Technical Assistance Webinar Personnel Development To Improve Services

Technical Assistance Webinar Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities – Early Childhood Personnel Center CFDA 84. 325 B Office of Special Education Programs U. S. Department of Education May 5, 2017

Introductions & Logistical Information • Welcome – Presenter – Tracie Bullock Dickson • Web. Ex will be recorded • Please put any questions you have into the Chat Window, and they will be answered during the Question and Answer portion of the event 1

Topics for Discussion • • • Application Package Purpose Absolute Priority and Key Definitions Eligible Applicants Award Information Timeline Program Requirements Application and Administrative Requirements Selection Criteria 2

Application Package • Dear Colleague Letter • Notice Inviting Applications (A) • Priority Description and Selection Criteria (B) • General Information (C) • Applicant Transmittal Instructions (D) • Application Forms and Instructions (E) 3

Purpose of CFDA 84. 325 The purposes of the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities are to: – Help address State-identified needs for personnel preparation in special education, early intervention, related services, and regular education to work with children including infants and toddlers, with disabilities – Ensure that those personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined through scientifically based research and experience, to be successful in service those children 4

Absolute Priority • The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate an Early Childhood Personnel Center to achieve, at a minimum, the following: (a) Increased capacity of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 programs, and other early childhood service sectors (e. g. , Head Start, Early Head Start, Child Care, State-funded pre-K) to implement, scale up, and sustain a coordinated CSPD to ensure local personnel have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families; 5

Absolute Priority (cont. ) (b) Increased knowledge , skills, and competencies of State IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 administrators to lead systemic improvement efforts, actively engage in broader early childhood initiatives, use TA effectively, and build more effective and sustainable State systems that can support a competent early childhood workforce that can improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families; and (c) Increased knowledge, skills, and competencies of early childhood IHE faculty to align programs of study to State and national professional organization personnel standards, integrate Division of Early Childhood (DEC) recommended practices throughout early childhood curricula, and design programs of study utilizing adult learning principles. 6

Key Definitions • For purposes of this priority, ‘‘early childhood workforce’’ refers to personnel who provide early care, developmental, and education services to children birth through age five, including early intervention service providers, service coordinators, early childhood special educators, related services providers, public or private preschool teachers, home and centerbased child care providers, Head Start and Early Head Start teachers, and home visitors. 7

Key Definitions • CSPD is a requirement under IDEA Part C in section 635(a)(8) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 303. 118. Though a CSPD is not a requirement under IDEA Part B, the Personnel/Workforce section of the System Framework for Building High-Quality Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Programs (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2015) was developed for use by both IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619. • The Personnel/Workforce section of the framework identifies the following components of a high-quality CSPD: Leadership, coordination, and sustainability; State personnel standards; preservice personnel development; in-service personnel development; recruitment and retention; and evaluation. For more background on CSPD see: http: //ecpcta. org/cspd 8

Eligible Applicants • SEAs; State lead agencies, local educational agencies (LEAs), including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. 9

Award Information • Total amount of federal funds available: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $2, 000 for a single budget period of 12 months. • Project period: Up to 60 months 10

Timeline • Notice inviting applications published: – April 19, 2017 • Deadline for submitting application is: – June 5, 2017 by 4: 30: 00 PM Washington DC time • Deadline for intergovernmental review: – August 2, 2017 • Grantees announced and funding distributed by: – October 1, 2017 11

Page Limits • A page is 8. 5 x 11 (on one side only) with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides • Double space all text • Use a font that is 12 point or larger • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, or Arial • The application narrative can be no more than 50 pages 12

Page Limits • Appendix A: Reviewers will be instructed to review the content of Appendix A. • Charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots and logic models that provide information directly relating to the application requirements for the narrative should be the only items included in Appendix A should not be used for supplementary information. Please note that charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models can be single-spaced when placed in an Appendix A. 13

Q&A

Program Requirements Five Sections Demonstrate in the narrative section: (1)Significance of the Project (2)Quality of Project Services (3)Quality of Evaluation Plan (4)Adequacy of Project Services (5)Quality of Management Plan 15

