BootCamp PP2 by marcusjames

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 42

									North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
Exceptional Children Division




                             Laurie Ray, MPT, PT Consultant
                         Lauren Holahan, MSOT, OT Consultant
                     Perry Flynn, M.Ed., CCC-SLP, SLP Consultant


                                                           August 24, 2009, Lenoir, NC
                                                       August 28, 2009, Wilmington, NC
• Educational &       • Integrated IEP
  Clinical Service      Development
  Models              • Embedded
• Least Restrictive     Intervention
  Environment         • Collaboration
• Parent Consent &    • Ethics
  Partnership         • Rosters and
• Evidenced-based       Schedules
  Evaluation
“To promote academic success and social
 participation and to access, progress, and
   participate in the general curriculum”
                                   (Wolfe & Hall, 2003)
Regular Education
Service
       RtI
       PBS
       CEIS
       504                               Separate
       Consultation   Resource           School        Home/Hospital
       Screening

           Regular            Separate               Residential
           Special            Special                Placement
           Education          Education
            Based on desired outcomes for:


• Learning                  • Sports participation
• Classroom skills          • Social participation
• Play skills               • Self-help skills
                            • Mobility
                            • Social-emotional
                              learning
                            • Prevocational and
                              transition needs
• Ensures access, participation, and progress in
  general education curriculum, program options,
  and non-academic services and settings to the
  maximum extent possible
• Sustained by needed supports and services
• Promotes measurable educational benefit
• Means high expectations for children

                         (IDEA 2004 612a5)
FOR STUDENTS:                          FOR STAFF:
• peer tutoring                        • Wider variety of
• cooperative learning                   interventions and
  groups                                 modifications are
• specific strategies                    attempted with students
  instruction                          • Teaching methods and
• individual remediation                 strategies are enhanced
• small group instruction              • Increased collaboration
• differentiated instruction
                (Wolfe & Hall, 2003)
• Pre-referral interventions
  – RtI
  – CEIS
• Special education
• 504 Plans
• FERPA
  – Medicaid
  – Communication outside of school
  – E-mail
• Work within parameters
  of foundational
  documents                       Essential
                                 Standards
• Use EBP
  models/processes
                           Scope of     IDEA/NC
• Use standardized         Practice      Policy
  assessments
• Record, interpret, &
  recommend based on
  data
• Formulate clinically relevant
  question
• Gather evidence that may
  answer question
• Evaluate evidence to
  determine which is best
• Communicate evidence
  during decision-making
• Evaluate outcomes
              AOTA SSSIS Vol. 13, No. 3, Sept. 2006
• What does student need to access, participate, make
  progress in the general education curriculum?
• What supports this student’s performance?
• What limits this student’s performance?
• What does this child need to access the classroom
  and campus?

           NOT, “Does this child need
           OT , PT or SLP at school ?”
1. The student is a ‘student with a
   disability’.
2. The disability adversely affects
   educational or functional performance
   at school.
3. The performance deficits related to the
   disability are such that the student
   requires specially designed instruction
   in order to ensure access to the general
   curriculum.           Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)
• Bring clinical knowledge
  to the table
• See student data in light
  of other team
  members’ findings = Big
  Picture
• Prioritize student’s
  strengths/needs
Did the PT, OT or SLP evaluation inform
  decisions about:
     • Present Level of Performance?
     • Goals?
     • Access?
     • Services?
     • Accommodations and modifications?
     • Least Restrictive Environment?
1. Team members report findings/review
   existing data
2. Team identifies strengths & prioritizes
   needs
3. Team writes prioritized goals student can
   reasonably achieve by end of IEP
4. Team determines least restrictive environment for
   plan implementation
5. Team determines services & supports student will
   need to benefit from & make progress in program
• Based on prioritized STUDENT needs for
  school functioning and participation—NOT
  impairments
• Flow out of Present Level of Performance
• Can be achieved within IEP time frame
• Connect to core curriculum
                            Understandable



