Prekindergarten Program for
Children with Disabilities
Program and Training Survey
2004
Florida Department of Education
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
This is one of many publications available through the Bureau of Instructional Support and
Community Services, Florida Department of Education, designed to assist school districts,
state agencies which support educational programs, and parents in the provision of special
programs. For additional information on this publication, or for a list of available
publications, contact the Clearinghouse Information Center, Bureau of Instructional Support
and Community Services, Florida Department of Education, Room 628 Turlington Bldg.,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400.
telephone: (850) 245-0477 or Suncom: 205-0477
FAX: (850) 245-0987 or Suncom: 205-0987
e-mail: cicbiscs@fldoe.org
website: http://www.myfloridaeducation.com/commhome/
Prekindergarten Program for
Children with Disabilities
Program and Training Survey
2004
University of Central Florida
Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute
Florida Department of Education
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
This product was developed by the Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute through
University of Central Florida , funded by the State of Florida, Department of Education, Bureau
of Instructional Support and Community Services, through federal assistance under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B.
Although this study was funded by the Florida Department of Education, the recommenda
tions expressed herein are solely those of University of Central Florida faculty and are not
necessarily endorsed by the Department of Education.
Copyright
State of Florida
Department of State
2004
Authorization for reproduction is hereby granted to the state system of public education
consistent with section 1006.39(2), Florida Statutes. No authorization is granted for distribu
tion or reproduction outside the state system of public education without prior approval in
writing.
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project ........................................................................... 1
Methodology .......................................................................................... 2
Instrument Development ..................................................................................... 2
Preliminary Draft............................................................................................
2
Conference Call.............................................................................................
3
Draft...............................................................................................................
3
Data Follow-Up..............................................................................................
3
Distribution and Return..................................................................................
4
Data Reduction and Analysis................................................................. 4
Summary of Survey Results .................................................................. 4
Return
.................................................................................................................
5
Demographic Data .............................................................................................. 6
Service Locations ..........................................................................................
6
Number of Teachers Employed and Their Certification Status......................
7
Requirements for Instructional Assistants .....................................................
8
Service Delivery .................................................................................................. 8
General Educational Services ........................................................................
8
Speech/Language Pathology, Occupational Therapy,
and Physical Therapy...............................................................................
10
Personnel Assignment Policies ....................................................................
10
Curricula .......................................................................................................
11
Entry of Children throughout the Year ..........................................................
11
Assessment Process of Initial Eligibility .......................................................
12
Transition........................................................................................................... 13
When Districts Begin Providing Services .....................................................
13
Determining Eligibility ...................................................................................
13
Communication and Coordination Strategies...............................................
15
Primary Areas of Program Need and Recommendations for Addressing ......... 16
Training ............................................................................................................. 18
Current Training Delivery .............................................................................
18
Training Topics Appropriately Addressed Previously ...................................
19
Preferred Training Topics for Teachers and Coordinators ............................
19
Preferred Formats for Future Trainings ........................................................
20
Training Schedules.......................................................................................
21
Validation of Training ....................................................................................
23
Technical Assistance ....................................................................................
23
Sharing Information ......................................................................................
23
Communication ................................................................................................. 24
Summary Findings ............................................................................... 25
iii
Ä
Appendices
Appendix A: Program and Training Survey ....................................................... 29
Appendix B: Assorted Tables ............................................................................ 39
Appendix C: Planning for Entry of Pre-K ESE Children throughout the Year ... 67
Appendix D: Processes Used to Assess Preschoolers with Disabilities for
Initial Eligibility............................................................................. 73
Appendix E: List of Counties in Size Categories and Assorted Tables ............. 79
Appendix F: List of Counties by CSPD Region and Assorted Tables ............... 95
iv
€
Introduction
The Florida Department of Education (FDOE), Bureau of Instructional Support and
Community Services (BISCS) contracted with the College of Education’s Department
of Child, Family and Community Sciences at the University of Central Florida (UCF)
to conduct a statewide survey of selected program components and training needs
in the public school prekindergarten program for children with disabilities.
Administrative support for this project was provided in collaboration with the Toni
Jennings Exceptional Education Institute located in the Academy for Teaching,
Learning and Leadership at UCF.
The impetus for this project came from a recognized need by BISCS to gain a clear
understanding of the status and needs of their prekindergarten (pre-k) exceptional
student education (ESE) programs throughout the state. Areas of particular interest
were program status and development needs, training and technical assistance,
transition from Part C services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) to Part B services under the same act, and preferred methods of
communication between the Department of Education and those serving in Florida’s
67 school districts. BISCS concluded that survey information from the field was
important as a foundation for future planning and support of pre-k services.
Purpose of the Project
The overall intent of the survey and project report was to delineate findings based on
information gained from the school districts’ pre-k ESE coordinators. The pre-k ESE
coordinators were to complete the eight page survey consisting of 33 items utilizing
their knowledge of district data, teacher and program needs, and their own needs as
administrators with program responsibility. Coordinators were informed that the
information gained as a result of this project would be shared with them through the
final report and that findings would be reported anonymously.
The project was designed to review and analyze the survey data for similarities and
differences and to compile frequency distributions for appropriate items. When
developing the final report format, consideration was given for the fact that the
survey contained both quantitative and qualitative items.
The following general outcomes were identified for this project:
•
Knowledge would be increased regarding staffing patterns, personnel
qualifications, and class size.
•
Knowledge would be enhanced regarding settings in which pre-k ESE
services were delivered, including options for inclusion and methods for
providing related services.
•
Knowledge regarding curricula would be increased.
•
Knowledge would be gained regarding districts serving children with
disabilities, age birth through two years, and factors surrounding eligibility
evaluations that influence smooth and timely transitions.
•
Knowledge would be enhanced regarding processes for initial eligibility and
timing of school entry.
•
Knowledge would be obtained regarding program needs and
recommendations to meet those needs.
•
Knowledge would be increased regarding training and technical assistance
needs, preferred training formats and settings, timeframes, and methods for
receiving training credit/validation.
•
Knowledge would be increased regarding model programs/projects that could
be studied for possible replication.
•
Knowledge would be gained regarding the preferred method of
communication between school districts and BISCS.
Methodology
A description of the methodology used for this project is provided in the following
sections. Included is information as to how the survey instrument was developed
and data collected.
Instrument Development
The development of the survey instrument was a process involving professionals at
the district and state levels as well as university faculty. All participants provided
input regarding instrument content, item clarity, and general instrument construction
and design. Various steps of the development are described in the paragraphs that
follow.
Preliminary Draft
—The initial step in developing the survey was taken by
representatives of the University of Central Florida (UCF) Department of Child,
Family and Community Sciences and consisted of developing a list of preliminary
survey items regarding training needs for pre-k ESE personnel throughout Florida.
The list was distributed to individuals who participated in the conference call
described in the following section for the purpose of generating discussion regarding
training needs for pre-k ESE personnel.
Conference call participants were asked to
review the list prior to the call.
Conference Call
—Project stakeholders participating in the call were Florida
Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
personnel; five pre-k ESE coordinators from districts of various sizes, and
representatives of UCF’s Department of Child, Family, and Community Sciences and
the Toni Jennings Exceptional Education Institute. The intent of the conference call
was to identify issues of concern to stakeholders that would serve as a point of
origination for designing the instrument and to determine whether additional items
2
should be added to the survey other than those indicated in the preliminary list from
UCF. New items for the survey that were identified during the call included staffing,
service delivery models in relation to severity of disabilities, assessment, and growth
in class size over the school year. Other issues mentioned as important to be
represented in the survey were inclusion and retention of students in pre-k ESE.
Discussion during the conference call also addressed issues regarding design of the
instrument and its use. For example, items requiring narrative responses would be
lengthy to complete. Participants also felt it was important for the respondents to
know who would see the collected data.
Draft Development
—A survey instrument was drafted by the UCF faculty members
who participated in the conference call to include additional items identified from the
call. Items were written to collect data regarding the identified issues of concern as
well as demographic information related to number of students served, number of
teachers serving pre-k children with disabilities, and training requirements for
instructional assistants.
The draft of the instrument was distributed to a representative sample of pre-k ESE
coordinators for the purpose of obtaining feedback on individual items as well as
general instrument design. Additional feedback was provided by UCF personnel
with expertise in survey development and data analysis and DOE personnel involved
in data collection and management. Revisions were made, and subsequent drafts
were again distributed for further feedback.
Following several revisions, the final survey instrument was approved by the Florida
Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
for official distribution to district pre-k ESE coordinators for data collection. The
completed eight page instrument (see appendix A) consisted of questions regarding
district personnel demographics, service delivery models used by districts, transition,
program needs, training and technical assistance needs, and preferred methods of
communication for a total of 33 items.
Data Follow-Up
—Discussions among Department of Education personnel and UCF
representatives led to the decision to conduct follow-up interviews with 10 percent of
the 67 pre-k ESE coordinators. Such follow-up was intended to provide respondents
with opportunities to clarify and/or expand upon their responses to particular items
on the needs assessment instrument. Seven pre-k ESE coordinators representing
districts of varying size and geographic locations were contacted by a UCF
representative and asked to discuss their responses to four specific survey items.
Distribution and Return
—The instrument was distributed via ground mail to
pre-k ESE coordinators in each of Florida’s 67 school districts and was accompanied
by a cover letter from a Department of Education representative explaining the
purpose of the project. The mailing was sent July 5, 2002 with a requested return
date of July 19, 2002. Return envelopes were not included in the mail-out as
3
respondents were asked to return completed surveys via fax to the Department of
Child, Family, and Community Sciences at UCF. On August 29, 2002, a second mail-
out was sent to pre-k ESE coordinators who had not yet responded. The requested
return date for the second mailing was September 6, 2002.
Subsequent efforts to collect surveys from non-responding districts began in mid-
September, 2002 and continued through the end of October, 2002. Such efforts
included phone calls and e-mailed and faxed messages to pre-k ESE coordinators.
Data Reduction and Analysis
As surveys were returned to the UCF project office, data were entered in the
appropriate database. This was later analyzed by item, yielding three primary sets
of data. Sets included overall responses, responses from five size-alike county
categories, and responses from Florida’s nine Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development (CSPD) Partnership regions.
The survey’s size-alike counties were determined based on the 2000 United States
Census for children age birth to five years in each of the 67 counties in Florida. The
size-alike category names are compatible with those used by BISCS. The
population, however, differs in that data used to determine the BISCS size-alike
districts are census data for the prekindergarten to grade 12 school population.
Through agreement with BISCS data personnel, it was determined that the size
categories used in this project’s data analysis were appropriate for two reasons.
First, there is a lack of school population data reflecting the birth to kindergarten age
group. Second, BISCS has an interest in using a different variable for comparison.
The size-alike populations and response numbers for CSPD regions are listed in the
results section of this report. Portrait pages of results on selected items for size-
alike and regional CSPD Partnerships are located in appendices B, E, and F.
Summary data are reported in the results section of this document. In the cases of
reported frequencies and percentages, data reflect precisely what respondents
indicated. Some survey items required respondents to rank preferences for specific
items. In such cases, the summary data reflect an analysis of the frequency of
occurrence for each ranked item.
Summary of Survey Results
The following sections contain a summary of the data analyses conducted on the
survey data.
Summary information is organized according to related survey items
including demographic data, service delivery, transition, program needs, training and
4
technical assistance, and communication. We begin the results section with a
description of the returned surveys.
Return
A total of 51 of the 67 districts responded prior to the data analysis for a return rate
of 71.6 percent. An overall analysis was conducted including all responses to
provide a statewide perspective on the needs of Pre-k ESE coordinators and
teachers.
The data were also analyzed by grouping school districts to provide varying
perspectives on the data. A regional analysis was conducted by grouping districts
according to the partnerships established through Florida’s Comprehensive System
of Personnel Development. The number of returns per region are found in table 1.
Table 1
Number of Districts
Total Number of Districts
in Region Responding
in Each Region
Region 1
10
14
Region 2
6
8
Region 3
4
5
Region 4
3
6
Region 5
3
5
Region 6
10
10
Region 7
2
2
Region 8
6
9
Region 9
7
8
Finally, data were analyzed to provide comparisons according to district size. The
size categories are described, and the number of respondents from each category
are listed in table 2.
Table 2
5
Number of
Total Number
District Population of
Children Ages
0 through 5 Years
in Each Category
Responding
> 100,000
Very Large
1
2
40,000 to 100,000
Large
3
5
20,000 to 40,000
Medium
4
5
7,000 to 20,000
12
15
< 7,000
Small
31
40
Category
of Districts in
Districts
Each Category
Medium Small
Demographic Data
Descriptive information was collected to determine the number of children ages 0
through 2 and ages 3 through 5 receiving services in various settings, the number of
teachers employed, and requirements for instructional assistants. These data are
presented in the following paragraphs.
Service Locations
—Respondents provided the number of children ages 0 through
2 who receive services in school- or home-based settings, are served by contracted
providers, or receive services in other settings. Results indicate that a continuum of
placements is utilized throughout the state (See tables 3 and 4). Regional and size-
alike analyses indicate that differences in service locations do not occur according to
such categories. For complete size-alike and regional data on service locations see
appendices B, D, and F.
Table 3
Overall Analysis
Setting
Number of Districts Providing Services
to Children Ages 0 through 2 in Each Setting
School-Based
12
Home-Based
19
Contracted Providers
Other
16
12
Similarly, overall results indicate that children ages 3 through 5 are served in a
variety of school- and community-based settings. By far, the most common
response, however, indicates that the majority of students receive services in school-
based settings with self-contained classrooms without typically developing peers
(table 4). The same is true across size and regional comparisons (appendices B, D,
and F).
Table 4
6
Overall Analysis
Number of Children Ages 3
through 5 Served in Each Setting
School-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom with No Typically
Developing Children
5,610
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
1,153
Head Start Classroom
844
Title 1 Classroom
327
Fee-Supported Child Care
628
Community-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom with No Typically
Developing Children
57
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
100
Head Start Classroom
834
Title 1 Classroom
0
Fee-Supported Child Care
702
Number of Teachers Employed and Their Certification Status
—Data were
collected to determine the number of pre-k ESE teachers employed by each district.
