Main content

Alert message

What is a caseload analysis?

A caseload analysis is a one-week or one-month snapshot of how the VI teacher allocates time. VI teachers usually work one-to-one with a student and must travel to several campuses, homes, and/or districts to carry out required duties. A caseload analysis looks at several factors inherent in the VI itinerant job to clarify staffing patterns. These factors include assessment responsibilities, travel, and direct and/or consultative responsibilities. There are many different tools (or methods) developed to conduct this analysis, but generally the results of various approaches are comparable.

Assumptions:

  • Caseload analysis is an important part of program management.
  • Among the most influential factors for job retention cited by VI professionals are caseload size and composition.
  • Caseload analyses are conducted on a regular, periodic basis and when the district (or service area) has a significant change in student population or professional services.
  • A caseload analysis is based on verifiable data, not just verbal comments or recollections.
  • A caseload analysis is conducted collaboratively by a member of the administration and VI staff.
  • Changes made to VI staffing patterns will be preceded by an updated caseload analysis.
  • The data gathered in a caseload analysis reflects what students need, not just what the district is currently able to provide.

Why should I conduct a caseload analysis?

Caseload analysis is a critical procedure for the pro-active administrator. It translates program practices into hard data which can be used for program evaluation. This data is useful when communicating with people who are not familiar with the program, such as shared service arrangement (SSA) boards or superintendents.

Whenever you are considering adding, deleting, or modifying a VI itinerant position, the information gleaned from a caseload analysis helps you justify your actions by providing concrete data. Caseload analysis can also be used to make sure your VI teacher's caseload is not so large that quality services cannot be provided.

As districts change, grow and respond to new district and statewide initiatives, the amount of time that the VI professional spends with (or on behalf of) each student may more closely reflect the many demands placed on the VI professional and less accurately reflect what students need. As a result, it is beneficial for the students, VI professionals and administrators to review data on how VI resources are being used. If changes are needed, the data from the caseload analysis will reflect the nature of the needed changes.

What does a caseload analysis take into consideration?

Most caseload analyses consider categories of students and how they receive services. A caseload analysis includes how VI professionals are currently spending their time AND the amount of time that students need (which may or may not be currently provided). Other factors include:

  • Severity of the impairment
  • Age of the student
  • Amount of time needed to reach each student and the distance traveled
  • Planning time
  • The degree to which materials must be modified (e.g., brailling and enlarging print materials)
  • The amount of time spent consulting with professionals, parents, agencies, and others.

Also considered are the educational needs of each student that extend beyond the general education curricula (e.g., learning to use special technology, social skills, daily living skills, braille) and direct or consultative service hours as per IEP specifications. In order for students to optimize their independence, the VI professional may need to work with students beyond school hours, in non-traditional settings, and with a broad array of community resources.

Why don't we just pick a number of students, say 15, and use that as a "cap" for a VI itinerant caseload?

There are many reasons why this would not be an equitable solution. The range of ages and severity of the students' impairment dictate a multitude of intervention options. Students with total blindness require extensive intervention and modification from birth through graduation. Generally speaking, with a caseload of 12 students, it would be very labor intensive for a VI professional to carry more than two functionally blind students, especially if either of the students were in the primary grades, or in high school with a heavy math and science load. In such situations, either the caseload should be modified, a braillist hired, or another solution implemented which would not compromise the quality of services to the students.

Infants and toddlers with low vision are at a critical developmental stage. During this time, consistent and frequent intervention may mean the difference between using vision to its fullest, and functioning at a lower level. Students with multiple impairments including a visual impairment require frequent consultation with the educational team in order for intervention to have its greatest affect.

Caseloads are made up of various types of students requiring different kinds of assistance at different stages of their lives. This makes "picking a number" an unsatisfactory approach.

Who should conduct the caseload analysis?

A member of the districts' administrative staff and the VI staff can best complete the analysis. The VI professionals are able to provide information about the students. The administrator is able to translate program data into formats which can be communicated beyond the special education program, such as to superintendents or co-op/SSA boards.