                     Linked to Data      Realistic
• Student strengths &
  needs
• Team members’ skills and
  knowledge
• Desired outcomes
• Recommendations of
  team members
What does the student require for:
  – Access to appropriate education?     IEP GOALS
  – Progress in general education
    curriculum?
  – Participation in extracurricular &       Related
                                             Services
    nonacademic activities?
  – Advancing appropriately toward
    attaining IEP goals?                  Supplementary
  – Education/participation with          Aids & Services
    nondisabled children?
Determining need for service prior
to goal development results in:
  – Fragmented programming
  – Duplication of services & supports
  – Overlooked areas of need
  – Intense focus on isolated skills
  – Limited focus on participation in
    educational program
  – Confusion between clinical &
    educational models of practice
       Frames of reference/Clinical
              approaches

 Intervention              Collaboration
   methods

Frequency/duration           Desired
     of service             outcomes

            Least restrictive
             environment
• IEP
  – PLAAFP/Goals
  – Service delivery
  – LRE
• Data Collection
• Intervention notes
• Progress notes
 Professional
   Domain

 Educational
   Setting

Federal & State
  Mandates

 Local Policy



  Clinical &
   Ethical
  Reasoning
North Carolina State Board of Education
             Code of Ethics
  (16 NCAC 6C.0601 and 16 NCAC 6C.0602, 1998)



http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/policies/QP-C-
    014.asp?pri=02&cat=C&pol=014&acr=QP
•   Service Delivery Decisions
•   Documentation
•   Working Autonomously
•   Medicaid
•   Competence
•   OT Assistant Supervision
•   Serving multiple employers/settings
•   Confidentiality
•   Skills more readily generalized
•   Generates strategies for with all students
•   Provides therapists as models
•   Provides peers as models for students
•   Minimizes hallway transition time
•   Increases therapists’ visibility
•   Demystifies therapy room ‘magic’
•   Informs transition decisions
• Informs whole-student perspective
• Increases role/professional identity
• Reduces equipment requirements
• Increases involvement in school culture
• Increases knowledge of general
  curriculum
• Grows repertoire of skills
• Enhances community recognition
• Free and Appropriate Public Education
• Least Restrictive Environment
• No Child Left Behind
• Assumes collaborative planning
• Occurs within daily routines
• Uses childhood activity as instructional and
  therapeutic media
• Recognizes dynamic relationship between
  child, activity, and/or environment
• Front-load investment with long-term
  efficiency
               - Frank Porter Graham Child Care Staff & Dr. Robin McWilliam, 2005
•   Team approach
•   Transdisciplinary approach
•   Flexible scheduling
•   Intentional demonstration
•   Collaborative consultation
•   Facilitative intervention
• Team approach
• Understanding of the relationship between
  Essential Standards/Foundations & IEP
• IEP with functional goals
• Daily schedule including planned activities
• Knowledge of child’s preferences, interests,
  & motivators
Needs assessments     Team Development
 •   Questionnaires    •   Workshops/In-services
 •   Focus groups      •   Newsletters
 •   Checklists        •   Study groups
 •   Interviews        •   Round Tables
 •   Observations      •   Listservs/Websites
•   Co-teaching
•   Participation in Faculty meetings
•   Consultation/Training
•   Planning sessions
    – With teacher
    – Participation in grade-level meetings/programming
• “Tip of the Week”
• Central office curriculum teams
• Group emails
•   IEP Processes
•   Consultation/Training
•   Group programming
•   Communication notebooks
•   Central office EC program/policy teams
•   Planning sessions
    – With teacher
    – Participation in EC team/program meetings
•   Therapy visits
•   Parent Nights/Academies
•   Home programs/activity ideas
•   Listservs/websites
•   IEP Processes
•   Communication notebooks
•   “Tip of the Week”
•   Consultation/Training
•   Improve communication via email,
    pagers, mobile phones
•   Service to students
•   IEP meetings
•   Evaluations
•   Documentation and billing
•   Therapist assistant supervision, when applicable
•   Program consultation
•   Communication & consultation with staff, parents, &
    outside agencies
•   Travel between sites (varies based on number of sites
    served and distance between sites)
•   Regular education initiatives
•   Equipment acquisition, maintenance, and training
•   Lunch (hah!)
•   Review IEPs
•   Locate students
•   Talk to teachers
•   Talk with other service providers
•   Streamline travel
•   Build-in planning & evaluation time

								
To top