Additionally, the number of pre-k ESE teachers holding pre-k primary (age 3 to grade
3) certification and/or pre-k ESE endorsement was also collected.
A total of 941 pre-k ESE teachers were reported to be employed throughout
responding districts. Of those, 935 were reported to be full-time teachers. The six
part-time pre-k ESE teachers were reported by small districts in four regions.
The
Course Code Directory and Instructional Personnel Assignments
offers a
number of certification options in addition to the pre-k ESE endorsement and pre-k
primary certification. Data from items regarding credentials indicate that a low
number of pre-k ESE teachers have the pre-k ESE endorsement or pre-k primary
(age 3 to grade 3) certification. Thirty-nine teachers (4.2 percent) were reported to
have pre-k primary (age 3 to grade 3) certification and 69 (7.4 percent) are pre-k
ESE endorsed. Results were consistent across regions and size-alike categories;
however, it should be noted that over half of those with the pre-k ESE endorsement
are from a single county categorized as “very large.”
See table 5 for a summary of the overall results of teachers employed and their
certification status.
Table 5
7
Overall Analysis
Number of
Percentage of
Full-Time Pre-K ESE Teachers Employed
Teachers
935
Teachers
99.3%
Part-Time Pre-K ESE Teachers Employed
6
0.6%
Teachers with Pre-K ESE Endorsement
69
7.4%
Teachers with Age 3 to Grade 3 Certification
39
4.2%
Requirements for Instructional Assistants
—Respondents indicated whether or
not their district imposed training, credential, or other requirements for instructional
assistants. The overall analysis indicated that fewer than half of the responding
districts reported having any such requirements. Training requirements were
reported by 35.3 percent of the districts while 25.5 percent required a credential
(type not specified). Other requirements were indicated by 41.2 percent of the
districts. Table 6 contains a summary of results related to requirements imposed on
instructional assistants. Significant differences were not noted by size-alike or
regional analyses (appendices B, D, and F).
Table 6
Overall Analysis
Requirement
Number of Districts
Percentage of Districts
Training
18
35.3%
Credential
13
25.5%
Other
21
41.2%
Service Delivery
Survey responses related to service delivery provide data regarding use of specific
models for general educational services as well as for speech/language pathology
services, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. Additional service delivery
related items address policies governing personnel assignments. Results of each
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
General Educational Services
—Respondents indicated whether or not specific
service delivery models were utilized to provide services for young children with
disabilities (ages 3 through 5) within their districts. Integrative/inclusive activities
was the most common response with 39 districts indicating serving students through
this model. The term integrative/inclusive was defined in the survey as “children with
and without disabilities attend separate classrooms but participate in joint activities
for a portion of the day.” The collaborative/consultative model was the next most
used with 20 districts using this model. The least common delivery model was
reported to be team teaching. Complete definitions for each of the service delivery
models can be found in the survey provided in appendix A. It was interesting to find
that four respondents wrote “full inclusion” on their form, although this option was not
8
one of the six models for inquiry on the survey. Table 7 contains complete overall
results for all service delivery models listed on and added to the survey instrument.
Table 7
Overall Analysis
Service Delivery Mode
(for general educational services)
Ages 3 through 5
Integrative/Inclusive Activities
39
Itinerant/Collaborative/Consultative
20
Itinerant/Direct Service
18 (changed based on information from
up interview)
Peer or Mentor Activities
18
Reverse Mainstreaming
16
Team Teaching
12
Full Inclusion
4
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each
Model to Serve Children
20 (initially reported)
follow-
Size-alike and regional analyses showed similar results. The survey question
yielding the findings described here was chosen as one for follow-up interviews with
seven randomly selected districts described in the methodology section of this
report.
Specifically pre-k ESE coordinators were interviewed and asked to describe
their experience, or lack thereof, in implementing the “Itinerant Teaching Model –
Direct Service” option as the most inclusive on the survey. As defined in the survey,
this model serves children through itinerant teachers and other service providers
who provide direct services in early childhood settings where children with
disabilities are included with their typically developing peers. Three of the seven
districts (one very large, one medium small, and one small) indicated they were
implementing this model while four of the interviewed districts were not. Of the four
districts not using the model, one district was large, one medium, one medium small,
and one small.
Of the districts implementing the model, only one was sending teachers into early
childhood classrooms while the other two were using related service providers. The
one district using teachers had placed 80 children thus far in the 2002-2003 school
year in fee-supported early childhood slots (all within the public school) and reported
the “regular education teachers love it.” The coordinator commented that as a
starting point, children had been chosen for placement who “had a strong likelihood
of being successful in a more inclusive setting.”
Of the interviewed districts not implementing the Itinerant Teaching Model/Direct
Service option, reasons for not doing so included not enough time for travel and
service, no way to cover FTE, would spread personnel too thin, and when a small
district is in two time zones with limited resources and only two elementary schools,
ESE teachers would not have time. It should be noted, however, that most
coordinators were interested and willing to look for opportunities to more fully include
9
children; some mentioned future exploration with Even Start, Title 1, and private
community childcare.
Speech/Language Pathology, Occupational Therapy, and Physical Therapy
—
Delivery models for speech/language pathology (SLP), occupational therapy (OT),
and physical therapy (PT) were also surveyed. Respondents indicated what school-
or community-based models were utilized in their districts.
Pull-out programs in school settings were the most commonly reported models.
Next most common was an integrated model in a school setting. Transporting
children to a public school site was the third most common delivery model.
Community settings were used least. Pull-out programs and integrated services
within community settings were the fourth and fifth most common models
respectively. See table 8 for overall results regarding SLP, OT, and PT delivery
models.
Table 8
Overall Analysis
Similar patterns were demonstrated through size-alike and regional analyses and
are summarized in appendices B, D, and F.
Personnel Assignment Policies
—Fewer than 35 percent of the responding
districts reported having policies for class size or child-teacher ratios in Pre-k ESE
classrooms. Forty districts (78.4 percent) reported having no policy regulating class
size. Child-teacher ratio policies were absent in 33 districts (64.7 percent). Overall
results are presented in table 9. As with previously discussed results, size-alike and
regional analyses yielded similar results. (appendices B, D, and F)
Table 9
Service Delivery Model
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each
(for SLP, OT, and PT)
School
Pull-Out
Model to Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
SLP
OT
PT
49
48
48
Settings
Community
Integrated
43
38
33
Transport to School
26
14
14
Pull-Out
22
9
9
Settings
Integrated
12
6
4
10
Overall Analysis
Number of
Percentage of
Districts
Class Size Policy
No
40
78.4%
Yes
0
19.6%
Child Teacher Ratio Policy
No
33
64.7%
Yes
6
31.4%
Districts
1
1
Curricula
—
A total of 41 districts responded to a survey item asking them to share
the curricula used in their districts including that used with low incidence disability
populations. Twenty-seven of the 41 named commercially prepared curricula; five
reported using district generated curricula, and the remaining nine gave generic
responses (i.e. combination models, IEP generated curriculum, phonological
awareness). Five districts indicated the use of more than one curriculum in their
program. Table 10 indicates the most frequently occurring responses of commer
cially generated curricula. Not listed are commercially prepared curricula with two or
fewer responses (i.e. Every Move Counts, LAP, Second Step, PEECH).
Table 10
Overall Analysis
Frequency of Responses
Curriculum
19
High Scope
8
HELP
8
Carolina
5
TEACH
5
ERIN
3
SKI HI
Entry of Children throughout the Year
—Ninety-eight percent of the survey
respondents answered the question concerning the plan for entry of pre-k ESE
children throughout the school year. The open ended nature of this survey question
drew a variety of responses. This may be due to the nebulous nature of the phrase
“plan for entry.” Table 11 gives a representative sample of the variety and frequency
of responses. For a comprehensive review of anonymous narrative response
statements recorded directly from the surveys see appendix C.
Table 11
11
Overall Analysis
Frequency of Responses
Method of Planning for Entry
12
FDLRS/Child Find Screenings
7
EIP Meetings (3 said monthly)
5
Early Transition Meetings
5
Start 90 Days before Birthday
2
Parent Visitation
2
Enter Beginning of Semester before Age 3
2
Child Study Team
1
Half Day Transition Classes
1
emporary Placement
T
Assessment Process for Initial Eligibility
—Qualitative data were gathered
regarding the process for assessing preschoolers for initial eligibility. While some of
the 48 districts responded to this survey item by providing details on the multiple
steps in the eligibility determination process, others were brief with a single focus,
and still others answered the question related to frequency/schedules. Examples of
the types of responses are presented in table 12. A complete listing of responses
can be found in appendix D.
Table 12
Overall Analysis
Multi-Step Process
Child Find screens, reviews and develops records; preschool
Single Focus
diagnostic team completes evaluations; preschool case
manager and social worker schedule, conduct, and facilitate
eligibility staffing; IEP takes place; placement occurs at a
school site or community agency.
Contract with psychologists to perform assessments
Responses
Frequency/Schedule
Multidisciplinary team assessment
Pre-k disabilities multidisciplinary team evaluates and works
Related
at the Educational Support Center Annex (12 evaluations per
week) with 8 evaluations on weekends, screening clinics held
twice a month, eligibility meetings scheduled during the week.
Table 13 reflects the two most frequently named entities in respondent descriptions
of their process for initial eligibility.
Table 13
Overall Analysis
Frequency
Entities
22
Child Find/FDLRS
12
Part C / EIP
Transition
12
Survey respondents provided information regarding their districts’ efforts to ensure
smooth transitions from Part C to Part B services. Data related to when the district
begins to provide services, determine eligibility, and strategies employed by districts
to facilitate communication and coordination of transition efforts are discussed
below.
When Districts Begin Providing Services
—The overall survey results indicate that
districts are evenly split on when they begin providing services for students. Twenty-
four districts reported that they provide services for Pre-k ESE students prior to their
third birthday if the student will turn three during the school year. Twenty-four
indicated that they did not provide service prior to the student’s third birthday. Three
districts provided no response to this survey item.
Results of size category and regional analyses were similar. Size-alike results
showed that large, medium, and medium small districts had more negative than
positive or absent responses to this item. While the frequency of positive and
negative responses was close (16 and 13 respectively) in small districts, more
districts reported providing services to students prior to their third birthday (table 10).
A related item addresses whether or not districts use family support plans (FSP) in
pre-k ESE classrooms. Only one responding district reported using FSPs for pre-k
ESE students (table 14).
Table 14
Overall Analysis
Number of Districts
Serve Children Prior to 3rd Birthday
24
Yes
24
Use FSPs in Pre-K ESE Classrooms
49
Yes
1
No
No
See appendices B, D, and F for size category and regional results.
Determining Eligibility
—Items related to determining eligibility addressed the use
of evaluations done by Part C Early Intervention Programs (EIP). Respondents
indicated what percentage of evaluation data provided by the EIPs was used to
determine eligibility within the school district. Reasons for not using such data were
also addressed. Eleven of the 51 respondents did not provide a response to this
item.
Results of analyses of eligibility items revealed a great deal of variability. In the
overall analysis, the mean of the percentages indicated usefulness of evaluation
data as 75 percent, while the median response was 90 percent (SD = 33 percent).
13
Table 15 contains the percentages reported and the number of districts reporting
each percentage.
Table 15
Overall Analysis
EIP Evaluation Data Used by Districts to Determine Eligibility
Percentage
Number of Districts Reporting Using Each Percentage
0%
1
1%
1
2%
1
10%
1
20%
2
45%
1
50%
1
60%
1
65%
1
0%
1
75%
3
80%
4
85%
1
90%
7
95%
1
100%
13
Size-alike and regional analysis results are in found in appendices B, D, and F.
If school districts needed to reevaluate children to determine eligibility, six reasons
for not using EIP evaluation data were listed on the survey form from which
respondents could choose. Variability is also present in these responses. Overall,
86 percent of the 44 responding districts indicated the reason most commonly
reported by respondents was that all of the needed areas had not been tested.
Another commonly indicated reason for not using EIP evaluation data was that the
testing was outdated. See table 16 for the overall data analysis. Results for size
category and regional analyses are in appendices B, D, and F.
Table 16
Overall Analysis
Reason for Not Using EIP Evaluation Data
Percentage of Districts
Indicating Each Reason
All needed areas not tested
86%
Outdated testing
70%
Test does not meet state eligibility requirements
41%
Evaluator qualifications do not meet state requirements
23%
District requires their own evaluation
7%
Other
19%
14
Results from the two survey items reported immediately above were explored further
with seven pre-k ESE coordinators in the follow-up interview process. Interviewees
represented very large, large, medium, medium small, and small districts.
Respondents who were interviewed had indicated percentages of Part C evaluation
data that could be utilized to determine pre-k ESE eligibility ranging from 1 percent
to 100 percent.
Six of the seven reported that when evaluations from EIPs could not be used for
eligibility, all needed areas had not been tested. Five reported that testing results
were outdated. Interview discussions yielded a variety of comments and
recommendations regarding evaluations and eligibility. A sample is provided below.
•
“We use 100% of what EIP sends and don’t screen children out….we just
require additional information.”
•
“
Speech evaluations are generally a problem. EIPs require only one, and the
school district requires two (expressive and receptive).”
•
“We have a great relationship with our EIP. The EIP evaluation data is not
always great but is getting better. Our biggest concern is that EIP evaluations
are too general for our purposes.”
•
“We use the temporary placement rule to get children placed with the
evaluation information we are given. Our biggest concern is that EIP does not
do a psychological and uses only one speech evaluation.”
Communication and Coordination Strategies
—Seven strategies for facilitating
communication and coordination of transition services with EIPs were included in the
survey. Variability is also present in these responses. Overall, 47 respondents
indicated that personnel in their districts attended transition meetings; 40 reported
having policies related to transition. Thirty-three reported employing transition
specialists and attending interagency meetings. The least used strategies were
participating in interagency workgroups (23) and organizing and/or participating in
joint training sessions (24). Eighteen respondents indicated that their districts used
strategies other than those listed (table 17).
