  on  the  needs  of  children  with  dual  sensory   disabilities       Other  resources  include  modules  for  teachers  of  students  with  deafblindness  and  OCALI  online   resources  that  will  be  embedded  in  coursework  An  assistive  technology  resource  consultant  is  being   considered  for  online  course  development    Clinical  partners  representing  local  districts  will  be   instrumental  in  providing  resources  for  candidates  completing  their  required  field  experiences     Implementation  –  Process  and  Steps   Both  IHEs  first  met  to  plan  for  their  work  by  soliciting  and  selecting  stakeholders  as  project  partners  and   bringing  them  together  for  a  retreat  where  they  self-­‐selected  participation  into  work  teams  to  focus  on   needs  related  to  students  with  hearing  impairments,  visual  impairments,  and  dual  sensory  impairments   Each  team  worked  to  identify  standards  appropriate  for  coursework  for  their  respective  area,  as  well  as   discuss  field  options  The  culminating  work  was  then  sent  to  external  reviewers  and  then  presented  to   university  provosts  for  their  review    The  university  leadership  team  has  also  worked  to  recruit  two   additional  universities  as  potential  partners  for  2016  –  2017       Two  additional  stakeholder  meetings  are  scheduled  for  fall  2016,  as  well  as  universities’  plans  to  present   the  project  at  upcoming  conferences  Both  IHEs  intend  to  submit  the  program  to  the  Ohio  Department   of  Higher  Education  for  approval,  following  approval  from  their  own  institutions     15     Deliverables   Grantees  reported  their  deliverables  as  required  by  the  project:  a  list  of  participating  stakeholders;  and   draft  course  syllabi  aligned  to  Council  for  Exceptional  Children  standards  for  Deaf/Hard  of  Hearing,   Blind/Visually  Impaired;  and  Deaf/Blind,  as  well  as  monthly  project  progress  reports       Impact   Institutions  identified  the  following  methods  for  evaluating  program  impact   • Stakeholder  feedback   • Analysis  of  endorsement  licensure  program  key  assessment  data   • Employment  rate  of  teachers  serving  children  with  sensory  impairments     Finally,  the  report  mentions  that  the  development  of  this  proposed  program  will  meet  the  need  to   provide  more  instructional  support  to  children  with  sensory  impairments  and  that  the  final,  summative   project  evaluation  will  be  the  quality  of  the  professionals  trained  through  this  program       16     Simultaneous  Renewal     Simultaneous  Renewal  grants  required  institutions  of  higher  education  (IHE)  to  partner  with  local  school   districts  to  engage  in  shared  inquiry  into  common  problems  of  practices  that  improve  results  for  all   learners,  that  result  in  products  to  be  used  by  Ohio  four-­‐year  IHEs  to  improve  inclusive  leadership   preparation,  and  that  support  inclusive  leadership  models  for  educators  serving  low-­‐resource  areas,  i.e.,   districts  with  a  free  or  reduced  lunch  rate  of  50%  or  higher  Higher  education  institutions  seeking   support  to  plan  for  and  implement  Simultaneous  Renewal  grants  included  Kent  State  University,  Kent   State  University  (Salem  campus),  Ohio  University,  Shawnee  State  University,  and  Youngstown  State   University   Project  Description   Four  of  the  IHEs  identified  between  one  to  five  early  childhood  and  special  education  faculty  members,   as  well  as  literacy  course  instructors,  to  lead  their  projects  Institutions’  partners  varied  greatly  and   included  an  Educational  Service  Center  staff  member  who  also  served  as  an  instructor  at  the  university,   district  superintendents,  a  district  special  education  supervisor,  a  child  development  center  director,  a   state  support  team  (SST)  member,  Pre-­‐Kindergarten  teachers  employed  at  the  child  development   center,  and  classroom  teachers  from  kindergarten  to  seventh  grade  The  fifth  IHE  partnered  with  a  local   middle  school,  as  their  project  focused  on  high-­‐leverage  and  evidence-­‐based  practices  to  assess  and   strengthen  school-­‐wide  positive  behavioral  supports  as  part  of  the  development  of  their  dual  licensure   program  in  special  education  and  middle  childhood     Issues   Grantees  reported  few  barriers  to  beginning  their  work  However,  scheduling  time  to  meet  and  plan,   both  at  the  university  and  with  partners,  proved  to  be  a  challenge  Related  to  that  issue  was  the  timing   of  the  grant  itself;  partnerships  with  local  educators  were  a  grant  requirement,  but  district  calendars   were  already  set  for  achievement  testing  and  teacher  professional  development  A  challenge  reported   by  one  IHE  was  difficulty  gathering  the  baseline  school-­‐wide  disciplinary  data  needed  for  their  project     Grantees  successfully  navigated  these  challenges  in  several  ways:  collaborating  with  district  and  school   administrators  to  allow  for  flexible  meeting  times  with  classroom  