A National Assessment of Staff Development Needs Related to the Education of Students with Disabilities

Focus on Exceptional Children, Apr 2003 by Meyen, Edward L, Ramp, Eugene, Harrod, Cheryl A, Bui, Yvonne N

Although this review did not result in any topics being moved to Category 1, it did stimulate discussion on two issues.

1. The omission of early childhood in the needs assessment process.

2. The focus on topics most important to middle and secondary schools.

Participants agreed that if further staff development modules are developed in the future, preschool needs should be included in the assessment process. With reference to the middle- and secondary-school emphasis, it was decided, in reviewing the Category 1 priority rankings, that the general need for staff development was greater at those levels. This is not to suggest that the topics do not generalize to teachers at the elementary level. Consequently, once the priority topics were selected from Category 1, they were analyzed in terms of their application to the middle- and secondary-school levels.

Once the topics were selected, content maps in the form of outlines were developed as a way of operationally defining the topics. This was considered important prior to engaging writers to develop content for the modules.

Following are the topics selected for development in the form of online modules.

1. Curricular design and instructional accommodations for secondary students with mild disabilities.

2. Relating instructional assessments to standards.

3. Models for collaboration.

4. Transition-focused secondary education for all students.

5. Developing standards-based IEPs.

SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED

1. The use of focus groups proved to be an effective strategy for developing an item pool of staff-development needs and topics of national importance. Considerable overlap occurred across focus groups. The topics that surfaced most frequently were the ones ultimately ranked in the national response category in the prioritization process via the online instrument.

2. Use of the Web to obtain responses to a validation and prioritizing instrument was effective with a sample of respondents with vested interests in the results. This was not a random sample. all respondents had been involved in some aspect of generating items or were participating in the project.

3. Consensus can be achieved on staff development topics warranting attention at the national level. Although the language may vary for how best to describe each topic, groups with national perspectives share common views on staff development needs when judged by categories of priority needs.

4. Needs specific to curriculum content or subject-matter fields did not receive significant attention in the needs-assessment process because the Academy had already addressed may of them in previously developed online modules in reading, positive behavioral support (PSB), and technology in education. A process that engages teachers rather than staff development specialists and experts in national roles might result in more curriculum/instruction related topics.

5. The high-priority topics derived largely from the consequences of reauthorization of IDEA.

6. Focus group participants had serious concerns about staff-development issues. The level of discourse was consistent, and each session could have gone beyond the scheduled timeframe.