Deaf Ed. PT3
Catalyst Grant
“Crossing the
‘Realities Divide’:
Preservice
Teachers as ‘Change Agents’
for the Field
of Deaf Education”
Harold
Johnson, Kent State University, Co-Director
Karen Dilka,
Eastern Kentucky University, Co-Director
Initial Report
(covering period 6/1/00 – 3/31/01)
30 April 2001
Goal 1: Establish local, regional and national networks
Goal
2: Bridging the ‘Realities Gap’
Goal 3: Restructuring U.S. deaf education teach preparation programs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (back to index)
Problem:
The primary problem of deafness is not too little hearing, but too much interpersonal and informational isolation. This isolation is experienced not only by deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh) students, but also by the students’ parents and teachers. The primary problem of deaf education teacher preparation is not too little innovation, but too much of a gap, or difference, in the day-to-day realities of college faculty and their K-12 colleagues. The individuals who most frequently bridge this gap are preservice teachers who are in preparation to become teachers of d/hh students. The resulting dissonance in the preservice teachers’ college preparation and K-12 field experiences frequently results in a replication of instructional strategies, rather than the integration of instructional innovations, such as the effective use of computer-based, internet linked technologies to enhance teaching and learning.
Solution:
One solution is to establish local, regional and national networks of deaf education college faculty, preservice teachers, existing teachers, parents and D/deaf consumers. Use the resulting networks to link the preparation of preservice teachers to the day-to-day instructional needs of d/hh students. In this way, preservice teachers become information workers for the field of deaf education. The resulting products, shared via the web, will serve to effectively and efficiently expand the available array of curricular materials, instructional opportunities and informational resources. The sharing will also serve to ground the preparation of new teachers in the realities of the K-12 setting while simultaneously integrating the informational resources and technological innovations of the nation’s colleges. In addition, the products will serve to: 1) insure and demonstrate the preservice teachers’ technological proficiency; 2) substantially increase the number and diversity of individuals who participate in the preparation of the preservice teachers; and, 3) restructure deaf education teacher preparation from an isolated, competitive model to one that is based upon a networked community that uses computer-based, internet linked technologies and resources to collaboratively prepare the next generation of teachers of d/hh students.
Grant Design:
This grant has been designed to work with faculty and preservice teachers in all of the nation’s 69 colleges/universities that offer programs to prepare individuals to become teachers of d/hh students. The targeted programs have been divided into five regions that encompass 37 states (note: 13 states do not offer any deaf education teacher preparation). Five deaf education teacher preparation program faculty serve as regional directors. The regional directors receive a quarter-time, academic year release to support their work. One full-time project coordinator, two half-time co-directors, a project evaluator and an Advisory Council comprises the grant team. The Advisory Council is composed of representatives from virtually all the major deaf education organizations (i.e., ACE-D/HH, ASDC, A.G. Bell, CAID, CEASD, CED & NAD). The core activities of the grant entail encouraging, supporting and documenting the work of deaf education faculty as they select from a menu of instructionally-based, technology grounded “choices.” These “choices” range from the use of products that were developed during a ’99-00 PT3 Capacity grant. The products include: 1) collaboratively developed, technology enhanced course syllabi; 2) multimedia case studies of technologically proficient teachers of d/hh students; and 3) a data base of available technology focused grant opportunities at the foundational, state and federal level. Other “choices” involve the participation in faculty development forums, the teaching of college courses in a technology rich K-12 setting and assigning preservice teachers to: a) work with cyber mentors; b) develop curricular resources for existing teachers of d/hh students; c) provide “on-line” learning opportunities for d/hh students; d) develop multi-media case studies of the learning needs/abilities of d/hh students; or e) design and develop multi-media professional portfolios. Each of the faculty “choices” has been designed to produce products that can be shared, via the web, with other professionals throughout the nation. Published products are reviewed each year to identify those preservice teachers and deaf education teacher preparation programs that create the most useful products. The resulting list will be shared with the field in an effort to recognize those programs and their preservice teachers that are judged to be the most technologically proficient.
