William McInerney, Ph'D'

1
Supporting Effective Consultation in Itinerant
Pre-K SPED Services Tools for Success

• William McInerney, Ph.D.
• Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D.
• Lyn Hale, Ph.D.
• Margie Spino, M.A.
• Judith Herb College of Education
• University of Toledo
• DEC Conference - Albuquerque, N.M.
• October 16, 2009

2
IECSE Services Across U.S.

• OSEP does not require SEAs to report number of
  children receiving itinerant services
• OSEP does not report number of children receiving
  itinerant services
• OSEP does report number of children served in
  different educational environments

3
OSEP Part B 619 Educational Environments

• Regular EC program at least 80 of time
• Regular EC program 40-79 of time
• Regular EC program less than 40 of time
• Home

• Separate class
• Separate school
• Residential facility
• Service provider location

Itinerant?
4
Number of Children Ages 3-5 yrs. Served Under
IDEA Part B 619, in U.S. (2007)
5
Percent of Children Ages 3-5 yrs. Served under
IDEA Part B 619 in U.S. (2003-2007)
67
65
64
64
63
6
Massed vs. Distributed Practice

• Massed Practice
• Child instructed with same materials, multiple
  times in single session, without a break
• EXAMPLE Identifying basic shapes for 20 minutes
  in one day

• Distributed Practice
• Child practices with same or different materials,
  multiple times, with breaks between instruction/
  practice
• EXAMPLE Practice identifying basic shapes for
  10 mins. during sessions scheduled several times
  per week

7
Research Support Distributed Practice

• Adults
• Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964
• Donovan Radosevich, 1999, meta-analysis
• Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted Rohrer, 2006,
  meta-analysis
• Children - ages 3 months to 8 years old
• Childers Tomasello, 2002 (word learning)
• Rea Modigliani, 1985 (spelling, math)
• Rovee-Collier, 1995 (visual recognition)
• Seabrook, Brown, Solity, 2005 (phonics)

8
(No Transcript)
9
The Process of Consultation in IECSE Services

• OBJECTIVES OF CONSULTATION
• Multiple Levels of
• Influence and Effect

10
Components of Effective IECSE Consultation
Service Model
11
Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives

• Review of IEP to Determine Options for
  Instruction 
• ? Use of MEPI Process with ECE Partner Teacher 
•  

12
MEPI Model for Determining Level of Intensity of
Intervention

• 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

13
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)

14
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 childs 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)?

15
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

16
I Intensive / Direct Intervention

• Evaluate learning objective to determine if
  target behavior / skill requires IMMEDIATE
  intervention and/or will enhance childs
  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.

17
Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives

• Matching of Priority Learning Objectives with
  Curriculum 
• ? Development of Planning Matrix (Objectives x
  Activity) with ECE Partner Teacher 

18
(No Transcript)
19
Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives

• Matching of Priority Learning Objectives with
  Teaching Strategies 
• ? Development of Planning Matrix (Objectives x
  Activity x Teaching Strategy) with ECE Partner
  Teacher

20
(No Transcript)
21
Tools For Monitoring Child Progress
22
Level 1 - Addressing Priority IEP Objectives

• Monitoring of Progress of Child with IEP
• ? Selection of Appropriate Monitoring Procedure
  and Form

23
Monitoring Stages of Skill Acquisition
24
Monitoring Level of Assistance - Coding of Prompt
Levels

• Childs Name Steven L.
• Skill/Behavior Steven will hold 4 brush(1/2
  diameter) and create 6 stroke on paper or other
  art materials.
• PA - Hand (H) / Elbow (E) Teacher/peer support
• M - Peer or teacher modeling
• V - Verbal prompt - peer/teacher
• I - Independent - No assistance
• MOD - Independent with modified brush /
  utensil

25
Time Sampling
26
Level 2 - Addressing Professional Development
Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher Expansion of
Knowledge and Skills

• Discussion of Awareness of ECE Partner Teacher
  of SPED Teaching Strategies
•  
• Identification of Resources to Support
  Expansion of SPED-related Knowledge
• Identification of Resources to Support
  Expansion of SPED-related Skills

27
Level 3- Addressing Personal Development
Objectives of ECE Partner Teacher

• Consideration of Professional Career Objectives
  of ECE Partner Teacher
•  
• Consideration of Formal Education Objectives of
  ECE Partner Teacher

28
Evaluating the Success of Itinerant Consultation

• Just as we need to verify that children achieve
  IEP objectives, we need to verify that
  consultants and consultees have achieved their
  objectives in the consultation process.