It may also be desirable to include someone from outside the district, especially if the program staff is fairly new or inexperienced (either in VI services or conducting a caseload analysis). You could contact your regional consultant or the Outreach Department at the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired for assistance.

When is the best time of the year to conduct a caseload analysis?

Caseload analyses are most useful when completed in time to make budget recommendations to the school or co-op/SSA. Allow enough time to introduce the process to the VI staff, let them provide information, and to discuss the results once the process is nearing completion.

While student populations and schedules are always subject to change, there are times when changes tend to be less frequent, usually starting in October. If you are using a model that requires the teachers to keep a daily log for one week, select a week that does not have holidays or class parties.

If you currently do not have a full-time VI teacher, but will be using the caseload analysis to justify a new or expanded position, the analysis can be done at any time before the budget is due. In districts with more than one teacher or O&M specialist, the caseload analysis may help allocate students between teachers/specialists to most efficiently and effectively meet the needs of students.

Special considerations

Several sensitive issues may arise in caseload analyses. These include, but are not limited to, the issues listed below:

  • Students may not have access to instruction in the expanded core curriculum. (See Goal 8 of the National Agenda)
  • VI professionals may not have the skills needed to assess and/or provide instruction in the expanded core curriculum.
  • VI and O&M consultant(s) from the regional service center may provide technical assistance in conducting the caseload analysis, assessing needs in the expanded core curriculum, or arranging for professional development in areas not yet fully developed.
  • Some VI professionals may view the caseload analysis process as a questioning of their professional expertise, the use of district resources, or other personal factors.

Which of the caseload analysis tools should I use?

Methods included in this section represent those which are most widely used. Each method reveals approximately the same information. Data should include not only time that is currently spent with each child, but also the time needed if the child was assessed in, and received, a full compliment of compensatory skills.

Though the methods produce similar results, you and your staff may have a preference for one method (or process) and find it easier to use than the others.

Summary of sample of caseload analysis tools

The caseload tools and summaries are presented in random order.

QPVI Caseload Analysis (from A Guide to Quality Programs for Students with Visual Impairments)

This includes an array of forms and guidelines. The forms can be used with both VI and O&M staff. One form is used to document all scheduled activity for one week. Another form is used to collect many pieces of information about an individual staff member's caseload of students. Directions for completing each form are provided, as well as guidelines for interpreting the data. Also included are completed samples of each form.

The Michigan Severity Rating Scales for Students with Visual Impairments

This comes in three sections. The Vision Severity Rating Scale would be applicable for students in general education settings and may be applicable for some students with additional mild impairments.

The Vision Severity Rating Scale for Students with Additional Impairments is intended for students who have additional moderate to profound impairments.

The Michigan Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scale is specific to Orientation and Mobility specialists.

All scales are sequentially structured in terms of impact of visual functioning as it relates to the student's educational program. These scales could be used to analyze a caseload before a vision professional is hired because it predicts the amount of service needed based on the complexities of individual students.

Iowa Caseload Size for Itinerant Teachers

This presents a straightforward formula for full-time equivalents (FTE's), which is intended to be used to calculate the caseload size for itinerant teachers.

The AER Itinerant Personnel Division or APSEA Guidelines for Determining Caseload Size for Teachers of the Visually Impaired

This tool divides students into categories according to age groups. Within each age group, the hours needed to adequately serve the student are specified. This data reflects vision status, direct service and/or consultation needs, and time for adapting materials and/or preparation. Definitions of terms and categories are provided. The outcome will be the total number of hours comprising the caseload of an itinerant teacher with suggestions for an acceptable range of hours for both full- and part-time positions.

What do I do with the information?

Depending on the method you use, you should start to see patterns emerge related to time spent working with students, traveling, preparing materials, attending meetings, consulting with others, etc.

