STATE LEADERS SUMMIT PARTICIPANT SURVEY: IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMITMENT TO THE NATIONAL AGENDA
May 2006
During the 2006 Summit, state teams consisting of state department of education staff, parents, university, public school and school for the deaf representatives were asked to complete two surveys: 1) a self-assessment addressing their state's progress towards the eight goals of the National Agenda and 2) a questionnaire identifying their level of commitment to the National Agenda and to a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. The purpose of state teams completing these subjective surveys was to provide an overall sense of perspective regarding the National Agenda goals. It was not intended to measure specific targets, or to compare one state's commitment or progress to another state.
The National Agenda Report Card Survey
The National Agenda Report Card Survey used the categories of freshman, sophomore, and junior for each state team to rank where they felt they were in general implementation of each of the eight goals. State teams were given the categories of freshman, sophomore and junior without any further description of those categories and asked to indicate one level for each goal.
A brief analysis of Table 1 data shows that most states have identified themselves at the freshman or sophomore level for each goal. Overall performance places 39.1% of states at the freshman level of implementation, 43.9% at the sophomore level, and 15.5% at the junior level. The goals that had the highest implementation were Goal 1, Early identification and intervention; Goal 5, Placement, programs, and services; and Goal 6, Technology. However, this level of implementation was still in fewer than 30% of the responding states.
Table 1. State self-assessment on implementation of the National Agenda (2006 National State Leaders Summit Conference, Riverside , California )
| Agenda Goals | Freshman | Sophomore | Junior | Number of states responding |
| 1. Early Identification & Intervention | 14.8% | 55% | 29.6% | N=27 |
| 2. Language peers, Communication Access and Opportunities for Direct Instruction | 48.3% | 37.9% | 3.4% | N=29 |
| 3. Collaborative Partnerships and Family Support | 29.2% | 54.2% | 16.6% | N=24 |
| 4. Accountability, High Stakes Testing & Standards-Based Environments | 30.8% | 53.8% | 15.4% | N=26 |
| 5. Placement, Programs & Services | 38.5% | 34.6% | 26.9% | N=26 |
| 6. Technology | 42.3% | 34.6% | 23.1% | N=26 |
| 7. Professional Standards & Personnel Preparation | 29.2% | 66% | 4% | N=24 |
| 8. Research | 80% | 16% | 4% | N=25 |
| Total Responses: | 39.1% | 43.9% | 15.5% | N=207 |
Commitment to the National Agenda and a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights
State teams were also asked to rate their level of commitment to the National Agenda (Table 2) and to a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights (Table 3). Ratings were separated into two categories: commitment as a team and the commitment of their respective states. A scale of 1 to 6 with 1 being "not at all ready" to 6 being "full committed" was used. Table 2 contains the results for the commitment to the National Agenda indicating an average rating by state team members of 5.14 (strongly committed) compared to the average rating of their respective states of 3.89 (somewhat committed to committed). The gap between team and state levels of commitment and the accompanying comments illustrate some of the difficulty involved in moving an entire state toward common goals as well as the participants' inability to obligate their states when official state representation was not present.
Table 2. What is our level of commitment to the National Agenda? N = 24 States
| Fully Committed 6 | Strongly Committed 5 | Committed 4 | Somewhat Committed (Uncertain) 3 | Strongly Uncertain 2 | Not at all ready 1 | No Response | Average | |
| As team members: | 14 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.14 |
| As a state: | 3 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.89 |
Comments:
- Full state representation is not present, therefore full commitment isn't known. Special education agencies from throughout the state need to meet with the State Special Schools and the State Department of Education soon.
- We plan to correlate the current and future projects to align with the National Agenda and focus our efforts.
- A National plan to address state/local issues is too broad and too long.
- We are committed to the principles as a resource in our State Action Plan.
- As team members we plan to host an organizational meeting to begin planning a state agenda in late June.
- We need commitment from Department of Education for our State School for the Deaf.
- Our state will be hiring a new Team Leader for Special Education. The Deaf Education Consultant reports to this position. Historically, the Team Leader did not support the National Agenda. We are hopeful this will change.
- We want more collaborative discussions among organizations.
- We're primarily using our state's Task Force report as the cornerstone of giving information.
- We are having difficulty narrowing the focus as to where to begin - we can't do it all at once - Early Intervention and Identification.
- We are at the primary stages of introducing the National Agenda at the state level. Many of the goals are already being worked on, so we feel it will be accepted, and people will be committed to it, but we're as yet uncertain.
- Overall goals are good. Objectives are poorly written, redundant, unclear.
Table 3 contains the results to the questions about team and state commitment to the need for a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. While the average commitment is lower than for the National Agenda, a gap exists between team (4.35 - committed) and state levels (3.3 - somewhat committed) of commitment. The comments again provide insight into some of the issues that states are working on as well as the questions when considering a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights.
Table 3. What is our commitment to furthering a National Deaf Child's Bill of Rights? N = 24 States
| Fully Committed 6 | Strongly Committed 5 | Committed 4 | Somewhat Committed (Uncertain) 3 | Strongly Uncertain 2 | Not at all ready 1 | Average | |
| As team members: | 10 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4.35 |
| As a state: | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 3.3 |
Comments:
- It will require all stakeholders and education participants to be involved.
- We have a State DCBR, but believe the more we can agree on nationally, the stronger it will be for all of us.
- We need to focus on the (State) Action Plan - all energy, resources, and time.
- We will establish a Task Force in (State) to work on developing a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights to be presented to the legislature.
- We need to gather more information.
- The (State) Commission of DHH is taking the lead on the Bill, with legislative support. This is a grass roots effort with immediate plans to review other States' bills.
- Who would develop it? Would it be a collaborative effort with all groups? We have a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights already.
- We need discussion and a planning task force to begin the work.
- We need a written mandate to receive grant funding.
- It would be nice at the Summit to have a two-three minute update from each state for all to hear, or in small groups that rotate or something like that - then with time for questions/discussion about state programs.
- Our state is a very conservative state. Before our time, the Deaf Bill of Rights was proposed to the general assembly and did not pass (not sure where the impetus came from). There has been a bill to consolidate the two schools for the deaf and blind and the department of education probably would not support proposing this now, as it may complicate things (we are both paid by the DOE). The Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, we feel, should be sponsored by another group - parents, State Dept. for DHH, etc.
- We need strength in order to implement a child communication plan.
The data from these surveys provides insight and stimulates discussion regarding contributing factors unique to each state, and also provides ideas and topics of discussion for future summit meetings. The Summit will provide a forum to continue to chart the collective progress on these initiatives over time using the Summit Report Card.