Training in
Instructional
Consultation,
Assessment &
Teaming
www.icatresources.com
Todd A. Gravois, Ph.D.
Edward Gickling, Ph.D. &
Sylvia Rosenfield, Ph.D.
Instructional
Consultation Teams
represent the
systematic search
for quality
instruction.
Student
Match=Success
Instruction
Task
IC Team Program Goal
Enhance/ Improve/ Increase Student and Staff
Performance.
Objectives
 Develop
a systematic support network within each
building, including a trained IC Team Facilitator and
trained Instructional Consultation Team.
 Enhance teachers’ skills in and application of best
practices of instructional assessment and delivery
 Develop school-wide norms of collaboration and
problem-solving
 Utilize data for classroom and school decisions
IC Team Roles:
Instructional Consultation Team Facilitator:
Receives advanced training and supervision in instructional consultation
Provides support to students by supporting classroom teachers
Supports the on-going training and development of the team
Facilitates professional development
Instructional Consultation Team:
Provide support to classroom teachers
Provides a venue for continued training and team member development
Assists in aligning school resources
Principal:
Active participant on team
Establishes a vision for objectively aligning curriculum and instructional practices
Other Key Personnel:
Co-facilitates team development
Models instructional consultation process
IC Team Case Management Configuration
Students
Students
Students
Students
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CASE
MANAGER
CASE
MANAGER
Students
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Students
TEAM MEMBERS:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CASE
MANAGER
Students
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Students
CASE
MANAGER
CASE
MANAGER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
CASE
MANAGER
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Students
CASE
MANAGER
Administrator
General Educators
Special Educator
School Psychologist
Guidance Counselor
Health Provider
Social Worker
Others
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Students
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Students
Students
Process Variables:
Three Critical Case Manager Skills
Collaborative
& Reflective
Communication
Systematic
Problem Solving
Process
Instructional
& Behavioral
Assessment
IC Team Support Process
Ongoing data
collection to
determine
progress
toward goals
Teachers
complete brief
"request for
assistance"
Team member
assigned as
Case Manager
Contract for
Professional
Collaboration
Classroom
strategies
developed/
demonstrated/
implemented
Assessment of
student's
entry skills
conducted
Baseline and
Goals
Established and
Documented
Every Case is Documented Using a common SDF
IC Team Student Documentation Form (SDF): Page 2
All Cases are Monitored Using ICAT Tools
• Level of Implementation/ Fidelity
ICAT Tools System
Tracking:
• Student Codes
• Case Progress
• Teacher Feedback & Use
• Student Goal Attainment
• Team Functioning
• Disposition of Cases
• Capacity to link to other data
management systems
• Uniform Practices
• Consistent Implementation
• Accountability at Case/
School/ District
Logging On
•Secure Log-In for ICAT Tools
•www.icattools.com
School Reports: Sample Implementation Profile
• Each school has on-line
access to an
individualized profile.
• The profile provides
information on the
fidelity of program
implementation.
• The report allows each
team to plan for
additional training and
activities to ensure
quality support services
for students.
School Reports: Sample Student Goal Attainment Profile
• Each school has on-line
access to an
individualized profile.
• The profile provides
information on student
progress toward
established goals.
• The report allows each
team to plan for
additional training and
activities to ensure
quality support services
for students.
District Reports: Sample Aggregate Report
Click to View or Print
any District Level IC
Teams Data Report
District Reports: Sample Aggregate Report
View Individual
Schools’ Data or
Overall District Data
Implementation:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010
IC Team Level of Implementation
District
# of Teams
2009-2010 Yr
% Team with High
Implementation
Carson City
8
25% (2)
Churchill
7
43% (3)
Clark
2
50% (1)
Douglas
11
45% (5)
Elko
2
100% (2)
Humboldt
5
80% (4)
Lander
4
0% (0)
Lyon
15
27% (4)*
Teacher Outcomes:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010


414 of 1148 teachers requested assistance of the
IC Teams and engaged in the IC process for
professional development and problem-solving
around a student concern
This is approximately 36% of the teachers in
Nevada project schools.
Teacher Outcomes:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

Of the teachers surveyed,

89% teachers requested assistance for an individual student

28% said they used strategies learned in IC case with another
similar student
40% said they used the strategies with a small group of students
32% said they used the strategies with their whole class




72% used strategies learned with the IC Team Case
Manager with small group/ entire class
Schools and districts focus on helping teachers
improve instructional practices
Teacher Feedback:
Nevada 2009-2010
“Change is a process, not an event” Hall & Hord, 2010
“Not surprisingly… time. It
definitely takes a significant
amount of time to identify and
implement intervention
strategies, but then once they
are working, it is great!”


“The only concern I have is
that others may not be open to
the process”

“ Being involved with the IC
process has made me more
reflective of my instructional
practice and how I can change
the task or environment to best
meet each student’s needs. I
have applied many of the
strategies I learned with to
many different situations.”
Student Outcomes:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010
Goal Attainment
# of Students
Concerns
Reviewed
714
795
Concerns
Concerns Rated Demonstrating
Progress
Concerns
Meet/Exceed
Goals
81% (646) 21% (138) 68% (439)
 89% of IC Team cases demonstrated progress or met
goals
Schools and districts focus on setting and meeting goals
for students
Special Education Outcomes:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010
Referral Patterns
IC Team
Cases
432
Cases Eval
Non IC Team
Cases Placed
23% (99) 18% (79)
Cases
92
Cases Eval
Cases Placed
72% (66) 49% (45)
Hit rate = 80%
Hit rate = 68%
(evaluations that qualified)
(evaluations that qualified)
 Schools and districts focus on using resources
effectively
Student Demographic Data:
Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010
Request Patterns:
# Students
729
# Students
Male
Female
729
58% (424)
42% (305)
Caucasian
African
American
Asian
Hispanic
Native
American
Other
62% (455)
2% (14)
2% (4)
25%
(185)
3% (25)
5% (36)
Problem Solving Process







Contracting
Problem Identification and analysis, including
instructional assessments
Intervention design
Intervention implementation
Evaluation of intervention
Follow-up/Re-design/Closure
Data and process recorded on SDF
Structure of IC at PHES





Team composed of 20 members: 2 special education,
1 instructional aide, 1 counselor, 1 principal, 1
reading specialist, 1 computer tech, 1 school
psychologist, 1 GT teacher, 11 classroom teachers
Facilitator and buddy
Weekly meetings: case updates, case assignments,
training, case reviews
Site training days
Roving subs for coverage of instructional assessments
PHES Goals for IC




Sustainability
Implementation of classwide and small group
interventions
Ongoing professional development and
collaboration
IC as part of the school culture
Impact on Teachers


Common language
Staff participation in the process




100% of faculty have attended 2 day intro training
20 members on team, wide representation
Collaborative problem solving
Ownership and utilization of IC principles

“I most appreciate the positive support from a
colleague. It gave me support with the parents.
The process really helps when you can "talk"
out the concerns, see what's working and not
working and have another set of eyes when
looking at how best to aid a student.”

“I love having the IC Team at this school. I
believe it is a vital part of this school to have
this program.”
District Support

DIG grant





Stipends
Sub days
Solicitation of input for DIG grant, sustainability
plan
Facilitator meetings
IC networking days, continued training