2015 Leadership Conference
“All In: Achieving Results Together”
Implementing and Scaling up the DEC Recommended
Practices for Improving Child Engagement and
Outcomes:
RP²: Reaching Potentials through Recommended
Practices
Barbara J. Smith, Lise Fox, Carol Trivette
Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA)
Betsy Sutherland, Utah State Office of Education
Jennifer Moses, Minnesota Department of Education
1
ECTA Intensive TA
• Build capacity of programs and
practitioners to use DEC
Recommended Practices (RPs) to
promote child engagement in
learning opportunities
• Build capacity of the professional
development system to provide
ongoing training and support to
programs to implement DEC RPs
with fidelity
2
The “What”: the DEC
Recommended Practices
• Which ones?
• Those that have evidence that they produce engagement of
children with adults, peers, activities and materials
• Why engagement?
• Research indicates that higher levels of child engagement with
adults, peers, and materials are related to the learning of
children both with and without disabilities. Research also
demonstrates that among children at-risk for poor outcomes
there is a link between engagement and children’s learning.
3
Recommended Practice
Topic Areas
1. Leadership
2. Assessment
3.Environment
4.Family
5.Instruction
6.Interaction
http://www.dec-sped.org/
7. Teaming and Collaboration
8. Transition
4
The “How”: Systems
Model for Early Childhood
Professional Development
• Incorporates best practice from:
• Systems Thinking
• Cross-Agency
Collaborative
Planning
• Implementation
Science
5
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
INTERACTIVE GUIDE
http://ectacenter.org/implementprocess/interactive
6
Key Elements of the RP²
Intensive TA Model
1. State Leadership Team to plan and implement a sustainable,
cross-agency, state infrastructure; develops sustainability and
scale-up plans
2. A Master Cadre of External Coaches that support high fidelity
use of Recommended Practices in programs
3. Implementation and Demonstration Sites with Leadership Teams
and internal coaches; demo sites to demonstrate effectiveness
and to model for others
4. Data/Evaluation and data feed-back systems for: data-based
decision making at all levels for PD, ensuring fidelity,
demonstrating effectiveness, planning, implementing and
tracking systems change and making system recommendations
7
RP2 System Components
State Leadership
Team
State Coordinators
Master Cadre
external coach to
sites; state T/TA
Demo Sites
Program Leadership Team: administrator,
internal coach, data coordinator, others
8
Implementation Sites
Program Leadership Team: administrator,
internal coach, data coordinator, others
State Planning Guide
9
1. State Leadership Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is a committed, cross-agency group about 15
Makes multi-year commitment
Meets monthly; uses effective meeting strategies
Establishes Demo sites, Master Cadre, data systems
Secures resources
Provides infrastructure
Builds political investment
Ensures systems integration
Works to sustain initial effort and to scale up statewide
10
2. Master Cadre: Professional
Development and Technical Assistance
• Master T/TA Cadre
– Carefully selected initial team of T/TA providers
– Application process
– Regionally located
– Expertise in 0-5, center services and family coaching
– Mentored by ECTA faculty partners in training, external
coaching, and data systems
11
Master Cadre
• Will act as an External Coach• Meet with local Leadership team
• Support the local internal coach
• Provide additional training and content
support to local professionals (using
implementation science)
• Help Local leadership team collect,
disaggregate and act up data for quality
program implementation
• Help scale up statewide
12
3. Program-Wide Demonstrations of
High Fidelity Implementation
1.
High fidelity demonstrations that exemplify the value of the
implementation of the Recommended Practices (RPs)
2.
Demonstration programs help build the political will needed
to scale-up and sustain the RPs
3.
Demonstration programs provide a model for other programs
and professionals, “seeing is believing”
4.