Remember that typically there are 37.5 hours in the work week (if you discount lunch). Compare the totals of time spent against the 37.5 hour work week and you should get an idea of how much time your VI professionals are taking to get the job done. If more than 37.5 hours per week per VI professional is needed, then evaluate the following factors:

  • The number of schools served. This impacts time spent traveling and the number of working relationships required for each campus.
  • The ages and grade levels of students. Infants require immediate intervention with frequent training for families and ECI personnel specific to development of infants with visual impairments. Emergent readers, both tactile and low vision, require intensive intervention and coordination with general education personnel. As students' get older and curriculum become more visually challenging, coordination of modifications and direct instruction become critical. For example, once students enter middle school, VI professionals must meet and plan with approximately 5 new teachers per semester to provide curricular adaptations and recommendations for modifications.
  • Direct vs. Consult Service Delivery. Students receiving direct service require individualized lesson planning for VI goals, in addition to classroom consultations with all staff. The consult model requires frequent meetings with related service and instructional personnel, providing specialized methods and materials as needed.
  • The amount of time spent in travel. Travel for VI professionals is a critical part of the job. It is also time- and budget-consuming. Are the travel patterns for the VI professional(s) efficient and workable?
  • The number of hours per week spent performing activities in support of instruction. Sufficient time should be allotted for materials procurement and preparation, lesson preparation, research, and consultation with agencies. Remember, each student's program is individualized. If there are 15 students, there are at least 15 separate preparations.
  • The number of braille students. Braille students require a tremendous amount of preparation, planning, and consultation for them to be integrated smoothly into general education classes. Braille readers in pre-kindergarten through 2nd grade may need three hours each day of the VI teacher's time (in instruction and preparation). Older braille readers should receive approximately five hours of direct service weekly, not counting the amount of time needed for preparation and consultation. If the VI teacher is responsible for brailling, the amount of time needed for brailling materials (especially math and science materials) may be significant, even with computerized programs.

These are the major factors you will consider. Once you have collected the data and discussed it with your teacher, you will have a much clearer picture of the itinerant position and its demands. The data you collect will help move the decision to hire additional staff beyond the realm of conjecture.

The following information is from postings to the AERNET listserv and DVH-S listserv and was gathered in February 1997. This information was not verified by the actual schools so there may be inaccuracies, however, this information does demonstrate that states vary widely in how funding at the specialized school is handled.

Arizona:

State budget and in addition "voucher" money for each student. The state gives the voucher money to the specialized school instead of the district. No actual cost to district, however, they loose the voucher funds for that student. Out of state/country pay a tuition rate established annually.

California:

State pays majority of tuition for specialized school. Local districts pay 10% of the cost differential to educate a student. (Example, the district pays $5,000 to educate a non-disabled school, the cost of the specialized school is $50,000, the difference is $45,000 so the district pays 10% of this which is $4,500).

Maryland (private school):

Receives 85% of funding from a state grant each year. $100 each semester for a Maryland resident who is educated at the school. If you only count 185 students educated on campus then cost is $55,000 per child. However, they have summer programs and other services and when you count all this cost per child drops considerably.

New Jersey (private school):

School districts pay all costs for day students (estimate cost $35,000). For residential students the residence fees (estimate $17,000) is paid by either the NJ Commission for the Blind or the district (debate at present over who should pay).

New York:

State funded. No costs to districts. Districts do receive less state aid (the cost of educating a non-handicapped student) when they send a student to the specialized school. The district pays the transportation, but is reimbursed by the state.

Tennessee:

State budget for the specialized school so no cost to state residents. If a student in a district must go out of state for services, the LEA must pay the cost.

Texas:

School is state funded. District must pay a "token" cost for educating a student at the specialized school. This is the same amount as it would be to educate the student in the local school district if he/she was nondisabled.

Washington:

School funded by state. No direct cost to the district. Estimated costs: residential $32,000, day $25,000. If count ALL students receiving some form of services from the school then cost drops to about $8,000 per student.

For out of state students there is a tuition rate charged to that student's district.