Grant Impact:
To date, after nine months of grant operation, over 200 “choices” have been awarded to 84 faculty, in 45 deaf education teacher preparation programs that are located in 30 states. The awards have served to involve 1,042 preservice teachers and 203 existing teachers and parents of d/hh students in the use of computer-based, internet linked technologies and resources. In addition, after two months of operation, the grant’s web site (i.e., www.deafed.net) has published the following information: 60 professional development calendar events, 100 jobs, 200 web links and 1,000 documents. While anyone with web access can view the information, only registered users can submit material to be published on the site. An indication of the importance of the site to the field of deafness is provided by the fact that in the last two months, 600 individuals have become registered users. Analysis of data indicates that the grant has either met or exceeded all of the first year goals and the GPRA performance indicators.
Grant Future:
While the grant has yet to complete its first year of operation, active planning is under way to insure the long term sustainability of existing activities and the eventual expansion of those activities to include K-12 d/hh students. The following elements are considered to be critical to the success of the grant’s future activities: 1) continued and expanded offerings of regional and national faculty development forums concerning the effective and innovative uses of technologies and resources to enhance collaborative teaching and learning; 2) modification and expansion of the current list of “choices” to both reflect how they are being used and to promote additional innovations; 3) additional funds to expand the scope of the grant’s activities to include direct and extensive educational support to d/hh students; and, 4) securing corporate partners to expand the grant’s access to, knowledge and application of existing and emerging technologies.
Project Status: (back
to Index)
Progress in Meeting Your Project Objectives:
This grant is designed to
enhance the technology proficiency of individuals who are in preparation to
become teachers of deaf/hard of hearing (d/hh) students. The targeted individuals are in teacher
preparation programs in sixty-nine separate colleges and universities that are
located in thirty-seven states (note: thirteen states do not have deaf
education teacher preparation programs).
The essential goals of the grant are to: 1) establish local, regional and national collaborative networks
of deaf education professionals, parents of d/hh children and D/deaf consumers;
2) use the collaborative networks to link the preparation of new teachers to
the needs and resources of existing professionals, parents and consumers; and
3) use the network’s collaborative activities to substantially restructure the
nation’s preparation of teachers of d/hh students via the use and incorporation
of ISTE standards.
To date, nine months after the
onset of the grant, 84 faculty members, 1,042 preservice teachers and 203
existing deaf education teachers, parents of d/hh children and D/deaf consumers
have participated in 200 separate activities that were designed to enhance
preservice teachers’ understanding and use of computer based, Internet linked
technologies and resources. The
grant’s participants were located in 45 deaf education teacher preparation
programs that are in 30 states throughout the nation.
Three factors have significantly
influenced the activities and successes of this grant. First, because deafness is a low incidence
disability, professionals, parents and students are geographically isolated
from one another. For example, over 50%
of the nations K-12 programs that serve d/hh students, reported that they serve
only 1-3 d/hh students a year. As a
result, there is both a need for, and an acceptance of, the use of any
mechanism that serves to reduce that isolation. The web provides an ideal mechanism to reduce isolation and to
increase informational resources. The
second major factor that has impacted upon this grant is that for the first
time in U.S. history, virtually all of the nation’s deaf education
organizations have agreed to pool their resources in support of a common goal,
i.e., the use of technology to enhance teacher preparation. This pooling of resources has meant that
literally thousands of the organization’s members, dozens of their
publications, several of their regional meetings and all of their national
conferences are all being used to spread the word concerning the grant’s
activities and opportunities. The third
and final factor that has a tremendous impact upon the grant’s success is the
growing acceptance of the fact that d/hh students have been consistently and
historically undereducated. The extent
of this under education is revealed by the fact that the majority of d/hh students,
in spite of the presence of normal intelligence, graduate from school after
fifteen years of education, functionally illiterate. The acceptance of this sad fact has meant that the field of deaf
education both needs and has been looking for the computer-based, internet
linked learning opportunities and technology proficient teachers that this
grant has been designed to provide.
