Power Point Presentation - Salus University

Eight Months into NCLVI 

1 + 4 Review: OSEP Washington, D.C. 

Kathleen Mary Huebner, PhD, Co-Director 

Diane P. Wormsley, PhD, Co-Director 

Missy Garber, PhD, Coordinator 

Cooperative Agreement # H325U040001

Overview of Presentation 

• Accomplishments and Future Activities by 

Objective 

– Chronology of NCLVI and developing the 

collaborative model 

– Facilitating preparation of leadership personnel 

– Enriching preparation of leadership personnel 

break 

– Increasing capacity of HECSE members 

– Evaluating NCLVI 

– Disseminating information about the model 

• Upcoming Challenges

Orientation to Materials 

• Individual Packets 

• Website Binder 

• Recruitment and Information 

Dissemination Binder 

• Sample Contract Folder 

• Laptop Slideshow

Accomplishments and 

Future Activities by 

Objective

Objective 1: 

Developing the 

Collaborative Model

Chronology of NCLVI 

Before May 2003 – October 2004

Need for Special Education Leadership Personnel in 

Blindness and Visual Impairment 

Research Supports Need 

• 1995-2003 Annual Average 4 New Doctorates 

• 2000 NPTP Goal of 13 Doctorates Annually 

• 2002-2003 13 University Tenure Track Positions Open 

or Unfilled 

• 2005 14 Active VI Doctoral Programs in US 

• 2005 72 Leaders with Doctorates needed in next 

5 years.

Need for Special Education Leadership Personnel in 

Blindness and Visual Impairment, Cont. 

Research Supports Need 

• Production of new doctorates remains stagnant 

(Sindelar, Smith & Wald 1998) 

• Absence of critical mass at most universities 

• Universities unable to fill faculty positions (Some 

recent examples, Vanderbilt, Ohio State, Illinois 

State, U Mass) 

• One-fourth of all VI faculty intend to retire by 2005 

(Corn & Silberman, 1999) 

• More than 60% of full-time faculty are over the age 

of 50 (Silberman, Ambrose-Zaken, Corn, & Trief 

2005)

NCLVI Timeline 

Before May ‘03 June ‘03 July ‘03 Aug. ‘03 Sep. ‘03 Oct. ‘03 

Before May 2003 

•Concerns about state of B/VI leadership 

training 

•Previous research from NPTP and Summits 

indicate extreme need

NCLVI Timeline, Cont. 

