project direct

Project DIRECTLaurie Dinnebeil & William McInerney

University of Toledo

MEPI Planning Model

IEP Intervention Planning with Consultation Partner

• Maturation - Biological Influence• Environment -

Facilitative effect of materials, routines, etc.

• Peer Mediation - Structured peer interactions• Intensive - Direct intervention necessary

M = Maturation / Biology

Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of biological development and experience without significant teacher or peer involvement

(e.g. minor articulation problems, grasping of objects, dressing skills, response to peer communication bids)

E = Environmental Support

Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child access to materials or teacher ‘engineering’ of learning (or home) environment’. Will securing items in a variety of containers and placing out of child’s reach result in increased opportunities for fine motor skill development and communication (e.g. seeking desired toy/item with or w/o request for assistance)?

P = Peer Intervention/Support

Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child interaction with competent peers. Teacher organization of ‘peer buddies’ and cooperative activity groups will increase opportunities for imitation learning (via peer modeling). Also peer ‘expectations’ for social interaction and communication may provide ‘motivation’ to target child to improve skill or behavior

I = Intensive/Direct Intervention Evaluate learning objective to

determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill requires IMMEDIATE intervention and/or will enhance child’s acceptance in learning community. Examples would include aggressive behavior, very limited communication skills, very limited personal mobility, and toilet training (if developmental indicators present). Child would not be expected to make reasonable progress toward acquisition of this skill/behavior without DIRECT and consistent teacher intervention.

Benefits of Matrices in Planning Intervention

ECE teacher, parents and administrators can see the link between daily schedule, daily routines and priority IEP objectives

INCIDENTAL and DIRECT instruction opportunities can be identified

Appropriate strategies and opportunity for instruction linked with opportunities

Activity-Based Intervention Matrix

DAILY SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Objective #1:

Objective #2: Objective #3: Objective #4:

# Opportunities: _____




adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

Activity-Based Intervention Matrix A

DAILY SCHEDULEOF ACTIVITIES

IEP Objective #1:Making Choices (Level E, P)

Center Time Block center or housekeeping?

Classroom Chores Water plants or feed fish?

Snack/Cooking Activity Pudding or milkshakes?

Small Group-Art Which art materials to use?

Going to Park with Parents

Slide or swing?

# Opportunities: 5adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

Activity-Based Intervention Matrix B

HOME - SCHEDULE IEP Objective #1:Making Choices (Level E, P)

Breakfast Block center or housekeeping?

Laundry w Mom Water plants or feed fish?

Lunchtime Preparation Pudding or milkshakes?

Reading Time Which art materials to use?

Playing with my Brother

Slide or swing?


Activity-Based Intervention Matrix C


IEP Objective #2:Reach and Grasp (Level M, E)

Center Time Build tower w/ blocks

Classroom Chores Reach for/grasp attendance slip – place on desk in office

Snack/Cooking Activity

Reach for/grasp cooking utensils

Small Group-Art Reach for/grasp built-up paintbrush handle


Reach/grasp to hold onto swing/side of slide


Activity-Based Intervention Matrix D

HOME SCHEDULE IEP Objective #2:Reach and Grasp (Level M, E)

Breakfast Build tower w/ blocks

Laundry w Mom Reach for/grasp attendance slip – place on desk in office

Holiday Baking w Mom Reach for/grasp cooking utensils

Gluing Stuff w Mom Reach for/grasp built-up paintbrush handle

Play Games with my Brother

Reach/grasp to hold onto swing/side of slide


Activity-Based Intervention Matrix E


IEP Objective #3: Initiate Social Interaction (Level P, I)

Center Time Greet other children – vocalize or eye contact`

Classroom Chores Initiate contact with office personnel


Eye contact w/ peers – their turn to stir

Small Group-Art Initiate interaction w/ adult – ask for assistance


Eye contact/vocalize – to let know what she wants to be pushed

# Opportunities: 5

adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

Activity-Based Intervention Matrix F


IEP Objective #4: Cause/Effect (Use of Switch) (Level E,P or I)

Classroom Chores Use switch to turn on toy (dump truck @ blocks center ‘building site’)


Switch to activate blender etc

Small Group-Art


Switch to turn on music box

Classroom Chores


Discussion

Gail is 4-year old with mild cognitive delay. She needs help in using words to express her needs.

How would you use a consultative approach to help her teacher recognize opportunities for Gail to practice use of words skill throughout the day? How would you help her mother recognize opportunities at home?

Discussion

Jaron is 5-year old with mild autism (PDD-NOS). He needs to use Boardmaker pictures to improve his activity transition skills in preparation for kindergarten.

How would you use a consultative approach to help his teacher to recognize / create opportunities for Jaron to practice this skill throughout the day? Could you do the same for his parents? How?

Discussion

Michael is 4-year old with Down Syndrome and mild CD. He needs to improve his verbal communication with peers with the use of American Sign Language.