Significance of the Project How the proposed Project will-(1) Address the need for States to be able to implement, scale up, and sustain a coordinated CSPD with personnel who have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families. See Page B-4 & B-5 16

Significance of the Project How the Propose Project will— (2) Present information on the current state of IHEs’ abilities to effectively prepare early childhood personnel to have the competencies to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs to improve outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families. See Page B-4 & B-5 See Page B-4 and B-5 17

Significance of the Project How the Propose Project will-(3) Improve the early childhood workforce to deliver high-quality services and inclusive programs that lead to improved outcomes for young children with disabilities and their families, and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements. See Page B-4 & B-5 See Page B-4 and B-5 18

Quality of Project Services How the proposed project will— (1) Ensure equal access and treatment to members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (2) Achieve its goals, objectives and intended outcomes (3) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities. (4) Be based on current research and make use of practices supported by evidence. See page B-5 through B-9 19

Quality of Project Services (cont. ) (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. (i) Proposed approach to identify or develop a knowledge base (ii) Proposed approach to Universal TA (iii) Proposed approach to Targeted TA (iv) Proposed approach to Intensive TA See page B-5 through B-9 20

Quality of Project Services (cont. ) (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. (i) Proposed approach to use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; (ii)With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and (iii) Proposed approach to use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes See page B-5 through B-9 21

Quality of the Evaluation Plan The evaluation plan must describe-- • Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project’s products and services have reached its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project’s activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met. • See pages B-9 22

Adequacy of Project Resources Describe how -(1) The project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate; (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project’s intended outcomes; (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits. • See Page B 9 -B 10 23

Quality of Management Plan The proposed management plan will ensure that the project’s intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. – Clearly defined responsibilities – Timelines and milestone – Allocation of key personnel – Products and services are of high quality, relevant, and useful – Diversity of perspectives • See pages B 10 -B 11 24

Application Requirements (1) Logic Model (2) Conceptual Framework (3) Personnel Loading Charts and Timelines (4) Budget See Pages B 10 -B 11 25

Include in Budget • A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, during each subsequent year of the project period. • A two and one-half day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; • Three trips annually to attend Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and • A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, during the last half of the second year of the project period; • An annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs See Pages B 11 -12 26

Additional Application Requirements: (6) Engage doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows in the project (7) Maintain a website • See page B 11 -B 12 27

Q&A

SELECTION CRITERIA FY 2017, CFDA 84. 325 B 1. Significance of the Project (5 points) 2. Quality of Project Services (40 points) 3. Quality of Project Evaluation (25 points) 4. Adequacy of Project Resources (15 points) 5. Quality of Management Plans (20 points) 100 points See Application Package pages B-19 thru B -22 29

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT (0 -5 POINTS) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: i. The extent to which the proposed project will address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities that will have been identified; and ii. The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project. 30

QUALITY OF (0 -40 PROJECT SERVICES POINTS) In determining the quality of project services, the Secretary considers the following factors: § (i) quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. § (ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed activities and the quality of that framework. § (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. 31

QUALITY OF (0 -40 PROJECT SERVICES POINTS) In determining the quality of project services, the Secretary considers the following factors: § (iv) The extent to which the proposed products and services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to the outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project. § (v) The extent to which the products and services to be developed and provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, collaboration with appropriate partners, and the leveraging of non-project resources. 32

QUALITY OF PROJECT (0 -25 POINTS) In determining the quality. EVALUATION of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors: § (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. § (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide data and performance feedback for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies and the progress toward achieving intended outcomes. § (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the project has met intended outcomes. 33

ADEQUACY OF PROJECT RESOURCES (0 -15 POINTS) (2) In determining the adequacy of resources, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors: (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (i. e. , project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors). (ii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization and key partners. (iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits. 34

QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN (0 -20 POINTS) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors: § (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. § (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director, project staff, and project consultants or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. § (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. § (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. 35

Q&A

THANK YOU! Tracie. Dickson@ed. gov 202 -245 -7844 Grants. gov Support Desk 1 -800 -518 -4726 37