90% rated the preconference as extremely or strongly effective (rating of 4 or higher).

90% developed a deeper understanding of advocacy and how the government works(rating of 4 or higher).

Advocacy and using one's voice: Learning how to advocate with legislators and the importance of using one's voice, even if it's "noise," to get attention.

Collaboration and networking: The opportunity to collaborate with others, network with like-minded scholars, and connect with other short course members.

Understanding the legislative and budgeting process: Sessions focused on the legislative process, budgeting, how appropriations work, and how both parties cooperate were very helpful in preparing for Hill visits and providing a foundational understanding of the law.

Virtual courses and accessibility to resources: Virtual courses leading up to the DC portion were helpful for familiarization with policy and other members, and having access to the experience and resources of Kuna, Pam, and Christina was valuable.

Hill visits and policy insights: Visiting the hill, meeting with staffers to learn their policy perspectives, and hearing from policy fellows about their experiences were beneficial.

Networking and collaboration: Attendees connected with other doctoral candidates, professors, and people on the hill, leading to planned future collaborations on research and shared professional interests.

Increased knowledge and advocacy skills: The course enhanced understanding of the legislative process, the inner workings of advocacy and policy, and boosted the ability and empowerment to advocate for special education at state and federal levels.

Policy interest and career development: The course either confirmed existing interest or furthered development in policy knowledge, helped participants imagine a career in policy, or provided avenues to engage with policy professionally.

​

Personal impact: The course provided a robust foundation and hope during a challenging time, and motivated attendees to spread "SPED good news" and share their new knowledge with educators.

Post Course Debrief

More Interactive informational sessions

Increased Time on the Hill

Team Building

46 Attendees

62 Registrants

21 Responses

52.4% Returning Attendees

47.6% First time attendees

Congressional Panel (66.7%)

Appropriations/Federal Funding Priorities (61.9%)

Member Conversations (46.6%)

HECSE Policies Priorities (42.9%)

Hill Visits (42.9%)

Messaging and Strategic Communication (38.1%)

85.75% Held Hill Visits

14.3% Held online meetings in the future

Logistics and comfort: The meeting room was too cold and coffee should be made available.

Communication and scheduling: A rough agenda should be sent out earlier, and there should be clear communication of schedule changes ahead of time, as information was slow and lacked detail.

Networking and activities: There should be more structured professional interaction between short course and winter summit participants, and encouragement for members to participate in a happy hour for networking.

Advocacy focus: The republican Q&A was a missed opportunity as the conversation shifted to Ai and general teaching instead of advocating for students with disabilities.

Other suggestions: Provide more gluten-free lunch options, host the summit in another season, and assist with coordinated arrangements for getting to and from the hill.

Policy and Advocacy: Include sessions on incorporating policy work into scholarship, addressing the impact of disinvestment in public education, and continued advocacy post-summit ("so now what?").

Legislative Engagement: Focus on how to include family members and people with disabilities in legislative meetings and offer more guidance on engaging on the Hill.

Summit Format and Speakers: Continue with great panels and a range of speakers, specifically incorporating more bipartisan panels, and exploring more agency participation.

Funding: A session about innovative ways to fund sped doctoral students (outside of federal grants) would be beneficial.