How would you use a consultative approach to help his teacher or parent to recognize / create opportunities for Michael to practice this skill throughout the day?

Critical Factors in Effectiveness of Consultation Process

Time Demands (e.g. caseload, travel, planning time)• Create released time (volunteer relief,

university students, subs)• Schedule meetings• Establish consultation logs / information

exchange (e.g. listserv)

Administrative Support• Letters of Introduction• ‘Contract’

Factors that Affect Consultation Process continued…

Administrative Support of LEA and ECE Program Administrators

This can be addressed, initially, through formal ‘Letters of Introduction’– Parent– Partner Teacher/Consultee– IECSE/CC Administrator– IECSE Supervisor/CC Administrator

Formal Agreement should include: Description of services including

emphasis on consultation model Name/contact information for

immediate supervisor of ICESE professional

Name, credentials and experience of IECSE teacher

Components of a Formal Agreement for IECSE Services

Relationship between IECSE collaboration with ECE partner and addressing of child IEP requirements

Anticipated frequency and duration of scheduled visits

Interactive professional development ‘contact’ (IECSE professional & ECE professional)

continued…

Need for meetings with ECE partner teacher/consultee re: child progress

Plans for communication with parents re: child progress

Description of related responsibilities of IECSE professional– Sample IECSE Services Contract

continued…

Discussion

What are the benefits of communicating, before itinerant services begin, the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher to:• Director of the ‘receiving’ preschool or

child care center? • Parent of the child receiving Itinerant

ECSE services?

Discussion…continued

What are the benefits of communicating, before itinerant services begin, the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher to:• ECE partner teacher/consultee?

What are the limitations of failing to communicate the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher?

What Helps Make Consultation Work?

What Are The Major Challenges?

How Can We Address The Problems?

What Are Some Possible Solutions?

WHAT MAKES CONSULTATION WORK?

Positive relationship/rapport with the partner teacher

Working as a team, collaborating

Communication with parentsExplicating role of itinerant teacher

KEY POINTS - OHIO Focus groups

Relationship between IECSE and ECE teachers

Systems Elements

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IECSE AND ECE TEACHERS

–Educational Backgrounds/Experiences

–Personal/Professional Characteristics

–‘Working Together’

Educational backgrounds & experiences of the teachers

Gap between education levels lack of knowledge/familiarity with jargon -- need to adjust consultation style, strategies (e.g., ‘cheat sheet’ re: jargon, acronyms)

– “Because I’m new, some don’t take me seriously.”

–Hiring practices; training

– “It is important to have trust, rapport and longevity between ECE teachers and itinerants.”

Personal / Professional Characteristics

– “Consultation works best with teachers who are open to growth and new ideas.”

– “It seems like newer teachers are more receptive; [they] are like a sponge and want new ideas.” - partner teachers want IECSEs to be the ‘expert’ even though IECSEs often reject the label

– “I’m so laid back and the teachers are used to me just coming in and going with the flow. Maybe I need to be more assertive. They’re so busy that I hate to make demands on them.”

‘Working Together’Student needs direct instruction because partner teacher cannot or will not implement intervention–Respite – break for the teacher– “Consultation does not work as

effectively in a chaotic environment. A teacher who has less noise volume and teaches children to behave responsibly, has a better grasp and is able to implement ideas.”

OASIS OF EXCELLENCE

When itinerant teacher feels that she/he is the only one who can deliver quality instruction, therefore

they must take advantage of the time they are there

Consider …. If child is achieving IEP goals under pull-

out and small group instruction of IECSE teacher, why adopt a more complex model of intervention such as consultation?

There are factors other than the effect of massed teaching sessions (60-90 minutes), once per week, that may account for child progress …

Children with special needs may be ‘learning’ skills and behaviors as a result of other factors that are addressed in the MEPI model (see next slide) for analysis of learning factors

Working Together continued: “The teacher is not comfortable. She

is threatened or thinks she will be criticized.”

“I always try to validate what teachers are doing. I let them know that I’m learning from them too. I write positive comments regarding things that I’ve observed the teacher doing in notes to parents, on the IEP.”

“Have lots of back-up plans so if they shoot me down, I have something else to try.”

“Using this [consultative] approach gives you credibility to the [ECE] teacher because they see you know them.”

“It’s consistency that makes it work….”

“teacher follows through, asks questions, etc.”