teachers,  providing  grant  funds  to   secure  substitute  teachers  for  participating  teachers  to  attend  meetings,  and  scheduling  professional   development  with  school  partners  for  the  summer  One  IHE  noted  an  unanticipated  change:  their   project  intended  to  identify  between  six  and  eight  teachers  from  one  district  with  whom  to  partner   Instead,  17  teachers  expressed  interest  Though  this  was  a  positive  development,  it  required  the  IHE  to   adapt  the  scope  of  their  project  The  IHE  that  lacked  access  to  the  school’s  data  system  successfully   overcame  that  challenge  by  framing  their  request  within  the  parameters  of  that  system  and  providing  to   the  district  the  data  requirements  needed  to  facilitate  analysis  of  disciplinary  trends         17     Collaboration  and  Readiness   While  all  grantees  worked  closely  within  their  university  and  with  the  partners,  they  did  so  in  different   contexts  Some  partnered  only  with  local  districts  or  schools,  but  one  grantee  included  other  partners   (e.g.,  educational  service  center,  SST  member,  child  development  center)  All  IHEs  met  internally  first   and  then  reached  out  to  potential  partners  to  explain  the  grant  and  inquire  about  their  interest  One   grantee  noted  that  historically  their  university  has  not  had  strong,  direct  ties  to  local  schools,  as  adjuncts   typically  supervise  their  teacher  candidates  However,  the  grant  has  provided  them  an  opportunity  to   authentically  collaborate  with  their  local  school  district  to  address  their  shared  educational  concerns  All   grantees  indicated  partners  who  eagerly  agreed  to  begin  work  on  their  project     Standards,  practices,  and  frameworks  that  were  used  to  inform  the  grantees’  work  included  the  Council   for  Exceptional  Children  (CEC);  Advanced  Specialty  Set:  Special  Education  Inclusion  Specialist;   Association  for  Middle  Level  Education  Middle  Level  Teacher  Preparation  Standards;  Ohio   Administrative  Code  (OAC);  Ohio  Learning  Standards  (OLS);  Ohio  Early  Learning  Standards  (OELS);  the   Ohio  Leadership  Advisory  Council  (OLAC);  and  the  Ohio  Improvement  Process  (OIP)  Several  grantees   noted  that  their  partnering  districts  also  used  the  OIP  process,  though  one  IHE  indicated  there  were   varying  levels  of  effectiveness       Project  Description   Grantees  all  are  public  universities  and  are  located  in  rural  areas  of  Ohio  Many  of  their  students  are  of   nontraditional  age  and  may  be  first-­‐generation  college  students  One  IHE  maintains  “high  research   activity.”  District  and  school  partners  also  represent  high  poverty  areas  and  some  associated  challenges   One  partner  district  has  a  high  percentage  of  students  identified  with  disabilities  (21%)  Another  district   has  a  high  chronic  absenteeism  rate  (18%)     Funding   Institutions  reported  that  the  funding  they  received  through  the  grant  was  valuable,  and  they  were  able   to  leverage  it  for  different  activities,  including  meetings  with,  and  professional  development  for,  their   partner  districts  and  schools;  attendance  at  a  conferences;  stipends  for  faculty  and  educational  partners;   consulting  for  outside  experts;  resources  and  materials  for  professional  learning  events,  and   development  of  online  modules  and  videos     Implementation  –  Process  and  Steps   All  grantees  met  internally  at  first  to  develop  a  common  understanding  of  their  project  Initial  meetings   centered  on  the  project  goals  developed  by  the  IHE  Three  of  the  four  grantees’  goals  addressed  the  co-­‐ teaching  process,  albeit  with  emphasis  on  different  aspects  The  goal  of  one  IHE  was  to  help  establish   the  foundations  of  socially  just  classrooms  through  the  development  of  modules  for  an  inclusive   curriculum,  which  will  be  integrated  into  early  childhood  education  courses  Faculty  will  subsequently   practice  this  curriculum  in  a  co-­‐planning/co-­‐serving  context  with  their  partner  schools  Another  grantee   created  classroom  observation  rubrics  and  protocols  to  be  used  to  observe  instruction  of  teacher  teams   in  classrooms  of  their  partner  schools  A  third  IHE  participated  in  a  co-­‐teaching,  train-­‐the-­‐trainer   workshop  and,  in  turn,  facilitated  a  workshop  with  cooperating  teachers  at  their  partner  school  who  will   18     be  supporting  their  teacher  candidates’  student  teaching  The  fourth  grantee  is  creating  four  online   modules  focused  on  developing,  implementing,  and  sustaining  strong  clinical  partnerships    The  fifth   grantee  has  begun  development  of  content  acquisition  podcasts  for  teachers  from  their  partner  district   who  support  the  IHE’s  preservice  teachers  during  their  field  experiences  As  a  reflection  of  their   commitment  to  their  partnership,  the  IHE  also  agreed  to  provide  future  professional  development  to  the   school  or  district  on  topics  