Research & Data Collection

Alignment with Current Initiatives

TECC 5-Year Strategic Plan

Obj. 2: Increase Satisfaction of In-Service Teachers

2a. Engage teacher voice in identifying areas of support need and high impact retention strategies
2b. Identity key data points that are most important for in-service teachers to focus on for professional growth and student outcomes

Obj. 3: Provide Meaningful Incentives for Recruitment and Retention

3a. Jointly identify next level of work needed to build HIDOE coordination networks with IHEs and alternative route programs

Obj. 6: Improve Special Education Teaching Experiences

6a. Understand existing support for Special Education teachers relative to scope of work and responsibilities
6a. Conduct focus group or survey special education teacher to identify challenges to entering and staying in the special education position as well as what supports would be valued

Project Activities

Lead Coordinator: Janet Kim

Project Outcomes

Needs Analysis: Special Education Teachers

A total of 53 special education teachers had responded to the prompt "What do you need right now"? SPEDucators were given de-identified responses and asked to categorize them using an extension of Maslow's Hierarchy. A sample of their findings are below:

Key Findings:

Support (Admin, Colleagues, PD, Emotional)
Community
Connection
Validation
Funding
Physical Materials

Professional Development for Special Education Teachers

Need: Changing the Narrative

Key Findings (Recruitment subgroup focus group):

Change the public perception of students with disabilities as not smart, and change the mindset of the students themselves
Need more stories of success and the rewards that come with teaching
Showcase abilities, not disabilities - showcase student strengths
Change how general education teachers see special education - need more empathy and ownership
Understanding of the LRE continuum

Need: Special Education Teacher Evaluation

Danielson Rubric Adaptation

At the January convening, SPEDucators were broken into groups to discuss teacher evaluation from the perspective of special education, in relation to their age-level. FSC and CBI teachers were separated into their own group, as their students often have the most severe needs and don't fit in with traditional forms of assessment. SPEDucators were given the following guiding questions:

What should SPEDucators be evaluated on?
What evidence can be collected across domains?
Is there anything still missing?

Discuss in groups, but goal would be to create a rubric that could be applied more broadly for all special education teachers.

Inconsistencies: Admin don't understand their job and just say "you do a great job" or super by the book & literal interpretation
Criteria for participation and discussions don't fit this age level
For Preschoolers in sped, totally incapable of doing the distinguished levels. Feels like middle or high school level expectations.
Prior to observation, make sure admin understands academic and behavioral issues prior to observation.

Lots of what we want admin to do, but keeping high expectations
What does engagement look like in an inclusion classroom, how might they “speak” in other ways (i.e. body language, exit ticket)
Making admin aware of students and situations prior to observations

Doesn't take into account managing student behaviors, including student absences
Verbage used - is it appropriate to what we are doing? What is a cognitively busy classroom across multiple classroom settings?
It goes “both ways,” can observation of ourselves be used to evaluate the evaluator during the same process so that they know they’re being monitored as well?
Idea: Relationship building process instead. Build teacher and the evaluator to teacher relationship. Importance of respect, especially in regards to being given unsolicited advice.

A lot of the language used is left up to interpretation
The person interpreting doesn’t understand what it looks like in our classroom
Need to understand students and the behavior interventions in place

Overall Findings & Recommendations

Administrators need to understand more about special education and what to expect
The language used in Danielson should be more inclusive of different ways of communicating, participating, and demonstrating knowledge
Administrators should review IEPs and/or behavior plans ahead of the observation
Sometimes criteria feel more aimed at student ability, rather than teacher ability

FSC/CBI Revised - Hawaii Adapted Framework for Teaching Rubrics with Indicators

Adapting Charlotte Danielson for FSC/CBI Settings

The pipeline subgroup took this task further, by analyzing how the current Danielson rubric, being used for EES, applies to special education settings. In addition, adaptations to the rubric were proposed to better fit the needs of teachers and students working in fully self-contained and community-based instructional placements. In addition, suggestions on how skills could be developed from teacher candidacy to distinguished classroom special education teacher are provided.

Need: Challenges to entering and staying

(SPEDucator-Led Focus Groups)

During February and March Convenings, the Professional Development Subgroup (n = 4) hosted and ran a series of 4 focus groups: 2 with UH SPED teacher candidates and 2 with current HIDOE special education teachers. They developed the guiding questions, solicited volunteers to participate, and ran the focus groups in breakout groups during the SPEDucator Convening. Volunteers (n=17) were given $25 gift cards each for participating. Each SPEDucator had a turn in being either the moderator or note-taker for each focus group. Summary of findings are presented below.

UH Sped Teacher Candidates Focus Group Questions

UHM SPED Teacher Candidates

HIDOE Sped Teachers Focus Group Questions

Current Special Education Teachers

Presentations to Stakeholders

Recruitment & Retention Focus Group Summary

Recruitment & Retention

SPEDucator Focus Groups: Recruitment & Pipeline Subgroups

SPEDucator Retention Findings

Retention

SPEDucator Pipeline Subgroup

Proposed Next Steps