Dr. L. Penny Rosenblum
University of Arizona
Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation
520-621-3299 (Office) 520-621-3821 (FAX)

Go to Top of Page


Phil Hatlen

Presented at the AER Convention, Denver

July, 2000

For the last ten years of my life, I seem to be in a rut. There are four general topics on which I am usually asked to speak or write:

  1. The School for the Blind in the Future;
  2. The National Agenda;
  3. The Expanded Core Curriculum;
  4. The Old Man Talks About History

Well, my friends, tempted as I am, I am not going to re-visit any of those vital topics. Instead, I want to talk with you for a few minutes about something much more esoteric.

In recent years, I’ve experienced tremendous growth in my spiritual life, an experience I’d be pleased to share with you at another time in another place. I only mention it because one of the aspects of that growth has been to examine, within myself, what I choose to call (1) Fundamental Truths; and (2) Personal Convictions. I was thinking about the differences between these two when I recently accessed the O&M list serve and found an ongoing discussion about the efficacy of Orientation and Mobility Assistants (OMAs). I felt myself getting sucked into the discussion, and I wanted to pound some sense into those who disagreed with me. Then I stopped and said to myself, “Is my position about OMAs a fundamental truth or is it a personal conviction?.”

If it is a fundamental truth, I should go to the "mat" for it. If it is a personal conviction, then I must allow others to hold their personal convictions, and participate in non-aggressive, non-attacking, discussion whose foundation is mutual respect. When I get into trouble in this world is when I defend a personal conviction as though it was a fundamental truth. Then I lose the power and advantage a fundamental truth gives me, and I become confused and confusing.

My friends and colleagues, what our profession begs of us is to establish fundamental truths, and then never, ever back down from them. In the process of considering my list of fundamental truths, I found it necessary to review much of my professional life, to examine years of experience, to recall the words and writings of others, and to reach deep inside of me and uncover those few statements that I believe all of us would accept as fundamental truths. This is what came of a sometimes painful, sometimes revealing, and in the final analysis, a wonderful feeling as I released all else to the category of personal convictions. Can we all agree on the following?

Fundamental Truths in the Education of Blind and Visually Impaired Students

  1. All blind and visually impaired students have the capability for inclusion into society, at a time and to a degree that is appropriate for each individual, and is chosen by that individual.
  2. Assessment, educational planning, and placement decisions must be driven by the individual needs of each student.
  3. Every blind and visually impaired student must have the services of a qualified teacher of students with visual impairments and an orientation and mobility instructor for sufficient time to meet identified needs.
  4. Parents and educators form a special, vital, and necessary partnership.
  5. All blind and visually impaired persons must have the opportunity to be equal, and the right to be different.

After agonizing over a long, complex list of what I once considered Fundamental Truths, I have discovered, for me, that they can be briefly stated in five points. They can be summed up as: (a) equality; (b) dignity; (c) personal choice; (d) individualization; (e) professional intervention; (f) parents as partners.

We, you and I, may not share fundamental truths, and if we don’t, we need to get together, because if there is one thing that will destroy a profession, it is lack of agreement on its fundamental truths. On my less optimistic days, I sometimes feel that we continually divide and weaken ourselves by our lack of agreement on fundamental truths.

Some of the thoughts that occur to me are:

  1. Do we always teach skills that will enhance satisfaction and fulfillment for the student in adult life? Do we always respect the differences in our students, and recognize that independent, inclusive life exists on a continuum for all of us?
  2. Do we always individualize our services? Do we provide truly comprehensive assessments, do we plan for and teach all assessed educational needs, do we determine placements based on need, not philosophy? If we don’t, are we denying a fundamental truth in our profession? When we don’t hold to our fundamental truths, what message does that give to administrators, to parents, to the general public?
  3. We have skills possessed by no one else--no classroom teacher, no para-professional, no volunteer, no generic special education teacher. What have we done to this fundamental truth when we allow a para-professional to teach braille, when we assume the classroom teacher will teach reading of graphics, when we think the generic special education teacher can teach living skills? Should not this be a non-negotiable fundamental truth for which we will stand up and be counted?
  4. Long before federal law mandated our working closely with parents, we had, as a profession, acknowledged the value, the necessity of enlisting parents as partners. Have we violated this fundamental truth when we come to an IEP meeting with a completed IEP? When we do not value the ideas and opinions of parents?