May ‘03 June ‘03 July ‘03 Aug. ‘03 Sep. ‘03 Oct. ‘03 

May 2003 

•OSEP Leadership Project Director’s Meeting 

•Blue Ribbon Task Force on Leadership 

Training Report



May-June 2003 

Discussion and problem solving at PCO


May ‘03 

June ‘03 

July ‘03 

Aug. ‘03 Sep. ‘03 Oct. ‘03 

June-July 2003 

Huebner, Smith and Wormsley develop 

Consortium concept paper



July 2003 

First presentation of Consortium concept 

paper to OSEP personnel by Huebner and 

Smith


May ‘03 June ‘03 July ‘03 August ‘03 Sep. ‘03 Oct. ‘03 

August 2003 

Vanderbilt meeting, Corn and Koenig


May ‘03 June ‘03 July ‘03 Aug. ‘03 Sep. ‘03 October ‘03 

October 2003 

•Further discussion and conference calls 

•Division 17 of AER votes to support PCO 

Consortium concept


Oct. ‘03 Nov. ‘03 Dec. ‘03 Jan. ‘04 Feb. ‘04 Mar. ‘04 

November 2003 

•Follow-up meeting at OSEP with Huebner, 

Wormsley, Corn and OSEP officials 

•Conference call with Division 17; vote to 

submit proposal with PCO as lead


Oct. ‘03 Nov. ‘03 Dec. ‘03 Jan. ‘04 Feb. ‘04 Mar. ‘04 

November 2003-March 2004 

•Unsolicited proposal preparation 

•Lead authors PCO with UNCO, AFB, FSU, 

TTU, and U of A


Oct. ‘03 Nov. ‘03 Dec. ‘03 Jan. ‘04 Feb. ‘04 March ‘04 

March 22, 2004 

Proposal submitted


Sep. ‘04 Oct. ‘04 Nov. ‘04 Dec. ‘04 Jan. ‘05 Feb. ‘05 

October 15, 2004 

•Collaborative Agreement funded as 1 + 4 

October 20-22, 2004 

•Initial meeting with OSEP, NCLVI Staff and 4 

Consortium representatives

Developing the Collaborative 

Model 

Collaborating Components

NCLVI Collaborating Components 

University 

Consortium 

PCO 

Public 

Advisors 

NCLVI 

Fellows 

OSEP

NCLVI Staff at PCO 

• Kathleen M. Huebner, Co-Director 

• Diane P. Wormsley, Co-Director 

• Missy Garber, Coordinator 

• Gen Ohkawa, Technology Manager 

• Sharon Jackson, Access Consultant 

• Tina Fitzpatrick, Administrative Assistant

NCLVI University Consortium 

• California State 


• Florida State University 

• Northern Illinois 


• Ohio State University 

• San Francisco State 


• Teachers College, 

Columbia University 

• Texas Tech University 

at Lubbock 

• University of Arizona 

• University of Louisville 

• University of Northern 

Colorado 

• University of Pittsburgh 

• University of Utah 

• Western Michigan 


• Vanderbilt University

NCLVI Public Advisory Council 

• American Council of the Blind 

• American Foundation for the 

Blind 

• American Printing House for the 

Blind 

• Association for the Education 

and Rehabilitation of the B/VI 

• Association of State Education 

Consultants for the VI 

• Council of Schools for the Blind 

• Early Intervention Training 

Center for Infants and Toddlers 

with VI 

• Gallaudet University 

• Higher Education Consortium in 

Special Education 

• National Association for Parents 

of Children with VI 

• National Association of State 

Directors of Special Education 

• National Center on Low- 

Incidence Disabilities 

• National Council of Private 

Agencies for the B/VI 

• National Federation of the Blind 

• National Organization of 

Parents of Blind Children


Model 

Communication: NCLVI Face-to-Face 

Meetings

University Consortium Meeting 

• December 11-13, 2004 

• OSEP 

• Guiding Principles 

• Mission 

• Decision Making 

• Fellowships 

• Tuition, stipends 

• Application 

• Recruitment 

• Enrichment Program 

• Committees 

• Communication

Public Advisory Council Meeting 

• January 11-12, 2005 

• National Federation of 

the Blind, Baltimore, 

MD 

• Guiding Principles 

• Recruitment 

• Higher Education 

• Leadership Qualities 


• Residencies and 

Internships

Joint Consortium-PAC Meeting 

• March 10, 2005 

• Boston, MA 

• Pre-Josephine L. Taylor 

Leadership Institute 


• Working Groups 

– Research 

– Public Policy 

– Higher Education 

– Leadership Issues in B/VI 

– Collaboration

Developing Collaboration through 

Communication 

Other Communication Vehicles: 

• Project website 

http://www.pco.edu/nclvi.htm 

•Listservs 

• Blackboard


Model 

Upcoming Activities: 

• Second Face-to-Face University 

Consortium Meeting 

• Fellows’ Listserv

Objective 2: 

Facilitating the Preparation 

of Leadership Personnel

Facilitating the Preparation 

of Leadership Personnel 

•Recruitment of Fellows and Dissemination 

of Information about NCLVI 

•Fellowship Application Process 

•Selection of Fellows

Recruitment of Fellows and 

Dissemination of Information about 

NCLVI 

Presentation Binder: 

• Hard copy announcements and articles 

•Presentations 

• Word-of-mouth 

• Websites, electronic articles, and 

announcements

Fellowship Application Process 

• 86 inquiries 

• Application Form Committee 

-Application 

-Application Evaluation Form 

• 21 completed applications by May 1 st

Application Review Process 

• Identifying information obscured 

• Application Review Committee selection 

• Paneling and ranking

Selection of Fellows 

• Top 15 offered fellowships 

• Applicants notified 

• Returning OSEP Payback Agreements

Facilitating the Preparation of 

Leadership Personnel 

Upcoming Activities: 

• Refining application 

• 2006 flyer and announcements 

• 19 inquiries post May 1 st 

• Applicant materials arriving 

• 2006 applicant pool larger than 2005 

• Funding available for 10 Fellows

Objective 3: 

Enriching the 

Preparation of 

Leadership Personnel

December 2004 

• Enrichment Program Suggestions from 

Consortium Survey 

• Leadership Qualities and Enrichment 

Topics from PAC Survey 

• Timeline Enrichment Activities Drafted 

by University Consortium Members

January 2005 

PAC Generates: 

• Leadership Qualities and Competencies 

• Enrichment Activities Suggestions 

• Gift PACS Ideas and Offers 

• Short Term Residencies and Internships

February 2005 

• Current doctoral student survey 

• Synthesis of enrichment topics & areas 

from all sources by NCLVI Garber

March 2005 

• Present doctoral student focus group at JLTLI 

• Consortium Developed Tentative Charts of 

Competencies / Activities / Evidence for: 

• Public Policy (Project Years 2 and 5) 

• Issues (Infused Through Project Years 2 through 5) 

• Collaboration (Infused Through Project Years 2 

through 5) 

• Research (Project Year 3) 

• Higher Education (Project Year 4) 

• Internships (Project Year 5 for 1 st cohort, Project 

Year 6 for 2 nd cohort)

April-May-June 2005 

Tentative Face to Face Meeting Agendas Public 

Policy / Issues / Collaboration Developed for 

Enrichment Committee and Consortium 

Review 

• NCLVI Fellows Orientation (Oct. 16 th ) 

• Intro to Public Policy (Oct. 17 th ) 

• Enrichment Three Day Workshop, 

Washington, DC (TBD) 

• Final Face to Face (TBD)


Tentative Syllabus 2005 – 2006 

Developed for Enrichment Committee 

and Consortium Review


Blackboard Online Development 

• Discussion Forums, Leaders, etc. 