Project Objective 1.1: Local:
Match preservice teachers with field experience teachers and Cyber
Mentors.
Indicator of
success:
Year 1: 200 Field experience teachers matched with preservice teachers
225 Preservice teachers matched with cyber mentors.
Accomplishments: A total of 1,042 preservice teachers have participated in the grant.
534 preservice teachers have been placed in classrooms with students with disabilities (deaf or other). 129 of these students have been paired with a cyber mentor. As of March 15, 2001, six faculty had made the choice to use cyber mentors. Comments from faculty and students about the use of cyber mentors revealed:
· We have a statewide network for cyber mentors. I used to travel to remote sites to teach two or less students. Now I set them up with cyber mentors because I want them to have a close relationship with a professional. (Faculty from SE region, Interview, Feb. 2001).
· I'm writing to a mentor who is a teacher. It feels good to be in the middle. We’re the ones learning now. Other teachers help us see how they apply things in their classes. We help them by sharing new ideas. I tell them things and they think it is helpful. (Student from SW, Interview, March 2001).
· It is like there is a rope with the cyber mentor further up the rope and the rope continues with me in the middle and my cyber pal below me. I look up the rope and ask a question. My cyber mentor gives me an explanation to my question and it tugs me up on the rope a notch. I share the information with my cyber pal and I tug him up the rope a notch. (Deaf student from SW, Interview, March 2001).
Explanation: The grant
exceeded expectations in terms of the number of field experience teachers and
preservice teachers involved in the first 8 months of the project. The quantitative results are based on a
web-based survey that was distributed to 204 faculty. Of these, 68 responded
(33%). 53 of the respondents were grant
participants and thus, the response rate for this sub-group was 63%. Therefore, the results may be an under-estimate
of the number of teachers involved. The
number of cyber mentors was lower than expected because of difficulties in
logistics. The recruitment phase
conducted by the consortium partners took an extensive amount of time. Contact with potential cyber mentors was
made through each organization’s national publication, web site, listserv(s),
and by direct mailings. Upon initial identification, volunteers were instructed
to register on a new web site that was still under construction, leading to substantial
delays in the process. In addition, the
assignment of cyber mentors is dependent on faculty choosing to incorporate
this menu item into their coursework.
Because faculty design class projects prior to the beginning of semester
sessions and faculty were not aware, at the time, of this “choice”, the number
of cyber mentors requested was significantly less during the fall term. Only one faculty member used cyber mentors
in the fall compared to five faculty members in the spring. Hence, two factors have influenced the cyber
mentor program. One was the timeframe
for soliciting cyber mentors and the other was that the Association of College
Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing conference was held in February so
faculty were not fully apprised of this “choice” possibility.
Corrective Action: A
system has now been established to facilitate the overall collection and
distribution of data related to the cyber mentor program. Consortium partners
have a clearly defined procedure for the recruitment, training and submission
of information regarding cyber mentor participants to the central office where
details are entered into the database and then posted to the web site. Faculty can review the list of cyber mentors
on the web site and make selections that they believe are appropriate for their
students. Because the system was
established in the latter part of the fall semester, it was too late for
faculty to include in their classes.
However, a formal structure is now complete and ready for use, thus
enabling faculty to plan ahead for the next semester.
Project Objective 1.2:
Regional:
Match teacher preparation faculty with similar interests.
Indicator of Success:
Year 1: 100 faculty matched based on interests or strengths and weaknesses.
Accomplishments: A total of 74 faculty reported in the survey being matched with other faculty based on their interests, strengths, or weaknesses. Forty faculty also adapted technology-rich syllabi that had been developed and posted on the ACE-DHH web site as part of the Capacity Building Grant for 99-00. Thus, the forty faculty were collaborating through virtual space with their colleagues in the inclusion of technology in their syllabi. Sample comments illustrate the strengthened relationships that have evolved with the grant:
· Program faculty (college) have been most energized and involved. (Survey, April 2001).