Personal convictions shape our individual characters, and are what makes each of us different within our profession. They are good and they are positive, because they provide “meat to the bones” of our fundamental truths. But personal convictions become truly dangerous when we confuse them with fundamental truths. Following is a list of some of my personal convictions. I don’t think it would surprise you to know that, at various times in my life, I would have identified every one of them as fundamental truths. And perhaps some of them are—only you and I together will decide that.

Personal Convictions

  1. I believe that schools for the blind are essential in order to meet the individual needs of all students.
  2. I believe that low vision students have needs that are just as intensive as blind students.
  3. I believe that no teacher of students with visual impairments, and no orientation and mobility instructor can meet the needs of students if she/he has a caseload of over eight students.
  4. I believe that we are a profession, with history, research, literature, methodologies, skills, and knowledge to justify the title of “profession”.
  5. I believe that the expanded core curriculum is just as important for blind and visually impaired students as is academic curriculum.
  6. I believe that it is possible for every human being to have a joyful, satisfying, and productive life.
  7. I believe the zealot inclusionists are wrong.
  8. I believe that the school for the blind should be the center of services for all blind and visually impaired students in a state.
  9. I believe that heroic, high-risk efforts must be made to solve the 50-year-old teacher shortage crisis.
  10. I believe that every child has a right to literacy.
  11. I believe that blindness and visual impairment cause significant differences in the manner and style by which students learn. It is more than an inconvenience.
  12. I believe that children with severe multiple disabilities are precious children, deserving of the very best that education has to offer.

I’m certain that every one of you have personal convictions about the education of blind and visually impaired students that you can add to this list. I would welcome the opportunity for an open forum in which we can discuss our personal convictions.

I would now like to present to you two current examples of what I believe is the difference between a fundamental truth and a personal conviction:

  1. Fundamental Truth: Every blind and visually impaired person must receive orientation and mobility services.

    Personal Conviction: Orientation and Mobility Assistants, well-prepared and creatively used, will be invaluable in assuring appropriate, individualized orientation and mobility services.

    We, as a profession united, must embrace the fundamental truth and never, ever waiver from that belief.

    I, as an individual, must be willing to discuss my conviction, promote it and defend it, in open forums that have as their foundation mutual respect.

  2. Fundamental Truth: Every child has a right to literacy.

    Personal Conviction: Literacy for braille-reading children requires that their teachers know braille and know how to teach it.

I am bothered and puzzled by our profession’s lack of clarity regarding fundamental truths. I am concerned by our reluctance to resist those persons, organizations, and policies that cause us to violate our own fundamental truths.

If we were true to our profession, we would not allow purveyors of generic rehabilitation to assume responsibility for what we know we should be doing.

If we firmly adhered to our fundamental truths, there would be no teacher with a caseload so large that she cannot teach elements of the expanded core curriculum. Caseload and curriculum would not be determined by administrators, but by us.

So, my first urging is that we, in unity and consensus, determine the foundation of our profession—the fundamental truths that we will consistently, and with whatever energy is necessary, guarantee for blind and visually impaired students.

Now, let’s move back to personal convictions. I stand before you today, deeply humbled and contrite, because for most of my professional life I have not made the distinction between fundamental truths and convictions. I have often taken positions, based on convictions, and presented and defended them to you as though they were fundamental truths. This means that I placed little or no value on your convictions, and that I was unwilling to have a discussion based on mutual respect. I was totally convinced that I was right and you were wrong.

Perhaps with this confession, you are able to better understand why the gradual revelation I have had is so critical to me.