Table 17
Overall Analysis
Strategies for Facilitating
Number of Districts
Communication and Coordination of Services
Using Each Strategy
Attend transition meetings
47
Have policy on transition practices
40
Attend interagency meetings
33
Have designated transition specialist on staff
33
Organize and/or participate in joint training
24
Participate in interagency workshops
23
Others
18
See appendices B, D, and F for size-alike and regional results.
15
Primary Areas of Program Need and Recommendations for Addressing
Survey respondents listed program needs in 19 areas. Patterns of need were
consistent in three primary areas with each receiving 13 responses: training and staff
development, inclusion/integration, and funding. The fourth program need was
identified as class size and regulated teacher/student ratio and was listed by 12
school districts.
The frequency of responses, needs, and recommendations are
reported in table 18.
Table 18
Overall Analysis
Frequency
Area of Need
Recommendations
13
Training/Staff
Development
Regional Training Sessions
Specialized Workshops
Summer Institutes
Contract Out
Inservice
Train with School Readiness
Alternative Delivery Models
University Collaboration
Write Training Grants
Night Classes with Childcare
Staff Development by FDLRS
Collaborate with SLP Training
13
Inclusion/
Integration
ESE Slots in General Education Classes
Universal Pre-K for Ages 3 and 4
Community Collaboration
Contract with Childcare Sites
Implement New Models
Use Inclusion Coordinator
Work with School Readiness
13
Funding
More Teachers
Inclusion
More Support Staff
through Grants
Greater Evaluation Budget
Move K-12 Funds to Help Pre-K
Substitute Teachers
New Schools
12
Class Size/
Regulated Ratios
State Regulation
Monitor and Adjust
6
Parent
Involvement
Listen to Parents
Parent Training
Parent Component
Participation Incentives
16
Table 18
(continued)
Overall Analysis
Frequency
Area of Need
Recommendations
6
Programming
Develop Pilot Sites
Diversify Options
Expand Service Continuum
Variable Curriculum
Site Visits
Replicate Models
5
Coordination/
State Personnel to Address
Communication
Networking Online
Distribute Specific Information
Monthly Staff Meetings
Timely Communication
Meeting between K and Pre-K
5
Appropriate
Hire Behavior Analysts
Behavioral
Functional Behavioral Plans
Assessments
Personnel/Hiring/
More Qualified Teachers
Retention
More Support Staff
Competent Para-Educators
Reduce Turnover
Stress Management
4
Uniformity with
Part C to follow DOE Regs
Parts B and C
Standardize Part C in State
Uniform Tools for Parts B and C
Standardize Eligibility Criteria
1
Administrative
District Planning
Support
Administrator Education
1
High OT Referrals
Screening Prior to Referral
1
Part Day Services
Intensive Part Day Program
for Mild Disabilities
1
Replacing
Funding
Playground
Equipment
1
Greater Recognition
Education
of
Legislature
1
Appropriate
Age Appropriate Tools
Screening/
Evaluations
1
Severe Speech
Assistance
Impairments
1
ESE Programs in
No Recommendation Listed
Each Elementary
School
1
Curriculum
Variety of Materials
PreK by
17
The above items were identified for further follow-up with the seven randomly
selected school districts. Although each district had been asked to identify three
areas of program need on the survey, discussions were limited to one item per
district. Dialogue included the following.
•
“We need to increase the quality of teachers . . . . perception is that if
teachers are not successful in older grades, they get put in pre-k . . . . trying
to educate administrators on this . . . . need more release time for training to
improve quality of these teachers.”
•
“Need more classes for our pre-k children . . . . our ratios are too high . . . . we
are at our maximum by October, yet more children keep coming throughout
the year . . . . not fair to children or teachers . . . . we want to do a good job.”
•
“We need a universal pre-k program for three and four year olds . . . . so
many children are falling through the cracks, and we give some a label who
don’t need it just to get them in a program . . . . passing legislation for four
year-olds is good, but not good enough.”
•
“We need consistent training . . . ..we sincerely appreciate the efforts being
made now at the Bureau to get help out to the districts . . . . the spring pre-k
meeting in Tampa was great . . . . hopeful that training on identified items will
soon follow.”
•
“We need a more defined curriculum . . . . it is too open ended.”
•
“We need to reinstate the pre-k early intervention programs as previously
funded . . . . great concern about how school readiness coalitions are
operating . . . . school districts now have lost their typically developing peers
for inclusion.”
•
“We need better collaboration within the community for services, especially
mental health services . . . . we have a very high percentage of referrals with
social emotional delays.”
Training
Respondents ranked currently used training delivery methods to indicate which were
used most often. In addition, preferred formats, times, length of future training, and
preferred methods for validating training were also addressed. Results of training
data are summarized in the following sections.
Current Training Delivery
—The overall data analysis indicated that training was
most often delivered through district provided inservice. The ranking is confirmed by
the fact that in all five of the size categories and eight of the nine regions, district-
provided inservice received top ranking. Considerable variability exists in the
remainder of the rankings. See table 19 for overall rankings of training delivery
methods.
18
Table 19
Overall Analysis
Currently Utilized Training Delivery Methods
District Provided Inservice
1st
FDLRS
2nd (tied)
Onsite Technical Assistance
2nd (tied)
Send Teachers to Conferences/Workshops
4th
Networking Meetings
5th
Mentoring Program
6th
Send Teachers to Observe Other
7th
Teachers/Classrooms
Other
8th
Overall Rank of Each Method
See appendices B, D, and F for rankings by size-alike categories and regions.
Training Topics Appropriately Addressed Previously
—Fifteen respondents
answered a survey question regarding training topics that had been appropriately
addressed previously. Other write-in responses indicated that little training had been
provided previously and that this question was irrelevant. It was interesting to note
that five of the 15 respondents listed topics as appropriately addressed that
appeared in other respondent surveys indicating a need for such. These five items
were inclusion, phonemic awareness, family involvement, curriculum, and develop-
mentally appropriate practice. Other items listed as appropriately addressed during
previous trainings were eligibility procedures, IEP development, FSP, High Scope,
learning centers, embedding assessment in daily routines, functional vision assess
ments, car seat safety, transition from Part C to Part B, and visual strategies.
Preferred Training Topics for Teachers and Coordinators
—Respondents (pre-k
ESE coordinators) were asked to list the “three topic areas that would be most
helpful” to them. In a separate section, coordinators were asked to respond to the
same question based on their knowledge of the training needs of teachers within
their school district. The overwhelming majority of respondents (34) indicated that
the greatest training need for
teachers
was behavioral strategies while the greatest
need for
coordinators
was training on developing programs of inclusion. Table 20
lists the training topics for teachers and Pre-k ESE coordinators with two or more
responses.
19
Table 20
Training Topic
Teacher
Coordinator
Need/Frequency
Need/Frequency
Behavioral Strategies/Management
34
6
PDD/Autism/Asperger’s Syndrome
10
4
Curriculum
10
2
Language/Communication
7
0
Development
Assistive Technology
7
0
Inclusion
6
15
Teaching Strategies
6
0
Literacy/Phonemic Awareness
6
0
Family Involvement
5
2
Disability Characteristics
4
0
Developmentally Appropriate Practices
4
2
Teaming with Paraprofessionals
3
0
DOE Guidelines
0
3
Funding Models
0
3
Vision/Mission/Quality Indicators
0
3
Service Delivery Models
0
3
Laws/Regulations
0
4
Staff Retention/Stress Management
0
8
Pre-k ESE Endorsement
0
2
Assessment/Evaluation
2
2
Part C/Part B Issues
0
2
Standards/Objectives
2
0
Sensory Integration
2
0
Preferred Formats for Future Trainings—
Overall results indicate the preferred
training format for
teachers
to be conferences. Analyses by size-alike categories
were very similar with four of the five categories ranking conferences as the top
preference. More variability was present in the regional analyses. Five regions
ranked conferences as their first or second preference for training format for
teachers.
Analysis of the overall data regarding training formats for pre-k ESE coordinators
revealed that respondents preferred that trainings be provided for size-alike counties
or by regions. These formats were ranked first and second respectively. Variability
exists with the size category and regional analyses. However, such analyses
consistently show the top three formats to be training provided to size-alike counties,
regional training, and state meetings. See table 21 for format rankings in the overall
analysis.
20
Table 21
Overall Analysis
Preferred Training Format for Teachers
Conferences
1st
Institutes
2nd
Weekend with the Experts
3rd
Preferred Training Format for Pre-K ESE Coordinators
Size-Alike Trainings
1st
Regional Trainings
2nd
State Meetings
3rd
Phone Conference on Specific Topics
4th
Web-Site Discussion
5th
Ranking of Each Format
Size category and regional analyses of preferred training formats can be found in
appendices B, D, and F.
Training Schedules
—Survey items addressing training schedules included
questions about the time of year, part of the week, and length of trainings.
Additionally, respondents indicated preferred methods for validating training. It was
found that preferred times for teacher and coordinator training differed in the overall
analysis. Some differences were also noted in size category and regional
comparisons.
The preferred time of year for
teacher
training was summer. This finding was the
same in the overall and regional analyses. In contrast, the size-alike analysis
revealed fall to be the time of year receiving the highest ranking. It should be noted
that the least preferred time of year for
teacher
training was spring.
Winter received the highest overall ranking for scheduling
coordinator
trainings. The
size-alike analysis is less clear with winter, fall, and summer all receiving two first
place rankings. In the regional analysis, summer training was ranked highest with
five of the nine regions making that their first choice (table 22).
Table 22
Overall Analysis
Preferred Times of the Year for Teacher Training
Ranking of Each Time
Summer
1
Fall
2
Winter
3
Spring
4
Preferred Times of the Year for Coordinator Training
Winter
1
Summer
2
Fall
3
Spring
4
21
Appendices B, D, and F include results of size-alike and regional analyses of
preferred training times.
The time of week most preferred for
teacher and coordinator
training was the same.
Late week was ranked highest with mid-week second for both groups. Late week
received the most number one rankings in all analyses. Other rankings were less
consistent across groups. Table 23 contains rankings of preferred times of the year
for teacher and coordinator training.
Table 23
Overall Analysis
Preferred Times of the Week for Teacher Training
Ranking of Each Time
Late in the Week
1st
Mid-Week
2nd
Weekend
3rd
Early in the Week
4th
Preferred Times of the Week for Teacher Training
Late in the Week
1st
Mid-Week
2nd
Early in the Week
3rd
Weekend
4th
See appendices B, D, and F for size-alike and regional rankings of preferred times of
the week for teacher and coordinator training.
Consistent results were found for items related to preferred lengths of training for
teachers and coordinators. Given choices of one, one and a half, or two days,
respondents chose one day as their top choice of training length for teachers and
coordinators. This result is very consistent across size-alike categories and regions
for teacher training. Slightly more variability is present within the data related to
coordinator training, but one day ranked first most often. Overall rankings for length
of training for teachers and coordinators is recorded in table 24.
Table 24
Overall Analysis
Preferred Length for Teacher Training
Rank of Each Length
One Day
1st
One and a Half Days
2nd
Two Days
3rd
Preferred Length for Coordinator Training
One Day
1st
One and a Half Days
2nd
Two Days
3rd
22
See appendices B, D, and F for preferred length of teacher and coordinator trainings
by size categories and region.
Validation of Training
—Preferred methods of validation of training for teacher and
coordinator training were the same. It is clear that respondents do not wish to limit
options in this area. Opportunities to earn inservice points as well as college credit
were desired. Data were consistent in the overall, size category, and regional
analyses. See appendices B, D, and F for rankings of preferred methods of training
validation for teachers and coordinators by size and region. Size category and
regional analyses yielded similar results. Rankings for preferred methods of
technical assistance delivery can be found in table 25 and appendices B, D, and F.
Table 25
Overall Analysis
Preferred Method of Validation for Teachers
Rank of Each Method
Inservice Points
2nd
College Credit for Recertification
3rd
College Credit for Endorsement
4th
All of the Above
1st
Preferred Method of Validation for Coordinators
Inservice Points
2nd
College Credit for Recertification
3rd
College Credit for Endorsement
4th
All of the Above
1st
Rank of Each Method
Technical Assistance
—Respondents indicated the same preferences for methods
of delivering technical assistance to
teachers and coordinators
. Regularly
distributed technical assistance papers, state level topical technical assistance
experts, and regional technical assistance generalists were ranked first, second, and
third respectively in the overall analysis for teachers and coordinators.
Sharing Information
—Three survey items addressed opportunities for pre-k ESE
coordinators to share information. One item asked if respondents would like to visit
school or program sites if they were near conference locations. Forty-six
respondents replied with 38 responding positively. Few, however, indicated they
knew of current projects they would like to replicate or about which they would like to
share information at a conference. See table 26 and appendices B, D, and F for
summary data on sharing of information.
Table 26
Overall Analysis
No
Yes
Would Like to Visit Sites If Locations Are Near Conferences
8
38
Know of a Model Demonstration Project to Replicate
37
4
Know of a Project about Which to Share Information at a Conference
31
5
23
Communication
The final survey item addressed preferred methods for communication between pre-
k ESE coordinators and DOE personnel. Overwhelmingly, the preferred method was
e-mail, being ranked first in the overall, size category, and regional analyses. Other
methods of communication to consider were shown to be newsletters, fax
transmissions, and phone conferences. Table 27 and appendices B, D, and F
include rankings for the three most preferred communication methods.
Table 27
Overall Analysis
Top Three Preferred Methods
Rank of Each Method
of Communication
E-mail
1st
Newsletter
2nd
Fax
3rd
24
Summary Findings
Overall the results of the survey indicate that Florida’s school district personnel in the
prekindergarten Exceptional Student Education (pre-k ESE) program express a
need for training and technical assistance with distinct indications of priorities
regarding topics. The data show that significant numbers of pre-k ESE teachers do
not have the pre-k ESE endorsement or the pre-k primary certification (age 3 to
grade 3); however, these credentials are not yet required.