29
General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant
Consultation

• General
• Increase opportunities for partner to practice
  communication skills.

• Specific
• Provide partner with at least two opportunities
  to initiate interactions with her peers during
  snack time.

30
General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant
Consultation

• General
• Help Riley to remain engaged with toys and
  materials.

• Specific
• During center time, help Riley play with a
  specific toy or material for at least 3 minutes.

31
General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant
Consultation

• General
• Increase Jennis knowledge in regards to working
  with a child who has special needs.

• Specific
• Jenni will identify four characteristics of
  children with Down syndrome and describe how
  those characteristics affect learning.

32
General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant
Consultation

• Specific
• Pat will correctly use a system of backward
  chaining to help Jeremy put on his coat twice a
  dayonce at recess and once when its time to go
  home.

• General
• Enhance Pats ability to provide individualized
  instruction to the child with special needs.

33
General vs. Specific Outcomes for Itinerant
Consultation

• General
• Improve the quality of Parkers learning
  environment.

• Specific
• Tanisha and Erin (ECE teachers) will increase the
  number of materials (e.g., blocks of different
  sizes, shapes, and colors, signs, cars, and toy
  people) in the block area in order to expand
  opportunities for learning for Parker and the
  other children in the classroom.

34
Judging the Success of a Consultation
Relationship

• Did the consultation session go as planned?
• What does the data tell us (reflection) ?
• How was the learning environment changed ? What
  effect did it have on the childs learning?
• Did the consultee acquire the knowledge and/or
  skills that were targeted for the session? How
  do you know?
• Was the consultee satisfied with the outcome of
  the session re knowledge/skill gains? How do
  you know?

35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Following up
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
Examples of Consultation Support

• Level 1
• Providing information on how IEP objectives can
  be prioritized with respect to factors that may
  be related to child progress via MEPI Model
• Prioritizing IEP objectives with respect to
  intensity of intervention via MEPI Model
• Addressing IEP objectives in typical pre-K
  activities via MATRIX planning tool
• Linking IEP objectives with typical pre-K
  activities and general education learning
  objectives via MATRIX planning tool
• Using monitoring forms to assess child progress
  on IEP objectives

43
Examples of Consultation Support

• Level 2
• Providing basic information on disability
  conditions
• Providing basic information on implications of
  disability on child development
• Providing information on special education
  teaching strategies
• Demonstrating/modeling special education teaching
  strategies that are linked to specific IEP
  objectives
• Providing information on the process of screening
  and assessment and eligibility for SPED services
  in Part C and Part B 619 programs
• Providing information on the process for
  determination of LRE placement in the IEP process

44
Examples of Consultation Support

• Level 3
• Providing resources that can inform and support
  professional competence of ECE partners
• Providing resources that can inform and support
  formal education objectives of ECE partners
• Resources web links, videos, articles, modeling,
  digital photos, LEA website, e-mail list serve,
  iPod apps, cell phone images, links to state
  certification/licensing information, college and
  university teacher preparation programs,
  professional development/advocacy groups e.g.
  CEC-DEC, NAEYC, etc.

45
Progression of Consultation Partnership
46
General References

• Buysse Wesley (1993) The Identity Crisis in
  ECSE
• Jung (2003) Why Limit Interventions to
  Professionals' Visits?
• McCollum Yates (1994) Dyad as Focus, Triad as
  Means
• McWilliam (2005) Teams focus on
  "between-session" times

47
Project DIRECT Web Site

• http//www.utoledo.edu/education/direct/
• Web Site Includes
• Training Modules related to Itinerant ECSE
  Services
• Articles and Links to Resources
• Professional Development Tool (P.I.E.C.E.S.)
• Information re Training Sessions

48

• Contact Information
• Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D. laurie.dinnebeil_at_utoledo
  .edu
• Bill McInerney, Ph.D. william.mcinerney_at_utoledo.
  edu
• Lyn Hale, Ph.D. lyn.hale_at_utoledo.edu
• Margie Spino, M.A. margie.spino_at_rockets.utoledo.
  edu
• Judith Herb College of Education - MS 954
• The University of Toledo
• 2801 W. Bancroft St.,
• Toledo, OH 43606