· After attending the recent ACE-DHH conference and once I had someone sit with me and really explain the options for becoming involved with the project it has become a much easier and more exciting opportunity. (Survey, April 2001).
· It has been enlightening to read about other faculty members' ideas for incorporating technology into their classes. This is wonderful and highly beneficial grant. (Survey, April 2001).
·
The grant allows for a community to be established for
the field of deaf education. The
community is now starting to request and share resources as a field because of
the grant we now have a sense of what we can accomplish together. The isolation is less-the hope is higher and
the potential for collaboration has never been greater. (Survey, April 2001).
Explanation: That is based on the responses of the 53
faculty who responded to the web survey and also participated in the
grant. As the response rate for the
survey was only 63% of the participants, the estimate of faculty pairs is
probably lower than is actually the case.
Given the eight-month reporting period, 74% of our goal is considered satisfactory.
Corrective Action: Now that the grant has become more familiar to the faculty involved and the web page is published, it is likely that faculty will find it easier to identify others who share their interests or have skills that they would like to learn.
Project Objective
1.3: National: Demonstrate
sustainable effort in terms of financial
resources and partnerships.
Indicator of Success:
Year 1: Share resources and identify resources.
Accomplishments: The
establishment of an Advisory Board was a key element to the successful
implementation of project goals and objectives. The Advisory Board consists of five representatives from
organizations that assume the role of stakeholders in the education of deaf and
hard of hearing children. The consortia
composition reflects various facets within the field of deafness. Organizations designated include:
·
the A.G. Bell
Association for the Deaf (professionals and consumers);
·
the American Society
for Deaf Children (family advocates);
·
the Convention of
American Instructors of the Deaf (teachers and related professionals);
·
Conference of
Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf
(administrators);
·
the National
Association of the Deaf (consumers).
As invited partners in the project, these organizations contribute to
the resources of the grant by disseminating information, participating in the
cyber mentor program and promoting and enhancing the experience of preservice
teachers by becoming actively involved in their instruction.
This grant
works with deaf education faculty and preservice teachers throughout the United
States. A critical component of that
work entailed the design, development and support of a deaf education web
site. The essential purpose of that
site is to serve as a national clearing house for information concerning:
·
web based instructional
resources;
·
on-line and face-to-face
collaborative opportunities;
·
a national calendar of Deaf
education events; and
·
a centralized clearing house
of individuals searching for deaf education jobs and the K-16 schools/colleges
who are searching for a deaf education professional.
In February
of this year, after six months of design and development work, the deaf
education web site (www.deafed.net) was posted to the web. Since the site’s inception over 600
individuals have become “registered” users of the site (note: while the site’s
content can be viewed by anyone, only registered users are permitted to post
documents or information). To date,
those users have posted over one hundred deaf education jobs, one thousand web
links, seventy calendar events, hundreds of deafness related documents (e.g.,
curricular units, research papers, professional portfolios, etc.), and a
growing number of resumes from recent graduates of deaf education teacher
preparation programs. Demographic data
concerning the web site’s registered users indicates that the majority are
white, hearing females, who primarily use speech at home and speech or speech
plus signs at school (note: over 11% of the users identified themselves as either
deaf or hard of hearing). The data also
indicates that those registered users who work with K-12 deaf/hard of hearing
students most often teach in urban settings, with an equal split between the
remaining teachers working in either rural or suburban schools. Approximately half of the registered
teachers work with minority and low-income deaf/hard of hearing students.