My second urging, then is to not confuse personal convictions and fundamental truths. When you and I can discuss convictions in a forum of mutual respect and an open mind, we set the stage for tremendous progress and change.

Our fundamental truths must be imbedded in our hearts and minds, in our research and literature, and be presented firmly and without compromise to administrators, policy-makers, and legislators. Our convictions consist of beliefs that should be discussed openly and debated in-house, and should not involve those outside our profession.

I am ready and eager to share with all of you the development and implementation of a set of professional fundamental truths. I am ready and eager for discussions and exchanges regarding your personal convictions and mine.

Can we, AER, put into writing a set of non-negotiable fundamental truths that become the solid foundation on which our profession is built? I’m ready. Are you?

 

Presented at AER, Toronto, 2002
Marybeth Dean and Katherine Morgan

Challenges for Service Provision:

During the last decade there has been a steady increase in the number of visually impaired children nationwide, especially with a diagnosis of cortical visual impairment (JVIB, July, 2001, 418-433). Many of these children have multiple disabilities, including deafblindness, which results in the expectation of additional specialized consultation skills required by the Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments (TVI). During this time there has been a renewed emphasis on the importance of literacy for academic students, especially the braille readers. At the same time there has been limited increase in availability of Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments(TVI), resulting in large teacher caseloads. The combination of increased numbers of students and more time spent directly teaching braille and associated compensatory skills has resulted in drastically reducing the TVI time available for consultation on behalf of students with multiple disabilities.

Connecticut Perspective:

The Connecticut Board of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB), a state agency servicing adults and children, currently has 19 full time Education Consultants/TVIs to serve approximately 600 students. Though Connecticut is a small state, managing the itinerant model can become a juggling act. Caseloads for school-age consultants average thirty students, with three to four braille readers assigned to each consultant. With these challenges of service provision, BESB has had to make hard decisions about the level of service provision to “non-braille readers”. Ten years ago, TVIs routinely provided monthly consultation for students with multiple disabilities in “non-academic” programs; now in most cases, the consultation visits are down to four times a year, including the IEP meetings.

This level of consultation provides only a bare-bones service to the child, consisting of:

  • a classroom observation,
  • a functional vision assessment,
  • a consultation with the classroom teacher, and
  • the IEP meeting.

This model does not allow for regular exchange of information, a routine monitoring of child’s learning or a consistent assessment of the utility of suggestions previously provided. These infrequent consultations also provide little time to build a relationship with the classroom teacher, have contact with other professionals, or most importantly, develop a connection with the student herself. In many cases, Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments have started to feel that their consultation time is not well spent on behalf of these children since they see little change, either in the child’s progress or the child’s learning environment. Clearly, this model of consultation is not effective in providing information about specialized teaching strategies.

Meeting the needs:

In the spring of 2000, the deafblind specialists at BESB decided to try to fill this gap by training special education staff who work with “MH” kids in the local school districts. The proposed model of training would provide critical information as well as support to classroom teachers, PTs, OTs, Speech Therapists and others who worked with visually impaired children with multiple disabilities.

The first step was to send out a survey to local district special education directors to determine their level of interest and support for this training project. 50% of the surveys sent out to special education directors were returned. The results indicated a high level of support for the proposed in-service concept as well as a willingness to release staff to attend three full-day programs during the next school year. The first year in-service program was based on the information gained from this initial survey.

The plan for the first year was to provide a series of three programs, each presented at three sites within the state. The intent of this plan was to encourage participation by local school districts, and limit the drive time for their personnel. BESB collaborated with the New England Center for Deafblind Children (NEC) and the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) to identify the areas of learning, the presenters, and the financial costs required.

First Year Plan: 2000-2001

Sites: Three sites were selected for each of the three in-service programs, one site each in the southeastern, southwestern and north central parts of the state. Each of the three in-service programs was to be presented at each site. (Due to low enrollment, there was no fall session at the southeast site.)