Findings regarding overall service delivery and partnerships indicate that the
majority of school districts appear to adopt the philosophy of inclusion with some
finding creative solutions and partnerships for accomplishing such. Most, however,
are struggling to find realistic avenues for moving from more to less restrictive
environments based on the volume of children and limited time and personnel.
Partnerships between Part B and C programs appear generally positive but a desire
for greater standardization and unity clearly exists.
Respondent data were analyzed according to each of the 33 survey items for overall
congruence. Additionally, data analyses were conducted to compare the overall
survey findings with five “size-alike” categories in Florida and with nine partnerships
in the state’s Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD)
Partnership regions. Findings were generally similar with few exceptions.
Specific findings are detailed and discussed below.
I.
Regarding Demographic Information
Findings
a. Pre-k ESE endorsement is held by only 7.4 percent of teachers and the
Pre-k Primary certification (age 3 to grade 3) is held by only 4.2 percent
(N=51).
b. Fewer than half of the school districts imposed training, credentialing, or
other requirements on instructional assistants.
c.
Sixty-nine percent of the responding school districts reported providing
some level of service for children ages birth through two years in addition
to providing services for children ages 3 to kindergarten. Twenty-four
percent of those providing birth through age two services are doing so with
contracted providers (N=51).
II. Regarding Service Delivery
Findings
a. The most frequently used service delivery model in Florida’s pre-k ESE
programs is separate classrooms for typically and atypically developing
children with combined activities during part of the day
25
b. Numbers of children placed in self-contained classes with no typically
developing peers outnumber the next closest service delivery model by a
ratio of 5:1
c.
Pull-out models for therapy services in school settings were the most
frequently used method for providing speech/language pathology services,
occupational therapy, and physical therapy
d. No class size policy exists for 40 of 50 (80 percent) of responding school
districts
e. No child/teacher ratios exist for 33 of 49 (64.7 percent) of responding
school districts
f.
The overwhelming majority of districts report using the High Scope
curriculum
g. FDLRS/Child Find along with coordinated efforts through the Part C Early
Intervention Program (EIP) figure prominently in the assessment process
and planning for school entry throughout the school year.
III. Regarding Transition
Findings
a. When students turn three during the school year, equal numbers of school
districts report serving them prior to their third birthday as those districts
not starting service until on/after the third birthday. Evidence showed that
more smaller districts than larger districts were able to accomplish service
before the third birthday.
b. Although permissible to use the family support plan (FSP) document for
services when/after transitioning to Part B, the overwhelming majority (50
of 51) of school districts use the individual educational plan (IEP)
document.
c.
School districts report that a large majority of the Part C/EIP evaluation
data is utilized in determining initial eligibility for Part B services. When
reevaluation is necessary for transitioning, 70 percent reported this need
due to outdated information, and 86 percent cited that all needed areas
had not been tested (N=51).
d. Of the 51 districts responding, 47 (92%) report attendance at transition
meetings with Part C, and 40 (78%) indicated having policies on transition
practices between Part C and Part B. Fewer than half (23 of 51) of the
school districts participate in interagency workshops with Part C/EIP.
IV. Regarding Program Needs
Findings
a. The overall analysis showed the following three areas of program need
most frequently and in equal numbers: training and staff development,
inclusion/integration, and funding. Class size and regulated ratios trailed
these three by one response.
26
b. Respondents listed a variety of recommendations for meeting program
needs reflecting creativity, a spirit of collaboration, and an interest in a
“best practices” approach to meeting the instructional needs of children
and family involvement in education.
V.
Regarding Training and Technical Assistance
Findings
a. Past training was most frequently delivered through district-provided
inservice. No clear pattern was evident for topics that have been
appropriately addressed during prior training/meetings. Written comments
and follow-up interviews clearly indicate that districts are anxious for
training and hopeful regarding future collaborative efforts.
b. In general, the format preferred for future teacher training is one day
conferences. It is possible that respondents were unclear of the difference
between a conference and their second choice, institute, since definitions
were not provided in the survey. Clearly, “weekends with the experts”
were the least preferred format for teachers.
c.
The format preferred for training/meetings for pre-k ESE coordinators is by
size-alike categories.
d. Trainings/meetings during late week and midweek periods were first and
second choices, respectively, for both teachers and pre-k ESE
coordinators.
e. Training during the summer was preferred by teachers while coordinators
preferred winter. Both groups indicated their desire to have the choice of
applying training toward college credit and/or inservice points.
f.
Behavioral strategies/management concerns were found to be the area of
greatest need listed for teacher training topics followed by training on
PDD/autism/Asperger Syndrome.
g. Inclusion was the most frequently requested training/meeting topic for
coordinators followed by the second choice topic, staff retention and stress
management.
h. Providing technical assistance through regularly distributed technical
assistance papers was the most preferred method of technical assistance
by both teachers and coordinators.
i.
Forty-six survey respondents (83%) indicated they would like to make site
visits to schools/programs as a component of training/conferences (n=51).
This response was consistent in overall, size-alike, and regional findings.
Few respondents indicated they knew of projects/programs they would like
to replicate or about which they would like to share information.
27
VI. Regarding Communication
Findings
a. Overall findings indicated that when given seven communication choices,
receiving text-based materials that could be read as time allowed was
preferred. Email and newsletters were found to be first and second
choices respectively for communication between school districts and
BISCS. This finding was consistent across “size-alike” and regional
findings as well.
b. Listserv and online chats were sixth and seventh choices for
communication.
28
Appendix A
Department of Education
Division of Public Schools and Community Education
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities
PROGRAM AND TRAINING SURVEY
Demographic Information:
1. In what county do you work?
2. If your district serves children with disabilities
ages birth through 2 years
, please indicate how they are
served. Check all that apply.
School-based settings
Other (specify)
Homebased
Contracted Provider
3. How many Pre-K ESE teachers were employed in your county during the 2001-2002 school year?
Full-time
Part-time (hourly)
4. (a) Indicate the number of Pre-K ESE teachers in your district that hold the:
(If this information is not readily available, do not answer.)
Pre-K ESE Endorsement
Pre-K Primary (Age 3 to Grade 3) Certification
(b)
Do you have requirements for instructional assistants?
Training requirement
Credential requirement
Other (specify)
Service Delivery:
5. Approximately how many Pre-K ESE students
(ages 3 - 5)
are placed in each of the following settings?
School-based
setting
Self-contained class with no typically developing children
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
Head Start Classroom
Title 1 Classroom
Other (e.g. school-based fee supported child care)
Community-based
setting
31
6. Indicate if you utilize any of the service-delivery models defined below to provide inclusive options for young
children with disabilities
(ages 3 - 5)
. Check all that apply.
____
Itinerant Teaching Model - direct service
(Services are provided regularlyby visiting PreK ESE
teachers and other service providers in early childhood settings.)
____
Itinerant Teaching Model - collaborative/consultative
(Pre-K ESE teachers and service providers
consult with early childhood teachers to incorporate individualized goals into the classroom
curriculum)
____
Team Teaching Model
-
Early childhood and Pre-K ESE, Head Start, or Title 1 teachers share
teaching roles in the same classroom, collaborating on planning and leading activities
____
Reverse Mainstreaming Model
– Pre-K ESE teachers plan, implement, and supervise classroom
activities. Children without disabilities are brought into the classroom.
____
Integrative/Inclusive Activities
- Children with and without disabilities attend separate classrooms,
but participate in joint activities for a portion of the day.
____
Peer or mentor activities
- Peers or mentors from the public school’s K-5 classes come into the Pre-
K ESE class to provide specific activities or to assist.
7. Indicate the models that are used to provide speech/language pathology, OT, and PT for young children
with disabilities ages 3 - 5. Check all that apply.
Pull – out services
are defined as therapeutic activities received by a child in a separate/isolated
setting in the same classroom where class peers are engaged in other activities; in an adjacent room;
in another area of the building.
I
ntegrated services
are those that blend therapeutic activities into regular classroom routines
while building upon natural learning opportunities with peers.
SLP
OT
PT
Pull out model/school setting
Integrated model/school setting
Pull out model/community setting
Integrated model/community setting
Children in community settings are transported to public school site
8. Does your district have policies for class size of Pre-K ESE classrooms?
Yes
No
9. Does your district have policies for child-teacher ratio in Pre-K ESE classrooms?
Yes
No
10. What curricula are you using for the Pre-K ESE population? (Include information on all populations,
including low incidence.)
32
Transition:
11. How do you plan for entry of Pre-K ESE children throughout the year?
12. What process do you use to assess preschoolers with disabilities for initial eligibility? Describe how you
are organized (i.e. staff, etc.).
13. What percentage of the Part C Early Intervention Program evaluation can be utilized to determine Pre-K
ESE eligibility?
14. If you re-evaluate children transitioning from Part C Early Intervention Program to determine eligibility as a
prekindergarten child with a disability, please indicate why. Check all that apply.
____
Out-dated testing
____
All needed areas were not tested
____
District requires their own evaluation
____
Evaluator qualifications do not meet state requirements
____
Test administered does not meet state eligibility requirements (please explain)
____
Other (specify)
33
15. What strategies do you use to communicate and coordinate services with Part C/Early Intervention
Programs? Check all that apply.
____
Attend interagency meetings
____
Participate on interagency workgroups
____
Attend transition meetings
____
Organize and/or participate in joint training
____
Have policy or agreement on transition practices (e.g., who provides the assessments for
eligibility)
____
Have staff person(s) designated as transition specialist
____
Other, please list:
16. Do you serve Pre-K ESE children before their 3
rd birthday if they will turn 3 during the school year?
Yes
No
17. Do you use a Family Support Plan for children in the Pre-K ESE program?
Yes
No
Program Needs:
18. Overall, what are the three primary areas of need for your program?
a.
b.
c.
19. What are your recommendations for addressing each need?
a.
b.
c.
34
Training and Technical Assistance Needs:
20. How are you currently providing training for Pre-K ESE teachers in your district? Rank the methods from 1
to 7 indicated with “1” being the most frequently used method.
FDLRS
Mentoring program
Networking meetings
District-provided inservice
Send teachers to conferences/workshops
Send Pre-K ESE teachers to observe other Pre-K ESE teachers and classrooms
On-site technical assistance
Describe:
Other (specify):
21. In the area of training, what are the top three “topic areas” that would be most helpful to you and your
teachers at the present time? If you have suggestions for presenters on these topics, please list these as
well.
For Teachers
Possible Presenters
For Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Possible Presenters
35
22. What training topics do you feel have been appropriately addressed in recent years for which you and your
teachers DO NOT NEED additional training?
23. What training format is preferred for Pre-K ESE teachers? Rank 1 to 3.
_____
Institutes (3-4 tracks with in-depth topics; participants choose 1 track)
_____
Conference (multiple concurrent sessions; participants choose by interest)
_____
”Weekend with the Experts” (one in-depth topic; all participants receive information in one group)
24. How do you, as a Pre-K ESE Coordinator, prefer to receive support/technical assistance? (Rank 1 to 5).
_____
State Meetings (i.e. conference, institute)
_____
Regional Training
_____
Training through “Size-Alike Districts” (i.e. small, medium, medium large, large, very large)
_____
Phone conference with a specific topic
_____
Web site discussion
25. Are you interested in making site visitations of programs in areas hosting meetings/conferences? (Arrive a
day early to see specific model programs, new ideas, etc.)
Yes
No
26. What time of the year is preferred for training? Rank 1 to 4 for each group.
For Teachers
For Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
36
27. What part of the week is preferred for training activities? Rank 1 to 4 for each group.
For Teachers
For Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Early week
Mid week
Late week
Weekend
28. To be most effective, how long should training last? Rank 1 to 4 for each group.
For Teachers
For Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
One day
One and a half days
Two days
29. What is the preferred method for receiving validation/credit for training? Rank 1 to 4 for each group.
For Teachers
Coordinators
Inservice points
College Credit toward Teacher Re-Certification
College Credit toward Pre-K ESE Disability
Endorsement
Opportunities to choose from all of the above
For Pre-K ESE
30. How would you and your Pre-K ESE teachers prefer to have technical assistance (TA) provided? Rank 1
to 3 for each group.
For Teachers
For Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
State level “topical” TA experts
Regional TA generalists
Regularly distributed TA papers
37
31. Do you know of a model demonstration project(s) in the state or nation that you would recommend for
replication?
Yes
No
If yes, please indicate the following:
Name of project:
Contact person/email:
32. Is there a project(s) that you feel should be shared in a panel discussion or break-out session at a state
meeting/conference?
Yes
No
If yes, please indicate the following:
Name of project:
Contact person/email:
Communication
33. What is the preferred method for communication to occur between your program / district and the Bureau?
Rank the top 3.