Demonstration programs “ground” the work of the State
Team in the realities and experiences of programs and professionals
13
Program Leadership Team
Leadership Team
Data DecisionMaking: Examining
Implementation
and Outcomes
Family
Engagement
Continuous
Professional
Development
Program-Wide
Implementation
Child Engagement in
Learning
Systems to Identify and
Respond to Individual Child
Needs
Supports for Practice
Implementation
14
What Programs Need
• External coaching
– Confident and knowledgeable facilitator to
build leadership team capacity to guide
implementation and fidelity
• Professional development
– Training
– Practice-based coaching
– Ongoing support
15
What Programs Need (2)
• Implementation plan
• Internal coaching capacity
• Resources to address full range of
individual child needs
• Data tools and evaluation systems
– Fidelity
– Decisions
– Outcomes
16
4. A Data Decision-Making
Approach
• State and Program
– Outcomes are identified
– Fidelity and outcomes are measured
– Data are summarized and used to:
•
•
•
•
•
Identify training needs
Deliver professional development
Make programmatic changes
Problem solve around specific children or issues
Ensure child learning and success
– Data collection AND ANALYSIS is an ongoing process
17
Using Data for Decisions
• View your data using meaningful visual
displays that can guide decision making
Look
• Analyze your data using key questions that
Think
leads to decision-making
Act
• Create and implement action plan based on data
analysis
18
Classroom Programs:
Building Capacity
• Familiarity with Recommended Practices and
understanding of their use
• Commitment to program-wide implementation
versus training the practitioner
• Program-wide implementation supports in addition
to teacher/child supports
• Data decision-making tools, processes, training
19
Classroom Programs:
Implementation Challenges
• Leadership teaming and data
decision-making
• Resources to provide coaching
support to teachers
• Use of data to monitor intervention
outcomes
• Engaging families
• Efficient access to supports to
address individual child needs
• Integration with other initiatives
20
Home Visiting Programs:
Building Capacity
• Recommended Practices are building on previous
initiatives
• Commitment to supporting home visitors through
coaching
• Flexible in how the implementation will occur making it work in each program
21
Home Visiting Programs:
Implementation Challenges
• Identification of families to start with in coaching
process
• Coordinating visits with families
• Resources to provide coaching support to home
visitors
• Commitment to program-wide training and
coaching
• Limited data for data decision making
• Engaging families on the Program Leadership
Team
22
Issues for Scale-Up
• External coaching – experienced,
trained facilitators to support the
leadership team
• Data decision-making – data tools,
ways to organize data for decisionmaking, training in use of data
• Internal coaching – training and support
of coaches (who will coach, funding for
coaches, supervision of coaches, who
receives coaching, duration and dosage
of coaching)
• Training and ongoing professional
development
23
RP² Project: Reaching Potential
through Recommended Practices
Utah State Office of Education
Salt Lake City, Utah
Technical Assistance provided by the Early Childhood
Technical Assistance Center
24
Why did we participate?
• Request from LEA
• Need for further implementation of
inclusive practices
• State priority on improving outcomes for
preschool students
• Because I saw the “ad” and thought it
would be a good idea….. :/
25
Choosing the
State Leadership Team
– Collaborating with departments within USOE relevant
to Early Childhood
• Title I
• Teaching and Learning
–
–
–
–
Jordan School District (the one that asked…)
Community partner (YMCA preschool program)
Higher Ed - Early Childhood Special Education Program
Office of Child Care – Professional Development
Provider
– Professional Development Network (Special
Education)
– USOE Special Education Coordinator (my boss)
26
Choosing Implementation Sites
• Which districts have inclusive preschools, or
are making progress toward inclusive
practices?
• Which districts are partnering with
community preschools?
• Which private preschools are currently serving
students with disabilities?