Staffing: Six BESB education consultants (TVIs) volunteered to participate in this program. The consultants presented the fall in-service and assisted with logistics and in facilitating small group discussions for the winter and spring sessions. This required each staff member to participate four full work days, two in the fall and one each in winter and spring. Since the staff usually assists in presenting 2 days of in-service training in the fall, this program required only an additional 2 days.

Logistics: The logistics were managed this first year by CREC, a state agency which BESB had been using to sub-contract evaluation and teaching services for students. CREC assisted in securing locations, contracting with outside presenters, advertising, registration, and provision of morning coffee. BESB planned the program, lined up speakers and provided CEUs for participants.

First Year Presentations:

q Fall: Introduction: “Understanding the Visually Impaired Child who is Multiply Handicapped or Deafblind” included specific information on causes of visual impairment in children with multiple disabilities, especially cortical vision impairment, as well as classroom strategies, with an emphasis on communication.

Presenters: BESB Staff

  • Winter: “CVI: a Neurological View of Learning” presented a conceptual framework along with ideas for planning and implementing a meaningful curriculum.
    Presenter: Mary Morse, Ph.D.
  • Spring: “Building Strong Relationships/Literacy for the Multihandicapped” focused on issues of language learning, communication and quality interactions.
    Presenter: Barbara Miles, M.Ed.

First Year Summary

Participants: A total of 108 individuals participated in this training.

  • 59 Special Education Teachers
  • 13 Speech and Language Pathologists
  • 11 Paraprofessionals
  • 10 Physical Therapists
  • 7 Occupational Therapists
  • 8 Others (TVI, School Psychologist, Nurse, Supervisor)

Evaluations:

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being highest participants were asked to rate the overall program. The composite rating was 4.6.

Results of evaluation survey for future training:

  • Writing Functional IEP Goals 12
  • Practical Strategies 12
  • Sensory Integration 11
  • Communication/Literacy 10
  • Ideas for Inclusive Settings 9

Second Year Plan: 2001-2002

  • Year two was planned in much the same way as year one with just a few changes:
  • In addition to the New England Center, BESB, initiated a collaboration with the Special Education Resource Center (SERC) which took over the financial and site facilitation and CEUs provision.
  • Due to low attendance at one site location, it was decided to hold the inservice programs in only two sites.
  • Though the project team’s goal was to build an ongoing base of knowledge within school districts, through participants’ commitment to attend each of the inservice programs, this requirement was waived.
  • Stronger efforts were made to include parents in the trainings.
  • Two other learning opportunities were provided: a two-day workshop for Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments on cortical visual impairment and a video conference on triwall construction.
  • During this year a survey was sent to over 500 special education personnel and families state wide. The intent of the survey was to get additional information on training needs for future planning of professional preparation.

Second Year Activities:

  • Fall: Introduction: “Understanding the Visually Impaired Child who is Multiply Handicapped or Deafblind”. Agenda was a repeat of first year, intended as an introduction course for new staff, or for those who had not previously attended.
    Presenters: BESB Staff.
  • Winter: “Competent Conversations” observing the conversational interactions of students with multiple disabilities or deafblindness, and incorporating conversations and concepts into activities with these students.
    Presenter: Barbara Miles, M.Ed.
  • Spring: “A Functional Assessment Model” is based on a family-centered assessment with creation of goals that develop from the parents’ perspective and are functional and meaningful across the day.
    Presenter: Jennifer Grisham-Brown, Ed.D.
  • Additional Trainings:
    • Spring In-service: Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments
      “Cortical Visual Impairment, Assessment and Teaching Strategies”. While not specifically a part of the In-service Project, this in-service program strengthened the skills of the TVIs to assess and plan for children with CVI.
      Presenter: Christine Roman, Ph.D.
    • May, 2002. “Triwall Constructions” Videoconference Presentation. This videoconference was presented as a pilot project. Such a format has the potential to reach more teachers across the state in a cost-effective way while minimizing travel for both the presenters and participants.
      Presenters: Kathy Morgan, Kathy Green and Tonya Reed

Statewide Survey

The survey was developed to help provide direction for training for the third year of the in-service program. Surveys were disseminated via mail and direct distribution by the education consultants and itinerant vision teachers within the state to local school district personnel. The primary respondents were the special education personnel, then speech/language specialists, occupational therapists, with more limited numbers by parents and other personnel. The most requested training model is full day workshops within the local school districts, while the teleconference/on-line approach held little or no interest.