The
Leadership team has presented separately and collaboratively at several
national and international conferences to share information pertaining to the
grant and to encourage individuals to become involved in grant activities. These include:
·
12th International
Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education;
·
Instructional Technology
& Education of the Deaf: Supporting
Learners, K-College & International Symposium;
·
Annual Conference of
Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the Deaf;
·
Annual Conference of the
Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Additionally,
the co-directors are members of various national deaf education initiatives
such as the National Agenda, Council on the Education of the Deaf and the Low
Incidence Institute.
GPRA
Performance Indicators for Goal 1:
Goal 1 of the project aligns with GPRA Indicator 3.1: Sustained program activities. Based on the networks established in the first eight months, consortia members will continue to implement reform in preservice teacher training for at least two years following the termination of federal funding.
Project Objective
2.1: Faculty will enhance and increase
use of technology in teaching; re-design curriculum to include new technology;
collaborate with K-12 teachers; include use of technology by preservice
teachers.
Indicator of Success:
Year 1: 100 Faculty.
Accomplishments:
As of March 31, 2001, 84 faculty made 200 choices from a menu that offered them options for improving their skills and use of technology. Of the 200 choices, 64 represented faculty who chose to participate in professional development activities and 22 faculty created on-line courses for their choices. As mentioned previously, 40 faculty redesigned their curriculum by adapting technology-rich syllabi into their courses. Fifty of the choices involved the use of technology by their preservice teachers. The faculty's comments indicate their perceptions of their technological proficiency:
· It is changing the way I teach. I don't deliver it in the old way. I have students organized into small groups. But it really has been this grant. I went from a techno dolt to a techno brain. I had to do it. I use BlackBoard and this has been great. I used to travel to remote sites to teach 2 or 3 students. Technology has saved my life. (Faculty from SE region, Interview, Feb. 2001).
· It has been a fantastic incentive for me to learn some technological strategies for enhancing my courses! I have found many terrific strategies to enhance my courses. (Survey, April 2001).
· This project has been an intense opportunity for me to re-examine the standards/project objectives for each of my courses and to force myself to set the tone by learning more about technology in order to use it as part of my teaching. Hopefully the modeling and increased exposure will have a direct bearing on how this group of future teachers will apply technology in the classroom and ultimately make those expectations for deaf/hh appropriate to this era. (Survey, April 2001).
· This has made a truly significant difference in my technology skills as well as those of my students. The greatest barrier is that the students don't all have their own computers and have to rely on computer labs that can be extremely frustrating for them. (Survey, April 2001).
· I feel that I'll be able to do a better job on the next course that I teach. It has motivated me to try to introduce new material to my students using updated technology. The feedback that I got from my students was very positive - they felt that they learned from the experience and suggested that I continue to use this format for the classroom in the future. (Survey, April 2001).
Some comments raised issues concerning the lack of resources in some areas:
· I don't have time or resources at my college. There is no real mechanism to get help. (Nonparticipating faculty from SE region, Interview, Feb. 2001).
· Our university has Power Point, that is fine. I can make one, but if I do, then I have to go find the projector and key to the closet where it's kept. (Faculty from SE region, Interview, Feb. 2001).
Explanation:
Given the eight-month timeframe of the study, it is satisfactory that we have reached 84% of our goal for faculty proficiency.
Corrective Action:
Four regional faculty development activities are currently planned: (1) June 1 and 2, 2001 in Portland OR, a Sandbox Workshop that will include basic and advanced skills in Power Point, email, electronic portfolio, digital photography, sound files, scanning, and WebCT/BlackBoard/WebQuests; (2) June 9, 2001 in Spartanburg, SC, a workshop on electronic portfolios; (3) June 25-27, 2001 in Rochester NY, workshops on technology and instruction for deaf students and (4) July 23-27, 2001 in North Hampton MA at Smith College, a five day workshop on advanced PowerPoint, multi-media, scanning, digital photography, customizing clip art and animations, and web-based instruction.
Project Objective
2.2: Preservice teachers will carry out
college course activities using technology; produce technology resources for
use in K-12 classrooms; become technology proficient teachers.