of  their  choice  All  grantees  reported  that  the  expertise  faculty  brought  to   their  respective  projects  was  an  asset  to  their  projects  A  commitment  to  cooperate  collegially  within   the  university  also  advanced  the  work  during  the  short  timeline  to  plan         After  their  preliminary  meeting,  IHEs  reached  out  to  partners  to  schedule  times  to  explain  the  grant   opportunity  to  them  All  reported  positive  feedback  from  partners,  though  the  timing  of  the  grant   (mentioned  earlier)  was  an  initial  concern  An  issue  for  one  grantee  that  emerged  after  implementation   began  was  that  some  of  the  teachers  within  their  teacher  teams  did  not  get  along  with  one  another  or   were  not  helpful  to  one  another  The  grantee  noted  that  administrators  identified  the  teams,  and   teacher  teams  were  not  self-­‐selected   Research  cited  for  project  development  and  implementation  included  positive  behavior  supports,  co-­‐ teaching,  inclusive  teaching,  universal  design  for  learning,  collaborative  leadership,  teacher  teams,   professional  learning  communities,  and  21st-­‐century  learners     Deliverables   Deliverables  reported  by  the  grantees  included  the  following:  professional  development  materials  and   high-­‐leverage  learning  modules  for  use  by  other  institutions  of  higher  education,  specific  observation   techniques  using  a  newly  developed  mobile  application,  curriculum  modules  for  inclusive  teaching,   classroom  observation  and  protocol  checklist  for  team  teaching,  lesson  plan  templates  for  co-­‐teaching   lessons,  and  clinical  handbooks  revised  to  include  co-­‐teaching  resources     Impact   Impact  was  reported  mostly  by  way  of  numbers  of  teachers  engaged  in  the  work  One  IHE  indicated  that   their  partners  had  increased  from  one  district  to  four  and  will  continue  to  impact  other  districts  served   by  the  local  educational  service  center  partner  Another  IHE  noted  that  they  initially  intended  their   teacher  partners  to  number  six    to  eight;  however,  17  teachers  have  expressed  interest       Grantees  report  that  stakeholders  who  will  benefit  include  those  with  whom  they  partner  directly,   including  pre-­‐service  teachers;  teacher  candidates  and  the  cooperating  teachers  who  support  them;   teacher  teams  and  their  students  in  partner  schools  They  have  identified  other  stakeholders  who  will   also  profit,  including  any  university  faculty  who  may  wish  to  use  online  modules  created  as  part  of  this   project     Institutions  reported  that  multiple  sources  of  data  will  be  used  to  formatively  assess  the  effectiveness  of   their  projects  at  different  points  in  time,  including  the  following:     19     • • • • • • • • Feedback  on  modules  that  are  developed  and  piloted   Focus  group  interviews  of  teachers  participating  in  professional  development   Teacher  candidate  reflection  journals   Surveys  given  to  workshop  participants   Classroom  observation  data  from  team  teaching  at  partnership  schools   Pre-­‐  and  post-­‐lesson  assessments  given  to  students  who  have  been  co-­‐taught  by  university   faculty  and  partner  schools   Teacher  candidate  learning  and  performance  data  (qualitative  and  quantitative)   Disciplinary  and  observational  data  collected  from  weekly  teacher-­‐based  team  meetings     Common  Themes   The  following  themes  emerged  from  a  review  of  Simultaneous  Renewal  annual  grant  reports         Partnering  districts  and  schools—whether  long-­‐term  or  new  partners—were  eager  to   collaborate  early  on  with  higher  education  institutions  who  led  the  project  Both  IHEs  and   partners  recognized  the  need  to  either  sustain  existing  relationships  or  build  new  ones       There  appeared  to  be  a  strong  interest  on  the  part  of  districts  and  schools  to  learn  about  and     implement  co-­‐teaching  processes  as  a  way  to  support  student  learning     Time  (e.g.,  planning,  meeting,  working  around  K-­‐12  school  calendars,  release  of  grant  funds)  has   been  a  challenge,  but  grantees  managed  those  challenges  by  allowing  teachers  to  determine   many  of  the  meeting  days  and  times;  allowing  for  flexible  scheduling  (working  into  the  evening);   and  taking  advantage  of  teachers’  summer  break  to  facilitate  some  of  the  work                     20               ... Executive ? ?Summary   During  2 015  –  2 016 ,  the  Ohio  Deans  Compact  on  Exceptional  Children  funded  a  total ? ?of ? ?15  Incentive   Grants  to  a  total ? ?of ? ?11  Ohio  institutions ? ?of  higher...  Cincinnati………… 10     Synthesis ? ?and ? ?Summary ? ?of  Findings  for  Incentive  Grants  Institutions’  Year  One  Annual  Reports   Priority  Area  #  3:  Shawnee  State  University,  University ? ?of  Rio  Grande...  areas ? ?of  Ohio  Proposals  could  address  one  or   more ? ?of  Priority    Areas   #1,  #2, ? ?and  #3     The  purpose ? ?of  Priority  Area  # ? ?1  was  to  restructure  existing  general ? ?and  special