Challenges to Consultation

–TIME!!–Tradition of Direct Services–Professional Preparation of

ECE/SPED Teachers–Personal Comfort and

Professional Expectations of IECSE Teachers

–Administrative Support

Tradition

– If direct approach has been always used in the past, transitioning to consultative approach is difficult

– Lack of knowledge about itinerant

services in general, especially at administration level

Introductory letters to parents, ECE administrators, teachers

Describe/explain role of itinerant

Professional Preparation

– Most IECSE teachers were not exposed to CONSULTATION / COACHING models or skill training as undergraduate students

Personal Comfort and Professional Expectations

– Most IECSE teachers expect to work with children vs. other adults. They define the role of teacher as direct instruction of children not coaching of other adults

– Some IECSE teachers are uncomfortable working with a number of adult partners vs. children

Administrative Support “Itinerants don’t get support that classroom

teachers get.” –Training/Professional Development–Evaluation

PIECES Knowledge and Skills Inventory for Consultants (Buysse & Wesley, 2007)

– Monitoring Child Progress on IEP Data responsibility, legal perspective

PIECES: Performance Indicators for ECE Specialists

Designed for two primary purposes:– Provide SUPERVISORS with tool to

support high quality Itinerant ECSE service delivery and guide professional development

– Provide Itinerant ECSE teachers with tool to enhance reflective practice and guide professional development

Developed by a team of ECSE supervisors, Itinerant ECSE teachers, and Higher Education faculty

Parts of the PIECES

Part A: Requisite knowledge and skills related to ECSE service delivery

Part B: Communication skills and specialized knowledge related to coaching and information sharing in order to develop family, professional, and community relationships that support learning in the pre-K LRE

Part C: Specialized knowledge to coordinate and facilitate integrated service delivery (embedded instruction) to support learning in the LRE

Identifying Critical Knowledge and Skills for IECSE Teachers

Each Part is organized around specific performance indicators that have been described with the use of observable examples

Rubrics to Assess Knowledge and Skill Level

Each indicator is described using a continuum of rubrics: Basic, Proficient or Distinguished

A 2-page checklist provides an easy-to-read overview of the Itinerant ECSE teacher’s performance in each of the 3 major parts and subsections of PIECES

Part A: Requisite K & S Related to ECSE Service Delivery

Part A: 1. Knowledge of

the organizational context of the child’s environment

2. Ability to design and implement child-focused interventions

Part B: Requisite K & S Related to Coaching and Information Sharing

1. Ability to build a collaborative team2. Ability to establish and implement a plan for

regular communication among team members

3. Demonstrates appropriate use of specific interpersonal communication skills to establish ongoing relationships with families and providers.

4. Helps others develop skills and use strategies via a coaching model.

5. Provides information to support the child’s success in the community-based program.

Part C: Requisite K&S to Coordinate &Facilitate Integrated Service Delivery

1. Coordinates and monitors service delivery.

2. Designs and implements professional development (PD) activities.

For Discussion…Evan Is Too Aggressive

Jill is an itinerant ECSE teacher working with Mary Jo, an early childhood teacher who is Evan’s teacher.

Evan is 5 years old and has autism. Evan has been on Jill’s caseload for 4 months and in Mary Jo’s classroom for a month.

Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…

Mary Jo is concerned because Evan has limited verbal skills which creates ‘problems’ (e.g. screaming, scratching, pushing) in his interaction with his peers

Jill and Mary Jo are meeting to discuss Evan’s progress and the topic of Evan’s ‘negative behavior’ is at the top of the agenda!


What should Jill say and do during this visit with Mary Jo to help Evan to be successful in this early childhood environment?


Prepare to discuss recommendations with the rest of the group, including specifics related to:• Information that might help Mary Jo• Skills that Mary Jo may need to

learn • Expectations for IEP-focused

interventions to be managed by Mary Jo


Role play the situation with a partner and be prepared to discuss the things that Jill should say and do to provide Mary Jo with the professional support that she needs (and expects).

Evan Is Too Aggressive cont’d…

How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)

Scenario #1• Mary Jo is 40-year old ECE teacher who

holds BS Degree in ECE and has 10 years of experience

• Jill is 24-year old with BS in ECE and 2 years experience as Itinerant ECSE



Scenario #2• Mary Jo is 30-year old with AA Degree

in Child Care Technology and has 2 years of experience in PreK.

• Jill is 26-year old with BS in ECE, M.Ed.in ECSE and 3 years experience as Itinerant ECSE



Scenario #3• Mary Jo is 29-year old with H.S. Degree

and has 7 years of experience in PreK• Jill is 40-year old with BS in ELEM ED, 4

years experience as Grade 4-5 teacher and 2 years experience as Itinerant ECSE



Scenario #4• Mary Jo is 45-year old with High School

degree and CDA and has 16 years of experience in Head Start

• Jill is 35-year old with BS in SPED, 4 years experience as Middle School SPED teacher, and this is her 1st year as Itinerant ECSE teacher



Scenario #5• Mary Jo is 35-year old with High School

degree 12 years of experience in PreK.• Jill is 52-year old with Master’s degree in

ECSE,10 years of experience in classroom-based ECSE and 9 years of experience year as Itinerant ECSE teacher

project direct

Documents

target behavior skill

special learning activity

peer involvemente

peer expectations

peer modeling

imitation learning

learning community

peer communication bidse