• Web Based Readings

Objective 4: 

Increasing the Capacity of 

HECSE Members

Increase Capacity of HECSE Members: 

• University consortium decision to table until 

year 2 and then start action plans 

• Responded and sought out possible 

participation by 2 more universities, Portland 

State and Illinois State University in Normal – 

initial contact, offers, efforts have been made

Increase Capacity of HECSE Members, cont.: 

• Target the 44 Non-NCLVI Consortium 

HECSE members that have existing special 

education doctoral programs but not VI 

emphasis 

• Pair them with NCLVI Consortium Member 

Universities and Mentor them

Objective 5: 

Evaluating NCLVI

Evaluating NCLVI: 

Accomplishments and Future 

Activities 

Evaluation by Objective -- 

and by Evaluation Questions

1. Develop Collaborative Model 

• Does the collaborative represent the 

doctoral programs in VI in the US? 

• Has the collaborative worked through 

potential conflicts and established 

resolutions? 

• Does the collaborative have guiding 

principles that will shape its work?

1. Develop Collaborative Model (cont.) 

• What steps has the collaborative taken 

to establish its operational policy 

guidelines? 

• Has the collaborative made a difference 

in the preparation of leadership 

personnel?

2. Facilitate Preparation of 

Leadership Personnel 

• Are leadership personnel being 

supported by the collaborative in the 

areas of emphases listed? 

• Does the average number of graduates 

increase over the course of the project? 

• Has the number of doctoral fellows 

taking leadership positions increased?

2. Facilitate Preparation of 

Leadership Personnel (cont.) 

• Are sufficient leadership personnel 

being prepared to meet the needs of 

university personnel preparation 

programs?

3. Enhance training of leadership 

personnel with value added 

enrichment activities 

• Do graduates or enrolled participants 

feel that their doctoral program was 

enhanced by the participation in the 

cohort activities? 

• What types of experiences have 

Fellows had as a result of the project?

3. Enhance training of leadership 

personnel with value added 

enrichment activities (cont.) 

• Were enhancement activities 

successfully conducted? 

• Did enhancement activities meet the 

needs expressed by doctoral fellows in 

the program?

4. Increase Capacity of HECSE 

• Do HECSE or other universities wish to 

create a doctorate with an emphasis in 

VI? 

• What are the problems posed in adding 

on an emphasis in VI and can they be 

overcome?

5. Conduct evaluation – both 

outcomes and process 

• Does the evaluation design permit the 

collection of data needed to meet the 

evaluation objective? 

• Does the evaluation provide summative 

information which will allow for 

evaluation of the outcomes of the 

project?

5. Conduct evaluation – both 

outcomes and process (cont.) 

• Does the evaluation provide formative 

information which will permit change to 

improve and assist in meeting project 

objectives? 

• Does the evaluation provide detailed 

information which will permit replication 

of the project model?

6. Disseminate information about 

the model for possible replication 

• Has dissemination of the model 

occurred to permit decisions about 

replicating the project in other areas of 

leadership training?

Objective 6: 

Disseminating Information 

about the NCLVI Model

Disseminating Information about 

the NCLVI Model: 

Accomplishments: 

• Website 

• Presentations 

•Articles 

•Flyers 

• Listserv discussions 

• Word of Mouth

Disseminating Information about 

the NCLVI Model: 

Future Activities: 

• Announcements and updates to legislators 

• Updated flyer and press releases 

• Website additions (ours and others) 

• Presentations within and external to the field 

• Additional articles (journals and newsletters) 

• Student presence/projects 

• Listserv discussions 

• Involving others to expand community of practice 

• Reports and monographs

Surprises and Challenges: 

• Ease of determining 

policies and procedures 

• Overwhelming 

consensus 

• Willingness of PAC and 

Consortium to work 

together 

• Generosity 

• Survival – Staff, Fellows, 

Consortium, PAC, and 

volunteers 

• Steering Committee – 

Rotation of members? 

• Recruiting and 

maintaining additional 

HECSE members 

• True partnerships – no 

joint meetings budgeted

Power Point Presentation - Salus University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?