• Which district asked? (repeatedly)
• State-wide representation
27
Choosing Implementation Sites (2)
• Ogden School District
– Partnership with YMCA program
• Y teachers need training on differentiating
instruction and student engagement for SWD
– Five year plan to become fully inclusive; currently
100% self-contained
– Urban district, second highest poverty level in state
• Sevier School District
– Plans to open three Title I preschools, Fall 2015, now
Fall 2016
– Preschool Coordinator
– Rural district
28
Choosing
Implementation Sites (3)
• Washington School District
- Fully inclusive program, Special Ed and Title I
- Need for representation in southern part of state
• Jordan School District
- Request for training on student engagement
- Third largest district in the state with over 1000
preschool students
- Want to improve inclusive environments
29
Choosing
Implementation Sites (4)
• Private Providers
– The Learning Tree
• A provider within Jordan School District enrolling SWD
• Requested more information on working with SWD
• Jordan District will work with this provider next year
– Jewish Community Center preschool
• 10% of their preschool students have identified
disabilities
• Requested more information on differentiating
instruction and student engagement
30
Internal Coaches
– Jordan hired a full time coach as a result of
entering this project
– Washington already had three part time coaches
– Sevier’s preschool coordinator will act as coach
– Ogden’s Y program already had a full time coach
– JCC already has a coach who is SpEd licensed
31
External Coaches –
The TAP Team
(Technical Assistance Providers)
• Autism Specialist from USOE
• Recommendation from the State Leadership Team
• University of Utah faculty member, recruited by
Jordan School District
• UPDN (Utah Professional Development Network)
Provider with early childhood background
• Myself
32
Why are we doing this??
• Increase inclusive environments: students
with disabilities need access to typical peers
• Increase access to early childhood education
for all children, especially those at-risk
• To improve outcomes
33
Reaching Potential through
Recommended Practices: Minnesota
Professional Development Specialist (lead for RP²):
Michelle Dockter [email protected]
Part C Coordinator:
Kara Tempel [email protected]
619 Coordinator:
Jennifer Moses [email protected]
Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor:
Lisa Backer [email protected]
34
Always Start with Why
• Simon Sinek’s “Start with Why”
Why
How
What
35
Why in Minnesota?
WHY: Increase the slope of the developmental trajectory
of every child receiving ECSE services in MN.
HOW: Doing it right! Doing it well!
WHAT: Compliance (IEPs), Evidence-Based or EvidenceInformed Practices, Foundational Skills, etc.
36
Minnesota’s Approach
Minnesota’s Centers of Excellence for
Young Children with Disabilities:
• Regionalized
• Professional Development Facilitators
• Focus on Active Implementation
37
RP² in Minnesota
• 4 Classroom-based programs
• 5 Home-visiting programs (including 1
Head Start program)
• Professional Development Facilitators
serve as the master cadre (external
coaches)
• Local programs develop the leadership
team and capacity for internal coaching
38
Progress and Data in Minnesota:
Classroom-Based Programs
• Benchmarks of Quality: All programs have made
improvement.
• Observation Scale: All programs have made
improvement.
• STARE: Most targeted children have been rated to
be engaged all of the time.
39
Progress and Data in Minnesota:
Home-Based Programs
• Benchmarks of Quality: All programs have made
improvement.
• Observation Scale: Most programs have made
improvement.
• Child Engagement Scale: Data for children across
all programs has been quite variable.
40
Leadership Team Year-End
Evaluation (Classroom)
• All programs agree that they have the skills to support
program-wide implementation.
• All programs agree that they are in a better position to
continue the implementation of Recommended
Practices.
• All programs identified action plan goals that will move
their programs forward with implementation.
• Participant quote: “We have a clearer goal of next steps
moving forward as we roll this out in our district”.
41
Leadership Team Year-End
Evaluation (Home-Visiting)
• All programs agree that they have the skills to support
program-wide implementation.
• All programs agree that they are in a better position to
continue the implementation of Recommended Practices.
• All programs identified action plan goals that will move
their programs forward with implementation.
• Participant quote: “Thank you so much for this
opportunity. We are becoming a better program and
better early interventionists because of RP² and coaching.”
42
What Now?
• Continued support of Year 2 programs
• Recruitment and training of additional classroom and
home-visiting programs
• Infusion of Recommended Practices across innovations
offered through Minnesota’s Centers of Excellence for
Young Children with Disabilities
43