Indicator of Success: Year 1: 100-225 students.
Accomplishments: Faculty reported that they had worked with 1,042 students in their pre and post choice data, and that they had made fifty choices that involved students as web researchers, members of curriculum development teams, developers of case studies or on-line learning opportunities, cyber mentor relationships and developers of professional portfolios. In the web-based survey the faculty reported that 823 of their preservice teachers were technologically proficient. The following are comments on the survey:
· All have benefited from the grant. No one is either technologically able or unable. Most have some degree of proficiency, but all make gains.
· There is a definite difference. Last summer my students took classes in web development and photo-shop. They email me frequently from across the state and all participate in using the BlackBoard portions of the courses I offer.
· As a result of the grant each student has improved his/her technology proficiency. Some students enter the program with great technology skills while others have had minimal skills. All have posted demonstrable gains. Many are more comfortable using technology and make a conscious effort to include it in their teaching where they might not have even considered it before.
· The use of technology is a must when most effectively and efficiently teaching deaf students that the reality of this concept sets in at the beginning of their clinical practicum experiences. They have to prepare for those elementary, middle school, and deaf adults who attend our clinic for services.
· This project takes time and takes dedication to a task. The preservice teachers who spend lots of time with deaf and hard of hearing students on a daily basis can see the uses of the tool with various abilities and ages. Those who do not have that opportunity can’t yet see the miracle happen.
· The preservice teachers did a project where they identified resources that were available on-line to give to parents after their child's hearing loss was identified. They developed an on-line mentoring packet and also did on-line mentoring related to early intervention. The people sent questions on-line about early intervention and the preservice teachers put together a response.
· One faculty member instituted a three-way relationship, using graduates from her teacher education program as mentors for her current preservice teachers, who then interacted with young deaf children as cyber pals. The teachers were extremely pleased and the students were thrilled. University students begin to see the language of deaf students. This semester, it's not supported by the grant, but I'm continuing it.
· One of her deaf students in the teacher education program commented: I like the cyber pal idea. I like learning about their families and what they do in school and on weekends. I think a deaf child should have a mentor. Someone they can write to and ask questions. I didn't have that. There is a need to express their feelings…. They can sometimes ask their parents, but the father speaks only Spanish at home.
Explanation: The project has exceeded its goals with regard to increasing preservice teacher proficiency.
Corrective Action: No corrective action is necessary at this time. It is important to explore the issue of documenting how proficiency is determined within this population and its impact on the K-12 learners. The faculty raised concerns about the digital divide in several respects. Some regions of the country have fewer resources and less technological hardware that are needed for increased use of technology in teaching. Some populations require modifications to the use of technology for language and cultural reasons. Thus, in upcoming years we will explore ways to address the digital divide for ethnic and racial minorities, and people living in poor areas, as well as inner cities and isolated rural areas.
GPRA Performance
Indicators for Goal 2:
Goal 2 aligns with the GPRA Indicators:
1.1: Curriculum redesign: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that redesigned their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology increased.
1.2: Technology proficient faculty: The percentage of preparation programs that redesigned their curriculum to incorporate best practices in the use of technology increased.
1.4: Learning resources: The percentage of teacher preparation programs that used web-based, multi-media learning resources, course materials, and teaching tools increased.
2.1: Technology-proficient New Teachers: The percentage of new teachers who are proficient in using and integrating technology into instructional practices increased.
3.3: K-12 Partnerships: The percentage of preparation programs that communicated, collaborated, and partnered with the K-12 community on a regular, formal basis increased.
Accomplishments: Progress is continuing toward the adoption of the ISTE Standards by both the CED Board and the Advisory Board for the ACE-DHH Catalyst Grant. The concept was on the agenda in August and the Board is currently reviewing the documents. The consensus was that the inclusion of these specific standards would improve the quality of instruction for preservice teachers and therefore enhance the education of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth.