List serve
Newsletters
Website
Online chat
Email
Phone
Fax
Please return by fax to:
Dr. Ernestine Kessel
Department of Child, Family, & Community Sciences
Fax: (321) 637-7101
ekessel@mail.ucf.edu
Please return by:
September 6, 2002
Questions regarding this survey should be directed to:
Dr. Ernestine Kessel
Ms. Robin Basile
(321) 632-1111 ext. 2-3013
or
(407) 882-0045
ekessel@mail.ucf.edu
rbasile@mail.ucf.edu
38
Appendix B
List of Tables
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds................................................................43
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds .................................................44
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers and Certification Status...................45
Requirements for Instructional Assistants .....................................................................47
Service Delivery Models Used ......................................................................................48
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT ................................................................49
Personnel Placement Policies ......................................................................................51
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday/Use FSP ........................................................52
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used .....................................................................53
Reasons for Not Using EIP Evaluation Data.................................................................54
Strategies for Facilitating Communication and Coordination of Services .....................55
Current Training Delivery Methods ...............................................................................56
Preferred Formats for Future Training ..........................................................................57
Times of the Year Preferred for Training .......................................................................59
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training ..........................................................60
Preferred Length of Future Training ..............................................................................61
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training ..................................................................62
Sharing Information .......................................................................................................64
Most Preferred Methods of Communication ................................................................ 66
41
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Providing Services
to 0- through 2-Year-Olds in Each Setting by Size Category
Setting
Very Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
School-Based
1
2
0
1
8
Home-Based
1
3
4
4
7
Contracted
1
0
1
6
4
Providers
Other
0
3
1
4
8
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Providing Services
to 0- to 2-Year-Olds in Each Setting by Region
Setting
Region
1
School-
1
2
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
Based
Home-Based
1
5
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
Contracted
2
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
Providers
Other
1
4
3
1
0
4
0
2
1
Small
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
43
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds
Size Category Analysis
Number of Children Ages 3 through 5
Served in Each Setting by Size Category
Very Large
School-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
300
1,235
704
2,214
1,157
Children
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
150
12
50
413
384
Head Start Classroom
—-
195
17
320
296
Title 1 Classroom
5
—-
—-
300
33
Fee-Supported Child Care
312
123
—-
104
84
Community-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
—-
—-
8
24
28
Children
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
—-
—-
8
10
82
Head Start Classroom
500
—-
—-
50
284
Title 1 Classroom
—-
000
—-
—-
—-
Fee-Supported Child Care
—-
300
210
50
142
Small
Medium Small
Medium
Large
Regional Analysis
Number of Children Ages 3 through 5 Served
in Each Setting by Region
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
1
2
School-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
Children
278
608
341
235
320 2,384
365
527
552
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
96
86
15
131
—-
350
150
78
247
Head Start Classroom
73
17
109
2
141
284
100
28
84
Title 1 Classroom
—-
—-
—-
20
300
2
5
—-
—-
Fee-Supported Child Care
15
—-
78
—-
—-
190
312
3
30
Community-Based
Settings
Self-Contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
Children
—-
8
10
5
—-
24
—-
10
—-
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
—-
90
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
10
—-
Head Start Classroom
13
12
—-
137
6
23
600
10
33
Title 1 Classroom
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
Fee-Supported Child Care
8
210
8
133
—-
342
—-
1
—-
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
44
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers
and
Certification Status
Size Category Analysis
Number and Percentage of Teachers
in Each Size Category
Very
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Full-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
160
100%
216
100% 139
100%
253
100%
167
96.5%
Part-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
6
3.4%
Teachers with Pre-K
ESE Endorsement
32
20%
—-
—-
—-
—-
10
3.9%
27
15.6%
Teachers with Age 3 to
Grade 3 Certification
12
7.5%
—-
—-
—-
—-
12
4.7%
15
8.6%
45
Regional Analysis
Number and Percentage of Teachers In Each Region
Region
gion
1
8
#
#
Full-Time Pre-K
ESE Teachers
45 100%
96.9%
352 100%
94.2% 84
100%
Employed
Part-Time
Pre-K
—-
1
—-
ESE Teachers
Employed
Teachers with
Pre-K ESE
3
2.1%
1
3.1%
33
23%
Endorsement
Teachers with
Age 3
5
1.4%
12
—-
—-
15.4%
to Grade 3
Certification
Re
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
%
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
32
96.4%
27
97.2%
36
137 100%
49
168 100%
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
3%
1
3.5%
1
2.7%
—-
—-
5.7%
3
—-
3
2%
1
—-
—-
3.5%
1
—-
—-
12
19.6%
7.1%
6
2
3.4%
0.5%
2
—-
—-
14.2%
4
2.7%
1
7.1%
13
46
Requirements for Instructional Assistants
Size Category Analysis
Requirement
Number of Districts Imposing Each Requirement
Very
Large
Small
Training
1
1
Credential
0
Other
1
1
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
1
5
1
3
5
4
2
2
1
6
1
2
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Imposing Each Requirement
Requirement
Region
Region
1
Training
3
3
2
1
1
2
6
Credential
4
3
—
1
4
—
—
1
Other
1
1
3
2
1
5
1
4
3
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
—
—
—
47
Service Delivery Models Used
Size Category Analysis
Service Delivery
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Model
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
(for general
educational services)
Very
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Integrative/Inclusive
1
3
4
11
20
Activities
Itinerant/Collaborative/
1
3
2
6
8
Consultative
Itinerant/Direct Service
1
3
1
5
10
Peer or Mentor
1
1
4
4
8
Activities
Reverse Mainstreaming
1
2
3
4
6
Team Teaching
1
2
3
3
3
Full Inclusion
—-
4
Small
—-
—-
—-
Regional Analysis
Service Delivery
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Model
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
(for general
educational
services)
Region
1
9
Integrative/Inclusive
Activities
7
6
2
2
3
8
2
3
6
Itinerant/
Collaborative/
Consultative
3
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
Itinerant/
Direct Service
2
3
1
1
2
6
1
3
1
Peer or Mentor
Activities
1
5
2
—-
1
4
1
2
2
Reverse
Mainstreaming
2
4
1
—-
—-
4
2
1
2
Team Teaching
1
2
1
—-
—-
5
1
1
1
Full Inclusion
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
1
—-
2
—-
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
48
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT
Size Category Analysis
Service Delivery
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Model(for general
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
educational
services)
Very
Small
Large
Small
SLP
Pull-Out
1
3
3
4
4
28
School
1
3
3
4
4
1
10
9
17
Settings
Transport
to School
1
2
1
2
4
6
6
Pull-Out
—-
1
—-
—-
4
10
5
Comm.
Settings Integrated
—-
2
1
—-
3
5
1
Medium
Medium
Large
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
1
1
3
28
29
12
12
12
4
Integrated
1
1
3
1
3
20
24
1
1
1
6
7
—-
6
14
—-
—-
3
—-
4
8
—-
5
—-
—-
1
—-
3
4
—-
2
Regional Analysis
Regions 1-5
Service Delivery
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Model(for general
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
educational
services)
Region
1
5
SLP
Pull-Out
9
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
School
8
6
6
3
1
2
1
2
Settings
Transport
3
—-
1
3
3
2
to School
Pull-Out
2
2
2
4
—-
1
—-
1
2
Comm.
Settings Integrated
1
1
1
2
—-
—-
0
1
Region
Region
Region
Region
4
3
2
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
8
8
6
3
3
3
3
Integrated
7
8
5
2
1
2
3
2
2
4
3
—-
3
1
2
2
1
—-
3
1
2
3
1
—-
1
1
—-
1
1
49
Regional Analysis
Regions 6-9
Service Delivery
Model(for general
educational
services)
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
SLP OT PT
SLP OT PT
SLP OT PT
SLP OT PT
School
Settings
Pull-Out
10
9
10
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
7
7
Integrated
10
9
8
2
2
1
5
5
4
5
4
4
Transport
to School
7
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
—-
—-
Comm.
Settings
Pull-Out
4
3
2
—-
—-
—-
2
1
1
3
—-
—-
Integrated
5
3
2
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
50
Personnel Placement Policies
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Having
Personnel Placement Policies
Policy
Very
Large
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class Size
1
—-
2
1
1
3
11
1
25
5
Child/Teacher Ratio
1
—-
2
1
2
2
10
2
18
11
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts Having
Personnel Placement Policies
Policy
Region
1
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Class Size
7
3
3
3
2
1
3
—-
3
Child/Teacher Ratio
5
5
3
3
1
2
3
—-
1
1
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
No
No
Region
Region
Region
Region
5
4
3
2
—-
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Number of Districts Having
Personnel Placement Policies
Policy
Region
6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class Size
7
2
—-
7
—-
Child/Teacher Ratio
8
2
1
5
2
Region
Region
Region
9
8
7
No
No
No
No
3
6
—-
2
5
—-
51
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday
Use FSP
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Policy
Very
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Large
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Serve Children Prior
to 3rd Birthday
1
—-
2
—-
1
3
7
5
13
Use FSPs in Pre-K
ESE Classrooms
1
—-
3
—-
4
0
12
—-
29
1
Small
16
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Policy
Region
1
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Serve Children Prior
to 3rd Birthday
7
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
Use FSPs in Pre-K
ESE Classrooms
10
—-
6
—-
4
—-
3
—-
3
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Policy
Region
Region
Region
Region
6
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Serve Children Prior
to 3rd Birthday
5
Use FSPs in Pre-K
ESE Classrooms
10
Region
Region
Region
Region
5
4
3
2
—-
9
8
7
No
No
No
3
4
3
2
—-
2
4
0
7
1
4
—-
2
—-
52
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Reporting Using Each Percentage
Percentage
Very
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Large
0
-
—-
—-
—-
1
1
-
—-
—-
—-
1
2
-
—-
—-
—-
1
10
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
20
—-
—-
1
1
—-
45
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
50
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
60
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
65
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
70
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
75
—-
1
—-
1
1
80
1
—-
—-
—-
3
85
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
90
—-
—-
2
1
—-
95
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
100
—-
1
—-
4
8
Small
—
—
—
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Reporting Using Each Percentage
Percentage
Region
1
7
0
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
2
-
—-
—-
—-
—-
-
-
—-
1
10
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
20
—-
1
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
45
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
50
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
60
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
65
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
70
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
75
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
2
—-
1
—-
80
1
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
1
—-
1
85
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
90
—-
1
—-
—-
2
—-
2
—-
95
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
100
2
—-
1
—-
—-
4
1
2
3
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
6
5
4
3
2
9
8
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
53
Reasons For Not Using EIP Evaluation Data
Size Category Analysis
Reason For Not Using EIP
Evaluation Data
Very Large
Large
Medium
Medium Small
Small
All Needed Areas Not
100%
100%
75%
Tested
Outdated Testing
100%
100%
50%
75%
Test Does Not Meet State
66.7%
25%
41.7%
Eligibility Requirements
Evaluator Qualifications Do
66.7%
25%
41.7%
Not Meet State
Requirements
District Requires Their Own
33.3%
—-
8.3%
Evaluation
Other
—-
66.7%
25%
16.7%
Regional Analysis
Percentage of Districts Reporting Each Reason
Reason for
Region
Not Using
1
9
EIP
Evaluation
Data
All Needed
80%
100% 100%
100%
66.7%
90%
50%
100%
71.4%
Areas Not
Tested
Outdated
60%
83.3%
75%
100%
66.7%
70%
50%
83.3%
57.1%
Testing
Test Does Not
40%
16.7% 175%
33.3%
—-
50%
50%
33.3%
57.1%
Meet State
Eligibility
Requirements
Evaluator
—
50%
50%
66.7%
33.3%
10%
—-
16.7%
28.6%
Qualifications
Do Not Meet
State
Requirements
District
10%
—-
—-
—-
—-
10%
—-
33.3%
—-
Requires
Their Own
Evaluation
Other
20%
16.7%
—-
—-
—-
50%
—-
—-
28.6%
Percentage of Districts Reporting Each Reason
100%
87.1%
67.7%
100%
38.7%
—-
12.9%
—-
6.5%
16.1%
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
54
Strategies for Facilitating
Communication and Coordination of Services
Size Category Analysis
Strategy
Number of Districts Using Each Strategy
Very Large
Large
Small
Attend Transition Meetings
1
3
4
11
28
Have Policy on Transition
Practices
1
3
4
11
21
Attend Interagency Meetings
1
3
3
9
17
Have Designated Transition
Specialist on Staff
1
2
4
9
17
Organize and/or Participate
in Joint Training
1
1
3
7
12
Participate in Interagency
Workshops
1
2
2
7
11
Others
—-
1
2
5
10
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Using Each Strategy
Strategy
Region
1
8
Attend
Transition
9
6
3
2
3
10
2
6
6
Meetings
Have Policy
on Transition
7
6
3
2
2
9
2
5
4
Practices
Attend
Interagency
5
5
4
—-
2
9
1
4
3
Meetings
Have
Designated
Transition
4
5
2
3
2
8
1
5
3
Specialist
on Staff
Organize
and/or
Participate
5
4
3
—-
2
7
1
1
1
in Joint
Training
Participate in
Interagency
2
3
3
—-
1
7
1
3
3
Workshops
Others
2
3
2
2
2
5
—-
—-
2
Small
Medium
Medium
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
55
Current Training Delivery Methods
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
Very Large
Large
Small
District Provided Inservice
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
FDLRS
No Rank
6th
7th
7th
7th
Onsite Technical Assistance
4th
3rd
3rd
2nd
4th
Send Teachers to
Conferences/Workshops
6th
7th
5th
5th
3rd
Networking Meetings
5th
5th
2nd
3rd
5th
Mentoring Program
2nd
6th
7th
7th
7th
Send Teachers to Observe
Other Teachers/Classrooms
3rd
8th
4th
4th
6th
Other
No Rank
4th
8th
8th
8th
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
Region
Region
1
9
District
Provided
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
Inservice
(tied)
(tied)
FDLRS
2nd
6th
4th
5th
3rd
3rd
5th
1st
3rd
(tied)
Onsite
Technical
5th
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
3rd
6th
Assistance
(tied)
(tied)
(tied)
Send
Teachers to
3rd
4th
3rd
4th
4th
5th
7th
3rd
2nd
Conferences/
(tied)
Workshops
Networking
4th
3rd
6th
2nd
5th
6th
5th
5th
4th
Meetings
(tied)
Mentoring
Program
7th
8th
8th
6th
7th
7th
3rd
7th
7th
Send
Teachers to
Observe
6th
7th
6th
6th
6th
4th
4th
56h
5th
Other
Teachers/
Classrooms
Other
8th
5th
5th
8th
8th
8th
8th
8th
8th
Small
Medium
Medium
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
56
