National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners by HC111211104255

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 23

									National Individualizing Preschool
         Inclusion Project
       Partners‟ Meeting

       Robin McWilliam, Principal Investigator
       Peggy Freund, Project Coordinator
       Amy 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                                               Responsiveness of staff

                 60.00%                                                        50.00%
                 50.00%
                                                                               40.00%




                                                                  Percentage
    Percentage




                 40.00%
                                                                               30.00%
                 30.00%                                 Series1                                                           Series1
                                                                               20.00%
                 20.00%
                 10.00%                                                        10.00%

                 0.00%                                                         0.00%
                          1   2        3        4   5                                   1         2            3      4
                                     Rating                                                           Rating




My involvement in NIPIP has…                                                    I would describe the
3 – met my expectations – 40%                                                   responsiveness of the staff
4 – exceeded my expectations – 50%                                              as…
5 – far exceeded my expectations – 10%                                          2 – average – 11%
n = 14                                                                          3 – above average – 44%
                                                                                4 – exemplary – 45%
                                                                                n = 13
              Partner Satisfaction
                           Materials                                        Data Collection Requirements

             100.00%                                               60.00%
             80.00%                                                50.00%
Percentage




                                                      Percentage
                                                                   40.00%
             60.00%
                                            Series1                30.00%                                      Series1
             40.00%
                                                                   20.00%
             20.00%                                                10.00%
              0.00%                                                0.00%
                       1        2      3                                    1             2                3
                             Rating                                                     Rating




               The materials have been…               I have found the data collection
               2 – been useful – 11%                  requirements of the project …
               3 – been very useful – 89%             2 – manageable – 50%
               n = 13                                 3 – worthwhile – 50%
                                                      n = 14
                Partner Satisfaction
                          Routines-based Interview                                           Integrated Services

             80.00%                                                             70.00%
                                                                                60.00%
             60.00%
Percentage




                                                                   Percentage
                                                                                50.00%
                                                                                40.00%
             40.00%                                      Series1                                                       Series1
                                                                                30.00%
             20.00%                                                             20.00%
                                                                                10.00%
             0.00%                                                               0.00%
                      1          2            3      4                                   1       2            3    4
                                     Rating                                                          Rating




Implementing the routines-based                                    Implementing integrated services
interview has been …                                               has been …
2 – difficult – 20%                                                2 – difficult – 11%
3 – easy – 70%                                                     3 – easy – 67%
4 – very easy – 10%                                                4 – very easy – 22%
n = 13                                                             n = 13
               Partner Satisfaction
                          Embedded Intervention                                           Overall Satisfaction

             80.00%                                                          70.00%
             70.00%                                                          60.00%
             60.00%




                                                                Percentage
                                                                             50.00%
Percentage




             50.00%
                                                                             40.00%
             40.00%                                   Series1                                                        Series1
                                                                             30.00%
             30.00%
             20.00%                                                          20.00%
             10.00%                                                          10.00%
              0.00%                                                           0.00%
                      1         2            3    4                                   1    2        3        4   5
                                    Rating                                                       Rating




Implementing embedded                                           My overall satisfaction with NIPIP
intervention has been . . .                                     is
2 – difficult – 20%                                             4 – high – 60%
3 – easy – 70%                                                  5 – very high – 40%
4 – very easy – 10%                                             n = 14
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    Post-Training    Effect Size
                Mean (Std.      Mean (Std.       (d value)
                  Dev.)            Dev.)

Entire Model    4.95 (.88)       5.75 (.67)        1.03

Functional
Intervention    4.55 (.97)       5.49 (.65)        1.16
Planning
Integrated
                4.78 (1.0)       5.27 (.96)        .50
Services

Embedded
                5.31 (.63)       6.02 (.69)        1.08
Intervention
Implementation of Integrated
Specialized Services (SDF)
         Group Results – All Therapists (9 sites; 1,936 sessions)

                               Pre-Training             Post-Training
                         (% of sessions in which   (% of sessions in which
                            model was used)           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
                                    51                       72
Routines

Consultation                        6                         1
Implementation of Integrated
Specialized Services (SDF)
                      Group Results – SLPs (982 sessions)

                                   Pre-Training             Post-Training
                             (% of sessions in which   (% of sessions in which
                                model was used)           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
                                       53                        71
Routines

Consultation                           18                        1
Implementation of Integrated
Specialized Services (SDF)
                      Group Results – OTs (514 sessions)

                                  Pre-Training             Post-Training
                            (% of sessions in which   (% of sessions in which
                               model was used)           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
                                      61                        80
Routines

Consultation                          7                         3
Implementation of Integrated
Specialized Services (SDF)
                      Group Results – PTs (345 sessions)

                                  Pre-Training             Post-Training
                            (% of sessions in which   (% of sessions in which
                               model was used)           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
                                      30                        62
Routines

Consultation                          3                         1
Implementation of Embedded
Intervention (EIEIO)
        Mean Percentage of Routines (N = 2 sites, 8 observations)

                      Time 1             Time 2         Effect Size (d
                     Mean (std.         Mean (std.          value)
                       dev.)              dev.)

Could                 .66 (.14)          .70 (.17)            .26



Was                   .66 (.24)          .76 (.11)            .57



Appropriate           .92 (.14)          .99 (.01)            .93
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

								
To top