Explanation: To
insure the feasibility of adoption, discussions will be held again in June by
each designated Board. Procedures will
need to be established and the process for ratification developed.
Corrective Action: The goal of incorporating ISTE standards into CED accreditation will continue to be a major topic at the appropriate meetings.
GPRA Performance
Indicators for Goal 3:
Goal 3 aligns with the GPRA Indicators:
1.3: Graduation requirements. The number of teacher preparation programs that will require teacher candidates to demonstrate proficiency in the effective use of technology in teaching is expected to increase.
4.1: State teacher certification standard. The percentage of states that include technology proficiency as a component of their teacher certification standards is expected to increase.
|
Budget Items |
Budget Sources for Year |
COLUMN 3: Actual
Obligated for Year: Federal |
COLUMN 4: Actual
Obligated for Year: Non Federal
|
COLUMN 5:
Total
Budget Obligated for Year (Federal
+ Non Federal) |
|
|
Direct Costs |
COLUMN 1:
Approved Federal (include carryover) |
COLUMN 2: Non Federal |
|||
|
1. Salaries
& Wages
(Professional & Clerical) |
68,570 |
543,216 |
184,889 |
541,703 |
726,592 |
|
2. Employee
Benefits |
18,647 |
169,864 |
10,504 |
142,038 |
152,542 |
|
3. Travel |
48,750 |
4,000 |
27,466 |
0 |
27,466 |
|
4. Equipment (Purchase) |
19,500 |
0 |
20,990 |
0 |
20,990 |
|
5. Materials
and Supplies |
5,000 |
7,750 |
2,877 |
0 |
2,877 |
|
6. Consultants |
151,527 |
12,450 |
36,000 |
0 |
36,000 |
|
7. Other (Equipment Rental, Printing, etc.) |
336,000 |
0 |
60,899 |
2,000 |
62,899 |
|
A.
Total Direct Costs: (1-7) |
647,994 |
737,279 |
343,625 |
685,741 |
1,029,366 |
|
B.
Indirect Costs: Actual
Indirect Cost Rate of Lead __8___%. |
51,840 |
58,982 |
27,490 |
54,859 |
82,349 |
|
C. Total Costs (A+B) |
699,834 |
796,261 |
371,115 |
740,600 |
1,111,715 |
·
Please provide an
explanation if you are NOT expending funds at the expected rate.
Due to the timing of the funding notice,
a subsequent grant Advisory Board meeting, and finalization on logistics of
disseminating information to deaf education faculty, it became too late in the
Fall 00 semester for many faculty to participate as originally envisioned.
·
Please describe any
significant changes to your budget resulting from modifications of project
activities. List the amount of
carryover for the budget period and describe how it was used, if
applicable.
Changes in our budget are not due to a
modification of project activities; many obligated funds are listed in
categories (budget items) other than originally planned. This is due to Kent State’s Accounting Dept.
viewing expenditures differently than the PD’s had written the proposal. Most notably are the monies paid to deaf
education faculty for participation in the project and monies awarded to
preservice teachers for exemplary products created through the use of
technology. These monies were Federally
approved for budget item ‘Other’ but are considered (by Accounting) and
reported under Salaries & Wages.
·
Please describe any anticipated changes in your operational budget
for the NEXT budget period.
We anticipate expending approved amount
of Federal and non-Federal dollars but in the categories adjusted as described
in item #2.
|
|
Member
Institution / Organization
|
Type
of Partner *
|
Date
Added
|
Date
Dropped
|
|
1 |
Association of
College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
2 |
AG Bell
Association for the Deaf |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
3 |
American
Society for Deaf Children |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
4 |
Conference of
Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the Deaf |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
5 |
Convention of
American Instructors of the Deaf |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
6 |
Council on
Education of the Deaf |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
|
7 |
National
Association of the Deaf |
non-profit |
6/1/01 |
|
*Types = IHE, SEA, LEA, Museum, Library, Other non-profits, For-profit firm, Other (specify)