Preferred Formats for Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Format
Format
Very Large
Large
Small
Preferred Training Format
for Teachers
Conferences
1
3
1
1
1
Institutes
2
1
3
2
2
Weekend with the Experts
3
2
2
3
3
Preferred Training Format
for Pre-K ESE Coordinators
Size-Alike Trainings
3
1
2
1
1
Regional Trainings
1
3
1
3
2
State Meetings
4
2
3
2
3
Phone Conference on
Specific Topics
2
4
5
5
4
Web-Site Discussion
5
5
4
4
5
Small
Medium
Medium
57
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Format
Format
Region
1
8
Preferred
Training
Format for
Teachers
Conferences
1st
2nd
3rd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
1st
No
(tied)
(tied)
Rank
Institutes
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
Weekend with
the Experts
3rd
3rd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
3rd
(tied)
(tied)
Preferred
Training
Format for
Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Size-Alike
Trainings
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
Regional
Trainings
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
2nd
1st
State
Meetings
3rd
1st
1st
4th
5th
3rd
2nd
3rd
3rd
Phone
Conference on
Specific Topics
4th
4th
4th
5th
3rd
4th
4th
4th
5th
Web-Site
Discussion
5th
5th
5th
3rd
4th
5th
5th
5th
4th
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
7
6
5
4
3
2
9
58
Times of the Year Preferred for Training
Size Category Analysis
Time of the Year
Rank of Each Time of the Year
Very Large
Large
Small
Preferred Time for
Teachers
Summer
3rd
2nd
4th
1st
1st
Fall
1st
1st
1st
3rd
2nd
Winter
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
3rd
Spring
4th
4th
3rd
4th
4th
Preferred Time for
Coordinators
Summer
1st
2nd (tied)
4th
1st
2nd
Fall
2nd
1st (tied)
1st
4th
3rd
Winter
3rd
1st (tied)
2nd
2nd
1st
Spring
4th
2nd (tied)
3rd
3rd
4th
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Format
Times of the
Region
Year
1
9
Preferred Time
for Teachers
Summer
1st
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
(tied)
Fall
3rd
2nd
4th
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
Winter
2nd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
3rd
2nd
3rd
1st
(tied)
Spring
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
4th
4th
4th
4th
Preferred Time
for Coordinators
Summer
1st
2nd
1st
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
Fall
3rd
1st
4th
4th
4th
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
(tied)
Winter
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
Spring
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
4th
4th
3rd
4th
(tied)
Small
Medium
Medium
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
59
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Time of the Week
Time of the Week
Very Large
Large
Small
Preferred Time for
Teachers
Late in the Week
4th
3rd
1st
1st
1st
Mid-Week
3rd
4th
2nd
2nd
2nd
Weekend
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
4th
Early in the Week
1st
2nd
4th
4th
3rd
Preferred Time for
Coordinators
Late in the Week
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
1st
Mid-Week
1st
3rd
1st
2nd
2nd
Weekend
4th
4th
4th
4th
4th
Early in the Week
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
3rd
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Time of the Week
Time of the
Region
Week
1
Preferred Time
for Teachers
Late in the Week
4th
1st
1st
1st
3rd
1st
4th
1st
1st
Mid-Week
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
3rd
3rd
Weekend
2nd
4th
2nd
3rd
4th
2nd
3rd
2nd
4th
Early in the Week
3rd
3rd
4th
4th
2nd
4th
1st
4th
2nd
Preferred Time
for Coordinators
Late in the Week
3rd
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
(tied)
(tied)
Mid-Week
1st
1st
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
(tied)
(tied)
Weekend
4th
4th
1st
4th
3rd
4th
2nd
4th
4th
(tied)
Early in the Week
2nd
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
(tied)
Small
Medium
Medium
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
60
Preferred Length of Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Length of Training
Length
Very Large
Large
Small
Preferred Length for
Teachers
One Day
3rd
1st
1st
1st
1st
One and a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Two Days
1st
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Preferred Length for
Coordinator Training
One Day
3rd
3rd
1st
1st
1st
(tied)
(tied)
One and a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
(tied)
Two Days
1st
1st
1st
2nd
3rd
(tied)
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Length of Training
Length
Region
1
9
Preferred Length
for Teachers
One Day
1st
1st
No
1st
1st
1st
3rd
1st
1st
Choices
(tied)
One and
a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
(tied)
Two Days
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
Preferred Length
for Coordinators
One Day
1st
3rd
No
No
1st
2nd
No
1st
1st
Choices
Choices
Choices
One and
a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
Two Days
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
3rd
Small
Medium
Medium
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
61
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training
Size Category Analysis
Method
Rank of Each Method
Very Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
Preferred Method of
Validation for Teachers
Inservice Points
3rd
4th
2nd
2nd
2nd
College Credit for
Recertification
2nd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
2nd
4th
3rd
4th
All of the Above
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Preferred Method of
Validation for Coordinators
Inservice Points
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
College Credit for
Recertification
2nd
2nd
(tied)
3rd
4th
3rd
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
2nd
(tied)
4th
3rd
4th
All of the Above
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
62
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Method of Validation
Method
Region
1
9
Preferred Method
of Validation for
Teachers
Inservice Points
2nd
2nd
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
(tied)
College Credit for
Recertification
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
3rd
4th
2nd
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
All of the Above
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
(tied)
Preferred Method
of Validation for
Coordinators
Inservice Points
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
College Credit for
Recertification
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
4th
4th
4th
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
All of the Above
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
63
Sharing Information
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts
Very Large
Large
Information
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Would Like To Visit Sites
If Locations Are Near
—-
1
—-
3
1
3
2
9
5
22
Conferences
Know of a Model
Demonstration Project
1
—-
—-
2
1
9
9
—-
26
1
to Replicate
Know of a Project about
Which to Share Informa-
1
—-
—-
2
1
—-
8
1
21
2
tion at a Conference
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts
Information
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Would Like to Visit Sites
If Locations Are Near
1
1
5
1
3
1
1
2
Conferences
Know of a Model
Demonstration Project
8
-
3
2
3
—-
2
1
2
—-
to Replicate
Know of a Project about
Which to Share
7
-
1
2
3
—-
1
1
2
—-
Information at a
Conference
Small
Medium
Medium
Small
No
No
No
No
No
No
7
2
—
—
64
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Number of Districts
Information
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Would Like to Visit Sites
If Locations Are Near
1
9
—-
1
—-
5
2
4
Conferences
Know of a Model
Demonstration Project
6
1
2
—-
4
—-
7
—-
to Replicate
Know of a Project about
Which to Share
5
2
2
—-
4
—-
7
—-
Information at a
Conference
No
No
No
65
Most Preferred Methods of Communication
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
Very Large
Small
E-mail
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
(tied)
Newsletter
—-
—-
—-
2nd
2nd
Fax
3rd
1st
2nd
—-
3rd
(tied)
Phone Conference
2nd
3rd
3rd
3rd
—-
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
Region
1
9
E-mail
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Newsletter
3rd
—-
2nd
3rd
—-
—-
—-
2nd
3rd
Fax
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
—-
—-
(tied)
Phone Conference
—-
2nd
—-
—-
2nd
—-
2nd
—-
—
(tied)
List Serve
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
3rd
—-
—-
2nd
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
66
Appendix C
Survey Item 11: How do you plan for entry of pre-K ESE children throughout
the year?
•
start services up to 90 days before 3rd birthday
•
transition planning meetings
•
review, schedule, and promote
•
follow state laws, work monthly basis with Part C
•
screening on parent’s request
•
monthly monitor with EIP and Child Find projected
•
student study teams
•
teaming personnel from Child Find, district, and school
•
assess during summer, add Child Find referrals, reassess throughout the year
•
interdisciplinary team services and parent visitation
•
half day transition classes
•
monthly meeting with families for ESE program options
•
establish new classes and add para-educators
•
upon placement and eligibility throughout the year
•
transition meeting with EIP staff and parents before 3rd birthday
•?
contract with Redlands Christian Migrant Association (RCMA) to provide
services
•
Child Find screenings
•
early transition meetings
•
use Child Find and EIP
•
monthly meetings with EIP, family support coordinator, pre-k council members
•
interagency agreement, temporary placement, parents visits to sites
69
•?
work with Child Find and transition from EIP throughout the school year,
pre-k evaluation team accepts referrals on a continual basis
•?
children enter services after assessment, eligibility, and IEP are completed with
consent; transition meetings for Part C children with parents, EIP
representatives, and district staff after notification of transition
•?
all children referred to Preschool Evaluation Team (PET); Child Find provides
intake, screening appointment, and tracking; school district provides screening,
assessment, and ESE services; Head Start referred to PET and training
•
transition meeting with Part C & ongoing meeting with need
•
transition IEP meetings
•?
consultation with referring agencies, child study team meetings, transition
meeting, staffing
•?
FDLRS/Gateway Child Find screens and refers for assessment to initial
eligibility
•
culmination of evaluation process; in the Part C/EI program
•
referrals by any parties with evaluation for all; transition 3 months prior to age 3
•
estimate based upon EIP/Part C information, March 1 and July 1
•?
through Part C, transition meeting at age 2.9 years; not from Part C, case
conference held after evaluation
•
four days a week program and Friday reserved for transition and home visits
•?
Child Find specialist provided information which is provided on regular basis for
evaluation process
•?
Community-based (day care and Head Start) full-time placement is picked for
child who turns 3 and upon eligibility
•
ongoing projections and assessment of needs in the classrooms
•?
service coordinators from EIP notify the transition specialist and FDLRS Child
Find specialist when child turns 24 months of age; at 30 months a referral is
made to school system and FDLRS to assist in determining eligibility; all parties
meet to discuss transition prior to the child’s 3rd birthday
70
•?
children are referred to and screened by Child Find; pre-k assessment team
does evaluate to determine eligibility; area office support
•?
Part C students are transitioned during the semester that is prior to their 3rd
birthday
•?
work with EIP to schedule transition meetings; evaluation, staffing, and
placement into ESE programs prior to 3rd birthday
•?
children are transferred from Part C as they approach their 3rd birthday;
children coming from FDLRS are placed after staffing
•?
collaboration with Part C through transition meetings for 2-year-old children
before 3 years old
•?
transition meetings are held, records reviewed, evaluations completed;
staffing is held throughout the year with placement at the time of the child’s
3rd birthday
•?
clinic screenings twice a month; monthly meeting with Part C family care
coordinators; coordinate with schools and personnel for services
•?
children are accepted at any time throughout the school year, two-year-olds
may enter at the beginning of the semester in which they are to turn 3
•?
referrals are made to the school through DEI, Child Find, parent/teacher (reg.
pre-k EI)
•?
Child Find and pre-k ESE keep a transitioning list of children; school district
representative attends the transition meeting; projection list and reports are
generated to plan for unit growth
•?
Child Find coordinators screen 3- to 5-year-olds; refer for further evaluation
and follow through the placement
•?
children are evaluated and, if eligible, staffed into IEP team determined
service delivery settings
71
Appendix D
Survey Item 12: What process do you use to assess preschoolers with
disabilities for initial eligibility?
•
multidisciplinary team assessment
•
information from Part C providers
•
Child Find refers to pre-k evaluation team
•
School-based program refers to evaluation specialists
•
referral, screenings, staffing for appropriate services
•
Child Find refers, diagnostic team tests, staffing
•
screenings help from PAEC, full day’s schedule
•
monthly monitor and review from EIP and Child Find referrals and testing
•
school based assessment teams and review of 0 to 3 assessments
•
Child Find screening, school psychological evaluations, SLPs evaluation
•?
screening by Child Find, evaluation by multidisciplinary teams, staffing at
Pre-K sites
•?
contracted multidisciplinary team assessment, referral by Child Find,
evaluate by I-team
•?
FDLRS diagnostic team, regional evaluation team, review private
evaluations, PRIDE diagnostic classroom observation
•
screening and testing by staffing and other specialists
•
comprehensive testing by EIP
•?
initial bi-monthly clinical assessment for evaluation by SLP, school
psychologist, and Child Find
•
comprehensive testing by EIP
•
multidisciplinary team assessment
•
comprehensive testing by EIP
75
•
multidisciplinary team assessment
•
contract with psychologists to perform assessments
•?
screened by Child Find, further team evaluation, parents and doctors’
referrals acceptable
•?
various referrals, intake by secretary or Child Find, review and evaluation
for eligibility, staffing at school sites
•
Child Find screening and FDLRS evaluations
•?
ESE supervisor assigned Pre-K disabilities meets regularly with EIP,
forward info to school sites, program and staffing specialist arranges the
eligibility/IEP meeting, determines eligibility for services/temporary
placement
•?
All referrals go through Child Find screening, multidisciplinary pre-k
evaluation team, monthly meeting review referrals and cases by the team,
assistant coordinator of ESE and Child Find; FDLRS holds monthly
screenings
•?
the assessment is scheduled at a mutually agreeable place and time;
staffing department collects and generates reports, schedules the eligibility
staffing and IEP
•?
Child Find schedules appointment for screening; preschool resource
specialist (PRS) reviews, consent, assessment with parents; PRS
contacts parents to attend the eligibility meeting
•?
utilize Part C evaluations; pre-k (PK) Specialist meets parents for initial
intake, refers to Child Find for screening for pre-k ESE or Head Start
services
•
FDLRS Child Find provides assessments
•
assign district staff to do evaluation
•?
referrals from agencies and Child Find, week long spring screening for all
ages 2 - 5, further evaluations
•?
referrals from various parties, developmental screening, recommendations
from pre-k evaluation team, pre-k specialist organizes IEP at sites to
determine eligibility/services
76
•?
multidisciplinary pre-k evaluation team, monthly evaluation for age 2 to 3
referred
•?
screening by FDLRS/Child Find, further evaluation by ESE district
multidisciplinary child study team, eligibility staffing meeting
•?
screening by FDLRS/Child Find, reviewing by ESE office, school
psychologist set up testing appointments
•?
all referrals forwarded to FDLRS Child Find specialist by case manager;
Part C referrals are assigned to ESE social worker for needed evaluation;
a multidisciplinary district child study committee reviews and determines
for evaluations needed, forward all evaluations to the Pre-K staffing
specialist for eligibility determination
•?
