National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners’ Meeting Robin McWilliam, Principal...
-
Upload
brian-mitchell -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners’ Meeting Robin McWilliam, Principal...
National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners’ Meeting
Robin McWilliam, Principal InvestigatorPeggy Freund, Project CoordinatorAmy Casey, Research Analyst
Review National Network Future Plans
Grant Publications
Preliminary Data Barriers and Solutions What else?
Project Goal:To promote quality inclusive
practices in early childhood setting Three primary objectives: To help establish 10 state networks To develop a national network To provide training and technical
assistance in a model of individualizing inclusion
Where We Are: The NIPIP National Network
Established Networks North Carolina – October 2003
Kentucky – November 2003
Ohio – November 2003
Wyoming – March 2004
New York – May 2004
Tennessee – August 2004
Virginia – November 2004
Idaho – January 2005
Vermont – March 2005
Where We Are: The NIPIP National Network
Developing Networks Arizona – August 2005 Minnesota – November 2005 Hawaii – October 2005 New Jersey – Winter 2005
Partner Satisfaction Expectation
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Responsiveness of staff
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
1 2 3 4
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
I would describe the responsiveness of the staff as…
2 – average – 11%
3 – above average – 44%
4 – exemplary – 45%
n = 13
My involvement in NIPIP has…
3 – met my expectations – 40%
4 – exceeded my expectations – 50%
5 – far exceeded my expectations – 10%
n = 14
Partner Satisfaction Materials
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
1 2 3
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Data Collection Requirements
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1 2 3
Rating
Per
cent
age
Series1
The materials have been…
2 – been useful – 11%
3 – been very useful – 89%
n = 13
I have found the data collection requirements of the project …
2 – manageable – 50%
3 – worthwhile – 50%
n = 14
Partner Satisfaction Routines-based Interview
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
1 2 3 4
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Integrated Services
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%
1 2 3 4
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Implementing the routines-based interview has been …
2 – difficult – 20%
3 – easy – 70%
4 – very easy – 10%
n = 13
Implementing integrated services has been …
2 – difficult – 11%
3 – easy – 67%
4 – very easy – 22%
n = 13
Partner Satisfaction Embedded Intervention
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%
1 2 3 4
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Overall Satisfaction
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Rating
Per
cen
tag
e
Series1
Implementing embedded intervention has been . . .
2 – difficult – 20%
3 – easy – 70%
4 – very easy – 10%
n = 14
My overall satisfaction with NIPIP is
4 – high – 60%
5 – very high – 40%
n = 14
Partner Satisfaction Comments:
Because of the “partner” component …, our preschool seems to have more credibility… We have had very open discussion with local Part C and Part B representatives for the first time in 6 years.
The data collection process includes genuinely useful tools that not only gather information but also provide a great basis for offering feedback to teachers and providing an intelligent, useful framework for thinking about … child development and behavior…
Where We Are Going
Future Plans Grant
Evaluate and Refine Model Develop Complete Toolbox Test efficacy
Publication Describe Model Profile Barriers with solutions
Implementation of Individualizing Inclusion Model (IndIA)
Mean Typical Scores (N = 6)
Pre-Training Mean (Std.
Dev.)
Post-Training Mean (Std.
Dev.)
Effect Size
(d value)
Entire Model 4.95 (.88) 5.75 (.67) 1.03
Functional Intervention Planning
4.55 (.97) 5.49 (.65) 1.16
Integrated Services
4.78 (1.0) 5.27 (.96) .50
Embedded Intervention
5.31 (.63) 6.02 (.69) 1.08
Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Individual Pull-Out 21 13
Small Group Pull-Out 4 2
1:1 in Classroom 5 2
Group Activity 13 10
Individualized Within Routines
51 72
Consultation 6 1
Group Results – All Therapists (9 sites; 1,936 sessions)
Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Individual Pull-Out 19 14
Small Group Pull-Out 5 3
1:1 in Classroom 6 1
Group Activity 16 9
Individualized Within Routines
53 71
Consultation 18 1
Group Results – SLPs (982 sessions)
Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Individual Pull-Out 19 9
Small Group Pull-Out 5 0
1:1 in Classroom 3 2
Group Activity 5 7
Individualized Within Routines
61 80
Consultation 7 3
Group Results – OTs (514 sessions)
Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Individual Pull-Out 41 9
Small Group Pull-Out 1 0
1:1 in Classroom 6 4
Group Activity 19 4
Individualized Within Routines
30 62
Consultation 3 1
Group Results – PTs (345 sessions)
Implementation of Embedded Intervention (EIEIO)
Time 1
Mean (std. dev.)
Time 2
Mean (std. dev.)
Effect Size (d value)
Could .66 (.14) .70 (.17) .26
Was .66 (.24) .76 (.11) .57
Appropriate .92 (.14) .99 (.01) .93
Mean Percentage of Routines (N = 2 sites, 8 observations)
Exciting News From NIPIP Networks
FPG developed a video/DVD with examples of embedded intervention, narrated by teachers At FPG, specialists and each teaching
team meet every other week during naptime to review strategies for embedded intervention
Exciting News From NIPIP Networks
ID higher education and technical assistance partners have provided work sessions for the demo site and Early Head Start on functional goal writing
WY demo site has trained 4 regional programs and presented at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Policy Forum on Preschool Inclusion in Washington, DC
Comments From NIPIP Teachers
“After an RBI in which parental concerns and priorities were identified, the parents went home and started working on the goals immediately. Before the actual IEP meeting was held we had to adjust and add onto the goals, because the child had already mastered goals before we could begin any ‘professional’ interventions.”
Comments From NIPIP Teachers
“The parent walked into the IEP meeting, sat down, and said she had a couple more goals she wanted to add to the list. She went home after the RBI with staff and ‘interviewed’ her family. They determined that as a family they also wanted to work on these additional goals with the boy.”
Feedback About Partner Experiences
Needed for Poster session at DEC Manuscript to be submitted to journal Grant Performance Reports
Share information by Emailing us about current status Participating in today’s activity
Feedback About Implementation of the NIPIP Model
Divide your flipchart into 2 columns In the first column, list barriers that you ran
into when implementing the Individualizing Inclusion Model
In the second column, list the creative solutions that your state or school district used to overcome the barriers
Pick 2 barriers and their solutions to share with the entire group