Of 27 topic areas the following were found to be most important:

  • Vision related: Cortical Visual Impairment, and Adaptations and Strategies
  • Communication: Strategies that facilitate effective communication, and Hands and touch in communication
  • Classroom Organization/Environments: Creation and modification of materials, and Developing learning environments.
  • Goals and Objectives: Writing functional goals and objectives, developing activities based on goals and objectives, and Approaches to challenging behaviors.
  • Transition Planning: Assistive technology as the primary interest, and Creating child centered portfolios.

Third Year Plan:2002-2003

The proposal for next year’s training program was formulated using survey results, feedback from participants and presenters, and on-site staff observations. In addition, an effort will be made to include parents in the trainings.

Collaboration continues between BESB, the New England Center for Services to Deafblind (NEC), the CT State Department of Education (for funding), and the Special Education Resource Center, for publicity, financial payments, site planning, and participant contact.

This year the training project will include a four-day Summer Institute as a way to provide more intensive training for the participants. The Summer Institute will address the topics of appropriate assessment and functional goal development for students with multiple disabilities/deafblindness. This training area was identified both by participant feedback in the spring of 2002 and strong response to the survey. Funding for this additional training program is being provided through the CT Department of Education and NEC.

During 2002-2003 school year, the pattern of trainings will remain the same: three separate days given at two different sites.

Third Year Activities

  • Summer Institute: “Functional Assessment and Writing Functional Goals and Objectives” will provide an overview of family and child-centered assessments (COACH and “Reaching for the Stars”) and writing goals/objectives based on the assessments.
    Presenters: Jennifer Grisham-Brown, Ed.D. and Susan Edelman, Ed.D.
    Planned and facilitated by Karen Olson and Kathy Morgan
  • Fall: “Introduction: Understanding the Visually Impaired Child who is Multiply Handicapped or Deafblind.” Agenda will be repeat of first year, intended as an introduction course for new staff, with additional information on assessments/goal writing.
    Presenters: BESB staff
  • Winter: “Creating Personal Portfolios for the Present and the Future” will provide an overview of the process of creation of student personal portfolios which help family and educational teams collaborate to improve student transitions.
    Presenter: Martha Majors, M.Ed.
  • Spring: “Working with Children Who Have Challenging Behaviors.” This workshop will explore various behaviors that children with multiple disabilities/deafblindness may exhibit, due to their inability to communicate and to cope with stress or transitions. It will include strategies for educational programming.
    Presenter: TBD

Thoughts for the future

As this training series continues to evolve, BESB Children’s Services personnel continue to analyze and consider options for future training for professionals within local school districts or specialized out-of-district educational programs. Through these trainings, provided by outstanding experts in the field, BESB has been able to provide information that is current, pertinent and based on research. The focus will continue to be the unique learning styles of students with multiple disabilities, and those students who are deafblind.

These state-wide trainings have been successful in creating a base of knowledge for special education personnel, in educating and strengthening advocacy skills for parents, and establishing a few educational teams who have become strong collaborators within their districts. The initial project with video conferencing showed that this could be another format to provide short, yet frequent ongoing trainings across the state.

Another possibility being considered is for BESB to establish partnerships with targeted school districts in an effort to train staff and develop “model” programs. These model programs could then become teaching resources “beyond” BESB to other schools or districts within their locality. It would be a big project for BESB to develop these partnerships, but the model program may provide another to means to provide this critical training..

In any case, as so many students continue to be identified, with so little time available to serve them, creating new opportunities to educate local school personnel will continue to be our challenge.