Child Find/FDLRS does initial sensory screening and other professional
evaluations if needed; staffing specialist and team meet with parents for
eligibility and IEP
•?
children 0-2 are through Part C or school district (for vision or hearing); 3-5
are evaluated through Preschool Evaluation Center
•
Preschool evaluation team (SP, SLP, and English and bilingual teams)
•?
FDLRS Child Find specialists coordinate referrals and attend the
screening and evaluation; through interagency agreements, transitions
from Part C to Part B are evaluated by the EIP between 30 to 36 months
of age; pre-k assessment team reviews and participates in all screenings
and performs follow-up evaluations
•?
FDLRS community screenings are conducted twice a month for children
older than 3, also accept referrals from community therapy providers
•?
multidisciplinary team members participate in screening and evaluations;
one team member assigned as the case manager to follow through the
staffing process
•?
home zone school evaluated speech and language disorders; other
disorders are evaluated at pre-k clinic 3 times per month; multidisciplinary
reports and eligibility are determined in 2-hour sessions
•?
Child Find, SLP, and school psychologist screens children; reports are
completed by each staff member; staffing is held; students transferring
from Part C do not go through a screen
77
•?
following Child Find staffing procedures, pre-k referral guidelines and
transition process
•?
Child Find screens, reviews and develops records; preschool diagnostic
team completes evaluations; the preschool case manager and social
worker schedule, conduct, and facilitate eligibility staffing; IEP takes place;
placement at a school site or community agency
•?
pre-k disabilities multidisciplinary team evaluates and works at the
Educational Support Center Annex (12 evaluations per week, and 8
evaluations on weekends); screening clinics are held twice a month, and
eligibility meetings are scheduled during the week
•?
referrals from EIP, Child Find, Head Start, and pre-k children are screened
by the therapists to determine if child is developmentally delayed
•?
multidisciplinary pre-k screenings; further psychological testing is
completed by ESE specialist
•?
Child Find screens and refers for needed evaluations; ESE placement
office organizes the records and eligibility staffing
•?
screening for weakness identification and evaluations for speech,
language, developmental delay, and other areas
•?
evaluations are conducted by contracted evaluators; following referrals
from the interdisciplinary team, the ESE coordinator and an ESE resource
teacher schedule and arrange for all evaluations of the children.
78
Appendix E
List of Counties in Size Categories
Category
Counties in the Each District
Very Large
Broward
Dade
Large
Duval
Hillsborough
Orange
Palm Beach
Pinellas
Medium
Brevard
Lee
Polk
Seminole
Volusia
Medium Small
Alachua
Lake
Osceola
Bay
Leon
Pasco
Clay
Manatee
St. Lucie
Collier
Marion
Santa Rosa
Escambia
Okaloosa
Sarasota
Small
Baker
Hamilton
Nassau
Bradford
Hardee
Okeechobee
Calhoun
Hendry
Putnam
Charlotte
Holmes
St. Johns
Citrus
Indian River
Sumter
Columbia
DeSoto
Suwannee
Hernando
Highlands
Taylor
Dixie
Jackson
Union
Flagler
Jefferson
Wakulla
Franklin
Lafayette
Walton
Gadsden
Levy
Washington
Gilchrist
Liberty
Glades
Madison
Gulf
Monroe
81
List of Tables
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds .......................................................... 85
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds ........................................... 85
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers and Certification Status ............. 86
Requirements for Instructional Assistants ............................................................... 86
Service Delivery Models Used ................................................................................ 87
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT .......................................................... 88
Personnel Placement Policies................................................................................. 88
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday/Use FSP .................................................. 88
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used ............................................................... 89
Reasons for Not Using EIP Evaluation Data ........................................................... 89
Strategies for Facilitating Communication and Coordination of Services ............... 90
Current Training Delivery Methods.......................................................................... 90
Preferred Formats for Future Training..................................................................... 91
Times of the Year Preferred for Training ................................................................. 92
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training .................................................... 92
Preferred Length of Future Training ........................................................................ 93
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training ............................................................ 93
Sharing Information ................................................................................................. 94
Most Preferred Methods of Communication............................................................ 94
83
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Providing Services to 0-
through 2-Year-Olds in Each Setting by
Size Category
Setting
Very Large
Large
Small
School-Based
1
2
0
1
8
Home-Based
1
3
4
4
7
Contracted Providers
1
0
1
6
4
Other
0
3
1
4
8
Small
Medium
Medium
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds
Size Category Analysis
Number of Children Ages 3 through 5 Served
in Each Setting by Size Category
Setting
Very Large
Large
Small
School-Based Settings
Self-Contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
Children
300
1,235
704
2,214
1,157
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
150
12
50
413
384
Head Start Classroom
—-
195
17
320
296
Title 1 Classroom
5
—-
—-
300
33
Fee-Supported Child Care
312
123
—-
104
84
Community-Based
Settings
Self-contained Classroom
with No Typically Developing
Children
—-
—-
8
24
28
Pre-K Readiness Classroom
—-
—-
8
10
82
Head Start Classroom
500
—-
—-
50
284
Title 1 Classroom
—-
000
—-
—-
—-
Fee-Supported Child Care
—-
300
210
50
142
Small
Medium
Medium
85
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers
and
Certification Status
Size Category Analysis
Number and Percentage of Teachers
In Each Size Category
Very
Large
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Full-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
160
100% 216
100%
139
100%
253
100%
167
96.5%
Part-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
6
3.4%
Teachers with Pre-K
ESE Endorsement
32
20%
—-
—-
—-
—-
10
3.9%
27
15.6%
Teachers with Age 3 to
Grade 3 Certification
12
7.5%
—-
—-
—-
—-
12
4.7%
15
8.6%
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Requirements for Instructional Assistants
Size Category Analysis
Requirement
Number of Districts Imposing Each Requirement
Very
Large
Training
1
5
11
Credential
0
4
5
Other
1
6
11
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
1
3
2
2
1
2
86
Service Delivery Models Used
Size Category Analysis
Service Delivery
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model to
Model
Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
(for general
educational services)
Very
Large
Integrative/Inclusive
Activities
1
3
4
11
20
Itinerant/Collaborative/
Consultative
1
3
2
6
8
Itinerant/Direct Service
1
3
1
5
10
Peer or Mentor
Activities
1
1
4
4
8
Reverse Mainstreaming
1
2
3
4
6
Team Teaching
1
2
3
3
3
Full Inclusion
—-
—-
—-
—-
4
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
87
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT
Size Category Analysis
Service Delivery
Model(for general
Ages 3 through 5
educational services)
Very
Large
SLP
SLP
Pull-Out
1
1
1
3
4
12
28
School
1
1
3
4
11
10
17
Settings
Transport
to School
1
1
2
2
7
6
6
Pull-Out
—-
1
—- —-
3
8
4
5
Community
Settings
—-
2
1
4
3
5
1
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model
to Serve Children
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
PT
OT
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
3
3
4
4
28
29
12
12
1
Integrated
3
3
3
4
20
24
9
1
1
1
—-
4
6
6
14
—-
—-
—- —-
4
5
10
—-
—-
Integrated
—-
1
—- —-
3
2
Personnel Placement Policies
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts
Policy
Very
Large
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class Size
1
-
2
1
1
3
11
1
25
5
Child/Teacher Ratio
1
-
2
1
2
2
10
2
18
11
Having Personnel Placement Policies
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
No
No
No
No
—
—
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday
Use FSP
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Very
Large
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Serve Children Prior
to 3rd Birthday
1
—-
2
—-
1
3
7
5
13
16
Use FSPs in Pre-K
ESE Classrooms
1
—-
3
—-
4
0
12
—-
29
1
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
No
No
No
No
88
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Reporting Using Each Percentage
Percentage
ery
Large
0
-
—-
—-
—-
1
1
-
—-
—-
—-
1
2
-
—-
—-
—-
1
10
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
20
—-
—-
1
1
—-
45
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
50
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
60
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
65
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
70
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
75
—-
1
—-
1
1
80
1
—-
—-
—-
3
85
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
90
—-
—-
2
1
—-
95
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
100
—-
1
—-
4
8
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
—
—
—
Reasons for Not Using EIP Evaluation Data
Size Category Analysis
Reason for Not Using
Percentage of Districts Reporting Each Reason
EIP Evaluation Data
ery
Large
All Needed Areas
Not Tested
100%
100%
100%
75%
87.1%
Outdated Testing
100%
100%
50%
75%
67.7%
Test Does Not Meet State
Eligibility Requirements
100%
66.7%
25%
41.7%
38.7%
Evaluator Qualifications
Do Not Meet
—-
66.7%
25%
41.7%
12.9%
State Requirements
District Requires Their
Own Evaluation
—-
33.3%
—-
8.3%
6.5%
Other
—-
66.7%
25%
16.7%
16.1%
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
89
Strategies for Facilitating
Communication and Coordination of Services
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts Using Each Strategy
Strategy
ery
Large
Attend Transition Meetings
1
3
4
11
28
Have Policy on Transition
Practices
1
3
4
11
21
Attend Interagency
Meetings
1
3
3
9
17
Have Designated
Transition Specialist
on Staff
1
2
4
9
17
Organize and/or
Participate In Joint
Training
1
1
3
7
12
Participate in
Interagency Workshops
1
2
2
7
11
Others
—-
1
2
5
10
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Current Training Delivery Methods
Size Category Analysis
Method
Rank of Each Method
Very
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
District Provided Inservice
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
FDLRS
No Rank
6th
7th
7th
7th
Onsite Technical Assistance
Send Teachers to
4th
3rd
3rd
2nd
4th
Conferences/Workshops
6th
7th
5th
5th
3rd
Networking Meetings
5th
5th
2nd
3rd
5th
Mentoring Program
2nd
6th
7th
7th
7th
Send Teachers to Observe
Other Teachers/Classrooms
3rd
8th
4th
4th
6th
Other
No Rank
4th
8th
8th
8th
90
Preferred Formats for Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Format
Format
ery
Large
Preferred Training Format
for Teachers
Conferences
1
3
1
1
1
Institutes
2
1
3
2
2
Weekend with the Experts
3
2
2
3
3
Preferred Training Format
for Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Size-Alike Trainings
3
1
2
1
1
Regional Trainings
1
3
1
3
2
State Meetings
4
2
3
2
3
Phone Conference on
Specific Topics
2
4
5
5
4
Web-Site Discussion
5
5
4
4
5
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
91
Times of the Year Preferred for Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Time of the Year
Time of the Year
ery
Large
Preferred Time for
Teachers
Summer
3rd
2nd
4th
1st
1st
Fall
1st
1st
1st
3rd
2nd
Winter
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
3rd
Spring
4th
4th
3rd
4th
4th
Preferred Time for
Coordinators
Summer
1st
2nd
4th
1st
2nd
(tied)
Fall
2nd
1st
1st
4th
3rd
(tied)
Winter
3rd
1st
2nd
2nd
1st
(tied)
Spring
4th
2nd
3rd
3rd
4th
(tied)
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Time of the Week
Time of the Week
ery
Large
Preferred Time for
Teachers
Late in the Week
4th
3rd
1st
1st
1st
Mid-Week
3rd
4th
2nd
2nd
2nd
Weekend
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
4th
Early in the Week
1st
2nd
4th
4th
3rd
Preferred Time for
Coordinators
Late in the Week
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
1st
Mid-Week
1st
3rd
1st
2nd
2nd
Weekend
4th
4th
4th
4th
4th
Early in the Week
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
3rd
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
92
Preferred Length of Future Training
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Length of Training
Length
ery
Large
Preferred Length for
Teachers
One Day
3rd
1st
1st
1st
1st
One and a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Two Days
1st
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Preferred Length for
Coordinator Training
One Day
3rd
3rd
1st
1st
1st
(tied)
(tied)
One and a Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
(tied)
Two Days
1st
1st
1st
2nd
3rd
(tied)
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training
Back to top
Size Category Analysis
Method
Rank of Each Method
Very
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
Preferred Method of
Validation for Teachers
Inservice Points
3rd
4th
2nd
2nd
2nd
College Credit
for Recertification
2nd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
2nd
4th
3rd
4th
All of the Above
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Preferred Method of
Validation for
Coordinators
Inservice Points
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
College Credit for
Recertification
2nd
2nd (tied)
3rd
4th
3rd
College Credit for
Endorsement
4th
2nd (tied)
4th
3rd
4th
All of the Above
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
93
Sharing Information
Size Category Analysis
Number of Districts
Information
ery
Large
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Yes
Would Like to Visit Sites If
Locations Are Near
Conferences
—-
1
—-
3
1
3
2
9
5
22
Know of a Model
Demonstration Project
to Replicate
1
—-
—-
2
1
9
9
—-
26
1
Know of a Project about
Which to Share Information
at a Conference
1
—-
—-
2
1
—-
8
1
21
2
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
No
No
Most Preferred Methods of Communication
Size Category Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
ery
Large
E-mail
1st
1st (tied)
1st
1st
1st
Newsletter
—-
—-
—-
2nd
2nd
Fax
3rd
1st (tied)
2nd
—-
3rd
Phone Conference
2nd
3rd
3rd
3rd
—-
V
Small
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
94
Appendix F
List of Counties by CSPD Region
(as numbered)
Region 1
Calhoun
Jackson
Madison
FSU/FAMU
Columbia
Jefferson
Suwannee
Franklin
Lafayette
Taylor
Gadsden
Leon
Wakulla
Hamilton
Liberty
Region 2
Brevard
Orange
Sumter
Central Florida
Citrus
Osceola
Volusia
Lake
Seminole
Region 3
Florida Gulf Coast
Charlotte
Glades
Lee
Collier
Hendry
Region 4
Brevard
Indian River
Palm Beach
Southeastern
Broward
Okeechobee
St. Lucie
Region 5
Alachua
Gilchrist
Marion
Springs
Dixie
Levy
Region 6
DeSoto
Hillsborough
Pinellas
USF
Hardee
Manatee
Polk
Hernando
Pasco
Sarasota
Highlands
Region 7
Dade
Monroe
Dade-Monroe
Region 8
Baker
Clay
Putnam
North Florida
Bradford
Flagler
St. Johns
Duval
Nassau
Union
Region 9
Bay
Holmes
Walton
West Florida
Escambia
Okaloosa
Washington
Gulf
Santa Rosa
97
List of Tables
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds ....................................................... 101
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds ........................................ 101
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers and Certification Status .......... 102
Requirements for Instructional Assistants ............................................................ 102
Service Delivery Models Used ............................................................................. 103
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT ....................................................... 103
Personnel Placement Policies.............................................................................. 104
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday/Use FSP ............................................... 105
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used ............................................................ 106
Reasons for Not Using EIP Evaluation Data ........................................................ 107
Strategies for Facilitating Communication and Coordination of Services ............ 108
Current Training Delivery Methods....................................................................... 109
Preferred Formats for Future Training.................................................................. 110
Times of the Year Preferred for Training ...............................................................111
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training ................................................. 112
Preferred Length of Future Training ..................................................................... 113
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training ......................................................... 114
Sharing Information .............................................................................................. 115
Most Preferred Methods of Communication......................................................... 116
99
Services Provided to 0- through 2-Year-Olds
Regional Analysis
Setting
Number of Districts Providing Services
to 0- to 2-Year-Olds in Each Setting by Region
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
School-Based
1
2
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
Home-Based
1
5
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
Contracted Providers
2
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
Other
1
4
3
1
0
4
0
2
1
Service Delivery Locations for 3- through 5-Year-Olds
Regional Analysis
Number of Children Ages 3 through 5 Served
in Each Setting by Region
Setting
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
School-Based
Settings
Self-Contained Class-
room with No Typically
Developing Children
278
608
341
235
320
2,384
365
527
552
Pre-K Readiness
Classroom
96
86
15
131
—-
350
150
78
247
Head Start Classroom
73
17
109
2
141
284
100
28
84
Title 1 Classroom
—-
—-
—-
20
300
2
5
—-
—-
Fee-Supported
Child Care
15
—-
78
—-
—-
190
312
3
30
Community-Based
Settings
Self-Contained Class-
room with No Typically
Developing Children
—-
8
10
5
—-
24
—-
10
—-
Pre-K Readiness
Classroom
—-
90
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
10
—-
Head Start Classroom
13
12
—-
137
6
23
600
10
33
Title 1 Classroom
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
Fee-Supported
Child Care
8
210
8
133
—-
342
—-
1
—-
2
101
Number and Percentage of Pre-K ESE Teachers
and
Certification Status
Regional Analysis
Number and Percentage of Teachers in Each Region
Region
1
3
4
5
6
7
#
Full-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
45
100%137 100% 36
27 96.4% 32 96.9% 352 100%168 100% 49 94.2%84
100%
Part-Time Pre-K ESE
Teachers Employed
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
2.7% 1
3.5%
1
3%
—-
—-
—-
—-
3
5.7% —-
—-
Teachers with Pre-K
ESE Endorsement
3
%
2.1% —-
—-
1
3.5% —-
—-
11 3.1% 33 19.6%12 23%
6
7.1%
Teachers with
Age 3 to Grade 3
Certification
5
3.4%
2
1.4% 1
2.7% 4
—-
2
0.5% 12 7.1% —-
—-
13 15.4%
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
2
9
8
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
97.2%
2
3
14.2% —-
Back to top
Requirements for Instructional Assistants
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Imposing Each Requirement
Requirement
Region
1
3
4
5
6
7
Training
3
3
2
—-
—-
1
1
2
6
Credential
4
3
—-
—-
1
4
—
—-
1
Other
1
1
3
2
1
5
1
4
3
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
2
9
8
102
Service Delivery Models Used
Regional Analysis
Service Delivery
Model
Number of Districts Indicating Use of
(for general
Each Model to Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
educational
services)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Integrative/
Inclusive
Activities
7
6
2
2
3
8
2
3
6
Itinerant/
Collaborative/
Consultative
3
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
Itinerant/Direct
Service
2
3
1
1
2
6
1
3
1
Peer or Mentor
Activities
1
5
2
—-
1
4
1
2
2
Reverse
Mainstreaming
2
4
1
—-
—-
4
2
1
2
Team Teaching
1
2
1
—-
—-
5
1
1
1
Full Inclusion
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
1
—-
2
—-
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
Back to top
Service Delivery Models of SLP, OT, and PT
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Service Delivery
Model
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model
(for general
to Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
educational
services)
Region 1
SLP OT
School
9
8
8
6
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Settings
Integrated
8
8
7
6
6
5
3
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
Transport
to School
4
2
2
3
—-
—-
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Comm.
2
2
2
4
—-
—-
1
1
1
3
—-
1
3
2
2
Settings
Integrated
1
1
1
2
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
1
1
0
1
1
1
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
PT
OT
SLP
OT PT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
Pull-Out
Pull-Out
103
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Service Delivery
Model
Number of Districts Indicating Use of Each Model
(for general
to Serve Children Ages 3 through 5
educational services)
Region 6
SLP
School
Settings
10
9
10
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
7
7
Integrated
10
9
8
2
2
1
5
5
4
5
4
4
Transport
to School
7
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
—-
—-
Community
4
3
2
—-
—-
—-
2
1
1
3
—-
—-
Settings
Integrated
5
3
2
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
Region 9
Region 8
Region 7
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
SLP
PT
OT
Pull-Out
Pull-Out
Personnel Placement Policies
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts Having
Policy
Personnel Placement Policies
Region 1
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Class Size
7
3
3
3
2
1
3
—-
3
—-
Child/Teacher
Ratio
5
5
3
3
1
2
3
—-
1
1
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
No
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Policy
Number of Districts Having
Personnel Placement Policies
Region 6
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class Size
7
3
2
—-
6
—-
7
—-
Child/Teacher Ratio
8
2
2
—-
5
1
5
2
Region 9
Region 8
Region 7
No
No
No
104
Provide Services Prior to Third Birthday
Use FSP
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Policy
Region 1
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Serve Children
Prior to 3rd
7
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
Birthday
Use FSPs in
Pre-K ESE
10
—-
6
—-
4
—-
3
—-
3
—-
Classrooms
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Number of Districts Serving Students Prior to Age 3;
Policy
Region 6
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Serve Children Prior to
3rd Birthday
5
4
2
—-
2
3
4
3
Use FSPs in Pre-K
ESE Classrooms
10
—-
2
—-
4
1
7
0
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
No
Number of Districts Using FSPs
Region 9
Region 8
Region 7
No
No
No
105
Percentage of EIP Evaluation Data Used
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Reporting Using Each Percentage
Percentage
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
2
-
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
-
1
10
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
20
—-
1
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
45
1
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
-
—-
50
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
60
1
—-
—-
-
-
—-
-
-
—-
65
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
70
—-
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
75
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
2
—-
1
—-
80
1
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
1
—-
1
85
—-
1
—-
—-
-
—-
-
-
—-
90
—-
1
—-
—-
2
2
—-
2
—-
95
—-
—-
1
—-
—-
-
—-
-
—-
100
2
—-
1
—-
—-
4
1
2
3
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
106
Reasons For Not Using EIP Evaluation Data
Regional Analysis
Percentage of Districts Reporting Each Reason
Reason For
Not Using EIP
Evaluation
Data
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All Needed
Areas Not
80%
100%
100%
100% 66.7%
90%
50%
100% 71.4%
Tested
Outdated
Testing
60% 83.3%
75%
100% 66.7%
70%
50%
83.3% 57.1%
Test Does Not
Meet State
Eligibility
40% 16.7% 175%
33.3%
—-
50%
50%
33.3% 57.1%
Requirements
Evaluator
Qualifications Do
Not Meet State
—
50%
50%
66.7% 33.3%
10%
—-
16.7% 28.6%
Requirements
District Requires
Their Own
10%
—-
—-
—-
—-
10%
—-
33.3%
—-
Evaluation
Other
20% 16.7%
—-
—-
—-
50%
—-
—-
28.6%
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
107
Strategies for Facilitating
Communication and Coordination of Services
Regional Analysis
Number of Districts Using Each Strategy
Strategy
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Attend
Transition
Meetings
9
6
3
2
3
10
2
6
6
Have Policy
on Transition
Practices
7
6
3
2
2
9
2
5
4
Attend
Interagency
Meetings
5
5
4
—-
2
9
1
4
3
Have
Designated
Transition
Specialist
on Staff
4
5
2
3
2
8
1
5
3
Organize
and/or
Participate in
Joint Training
5
4
3
—-
2
7
1
1
1
Participate in
Interagency
Workshops
2
3
3
—-
1
7
1
3
3
Others
2
3
2
2
2
5
—-
—-
2
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
108
Current Training Delivery Methods
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Method
Method
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
District Provided
Inservice
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
(tied)
(tied)
FDLRS
2nd
6th
4th
5th
3rd
3rd
5th
1st
3rd
(tied)
Onsite
Technical
Assistance
5th
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
3rd
6th
(tied)
(tied)
(tied)
Send Teachers
to Conferences/
Workshops
3rd
4th
3rd
4th
4th
5th
7th
3rd
2nd
(tied)
Networking
Meetings
4th
3rd
6th
2nd
5th
6th
5th
5th
4th
(tied)
Mentoring
Program
7th
8th
8th
6th
7th
7th
3rd
7th
7th
Send Teachers
to Observe
Other Teachers/
Classrooms
6th
7th
6th
6th
6th
4th
4th
56h
5th
Other
8th
5th
5th
8th
8th
8th
8th
8th
8th
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
109
Preferred Formats for Future Training
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Format
Format
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Preferred
Training
Format for
Teachers
Conferences
1st
2nd
3rd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
1st
No
(tied)
(tied)
Rank
Institutes
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
3rd
3rd
2nd
2nd
Weekend with
the Experts
3rd
3rd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
3rd
(tied)
(tied)
Preferred
Training
Format for
Pre-K ESE
Coordinators
Size-Alike
Trainings
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
Regional
Trainings
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
2nd
1st
State
Meetings
3rd
1st
1st
4th
5th
3rd
2nd
3rd
3rd
Phone
Conference
on Specific
4th
4th
4th
5th
3rd
4th
4th
4th
5th
Topics
Web-Site
Discussion
5th
5th
5th
3rd
4th
5th
5th
5th
4th
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
110
Times of the Year Preferred for Training
Regional Analysis
Times of
the Year
Rank of Each Format
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Preferred Time
for Teachers
Summer
1st
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
(tied)
Fall
3rd
2nd
4th
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
Winter
2nd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
3rd
2nd
3rd
1st
(tied)
Spring
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
4th
4th
4th
4th
Preferred Time
for
Coordinators
Summer
1st
2nd
1st
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
Fall
3rd
1st
4th
4th
4th
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
(tied)
Winter
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
Spring
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
4th
4th
3rd
4th
(tied)
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
111
Times of the Week Preferred for Future Training
Regional Analysis
Times of
the Week
Rank of Each Time of the Week
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Preferred Time
for Teachers
Late in the
Week
4th
1st
1st
1st
3rd
1st
4th
1st
1st
Mid-Week
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
3rd
3rd
Weekend
2nd
4th
2nd
3rd
4th
2nd
3rd
2nd
4th
Early in the
Week
3rd
3rd
4th
4th
2nd
4th
1st
4th
2nd
Preferred Time
for
Coordinators
Late in the
3rd
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
Week
(tied)
(tied)
Mid-Week
1st
1st
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
(tied)
(tied)
Weekend
4th
4th
1st
4th
3rd
4th
2nd
4th
4th
(tied)
Early in the
2nd
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
Week
(tied)
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
112
Preferred Length of Future Training
Regional Analysis
Length
Rank of Each Length of Training
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Preferred
Length for
Teachers
One Day
1st
1st
No
1st
1st
1st
3rd
1st
1st
Choices
(tied)
One and a
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
1st
Half Days
(tied)
Two Days
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
Preferred
Time for
Coordinators
One Day
1st
3rd
No
1st
2nd
No
1st
1 st
Choices
Choices
One and a
Half Days
2nd
2nd
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
Two Days
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
3rd
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
No
Choices
113
Preferred Methods of Validation of Training
Regional Analysis
Rank of Each Method of Validation
Method
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Preferred
Method of
Validation for
Teachers
Inservice
2nd
2nd
2nd
4th
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
Points
(tied)
College Credit
for
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
Recertification
College Credit
for
4th
3rd
4th
2nd
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
Endorsement
All of the
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Above
(tied)
Preferred
Method of
Validation
for
Coordinators
Inservice
Points
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
2nd
College Credit
for
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
4th
Recertification
College Credit
for
4th
4th
4th
4th
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
Endorsement
All of the
Above
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
9
8
114
Sharing Information
Regional Analysis—Regions 1-5
Number of Districts
Information
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Would Like to
Visit Sites If
Locations Are
1
7
1
5
1
3
1
2
1
2
Near
Conferences
Know of a
Model
Demonstration
8
—-
3
2
3
—-
2
1
2
—-
Project to
Replicate
Know of a
Project about
Which to Share
7
—-
1
2
3
—-
1
1
2
—-
Information at a
Conference
Region 5
Region 4
Region 3
Region 2
Region 1
No
No
No
No
Regional Analysis—Regions 6-9
Information
Number of Districts
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Would Like to Visit Sites
If Locations Are
Near Conferences
1
9
—-
1
—-
5
2
4
Know of a Model
Demonstration
Project to Replicate
6
1
2
—-
4
—-
7
—-
Know of a Project
about Which to Share
Information at a
Conference
5
2
2
—-
4
—-
7
—-
115
Most Preferred Methods of Communication
Regional Analysis
Method
Rank of Each Method
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Region Region
8
9
E-mail
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Newsletter
3rd
—-
2nd
3rd
—-
—-
—-
2nd
3rd
Fax
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
(tied)
2nd
3rd
—-
—-
Phone
Conference
—-
2nd
—-
—-
2nd
(tied)
—-
2nd
—-
—-
116
Jim Horne, Commissioner
ESE 12249