Using Coaching to Increase Practitioners' Skills and Knowledge

advertisement
Using Coaching to Increase Practitioners’ Skills and

Knowledge for Implementing Evidence-Based Inclusive
Practices
Washington
Maryland
For Research and Training in Inclusive Education
Some Background
(from Joseph, 2015)
2009 survey of parents with children entering
Kindergarten in WA State (n=1,678)
Q: Was your child ever asked to leave a
program due to problem behavior?
Reported an expulsion rate of 16.7 per 1,000
(Joseph & Cevasco, 2011)
Same time we were piloting a QRIS, hearing concerns
about behavior
QRIS Data regarding 2013-2014
(from Joseph, 2015)
Director Interview: Have you removed a child
from care for behavioral reasons?
FAMILY CHILD CARE
(N=180)
removed child
not removed
CENTER CHILD CARE
(N=281)
removed child
not removed
not removed
31%
not removed
44%
removed child
56%
removed child
69%
QRIS Data from 2013-2014
(from Joseph, 2015)
Is there a “no expulsion” policy as well as policies
and practices in place for a referral for more
support and supported transitions?
FAMILY CHILDCARE
(N=180)
CENTER CHILDCARE
(N=281)
Policy in place
Policy in place
No policy
No policy
Policy in place
18%
Policy in place
33%
No policy
67%
No policy
82%
Framework & Implementation
Washington Partnerships
Coaches
For Research and Training in Inclusive Education
Coaches in EA Regions
18
18
10
15
3
13
Total early care programs
Early Achievers: 2,400
Total number of children
served: 78, 251
16
Early Achievers Coach Framework
Individualization in WA standards
“no expulsion”
or transition
policies
Individualized
instruction
for all
children
High
Quality
Standards
Share
Individualized
child data with
parents
Need for more…
Anecdotal
from coaches
Ratings
Goal of enhanced PD on
individualization
Support successful inclusion
Best possible outcomes for every
child
Supporting coaches to build skills
and capacities of providers
Implementation: What
Provide PD to coaches on Core
Inclusion Practices
Embedded
Curriculum teaching and
Membership modifications learning &
planned
and
and inclusion
adaptations instructional
sequences
Positive
behavior
support
Supporting
and including
families
Implementation: How
Provider
Consultation
Ongoing Coach Development
Internships, Webinars, Products
Provider
Consultation
Ongoing Coach Development
Internships, Webinars,
Products
Internships, Webinars, Products
Internships
Webinar
Products
Small Regional
Content
For Providers
Various
Strategies
Coach
Collaboration
For Coaches
Resources:
support in using
Case Study
In collaboration
with eachother
Provider
Consultation
Ongoing Coach Development
Internships, Webinars, Products
E-mail
On-going Coach
Development
Phone
Video
Sharing
On-line
technology
Etc.
Provider
Consultation
Ongoing Coach Development
Provider Consultation
Internships, Webinars, Products
Direct consultation with providers and/or directors:
•
•
Pervasive or disruptive behavior
Possible expulsion
Individualization
Materials and Resources
• Slides
• Prompts
• Planning
tools
• Framework
• Inclusive
practices
Notebook
USB
Building
Blocks
Lending
Library
• Planning
tools
• Articles
• Visual
Supports
• Various
Subjects
Shared PD Platforms:
Early Achiever Institutes and
Coaching Companion
•
Institutes:
•
•
Sessions on positive behavior support,
individualizing, and resiliency & wellness
Coaching Companion
•
Web-based Coaching and Resources
Is it working?
Informal
Formal
•Coach
Feedback
•Evaluations
•Consultation
• QRIS
• 18% FCC
• 45% CCC
• Ind Inst.
• 27%
Coaches Report That Training
Enhanced their
knowledge about
individualization
and strategies to
support all learners
Would
recommend
the training
for colleagues
Will help
providers support
ALL children
Will enhance
their coaching
work with
providers
Reflective and Responsive
Professional Development
Ongoing PD
enhancement
Coach and
Provider
Feedback
Research and Data
Monthly reflective
practice
Feedback and
Response Cycle
Small group
internships
Resources
Individualized
Coaching
Communities of
Practice
Expert
Consultation
Resources
Each and Every Child
Shared Case
Consultation
Individualized
Consultation
Monthly webinar
and case study
Providers
Expertise on
Individualization
Coaches
Coach Support Team
The Parallel Process:
A Reflective and Responsive
Individualized PD System
Individualized
Instruction
Inclusive Care
Policies
Family
Engagement
Ongoing Learning
Connected Standards
Connected Coaches
Connected Resources
Coach Supports
For Research and Training in Inclusive Education
www.cqel.org
www.cqelcoach.com
www.haringcenter.org
Co-Presenters
University of Washington
Soleil Boyd, M.Ed.
• Childcare Quality and Early Learning
Center for Research and Professional
Development
Jennifer Fung, Ph.D. & Brittney Lee, M.Ed.
• Haring Center for Research and Training
in Inclusive Education
Expanding Inclusive Opportunities for
Young Children with Disabilities
The Maryland State Implementation
Team


Maryland State Department of Education

Tracy Jost, Division of Early Childhood Development


Nancy Vorobey, Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
Pam Miller, Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
Johns Hopkins University, School of Education


Linda Tsantis, Principal Investigator
Beth Boyle, Initiative Coordinator


Mary Hendricks, Coaching Consultant
Monica Vacca, Coaching Consultant


Laura Broughton, Program Evaluator
Deborah Carran, Program Evaluator

John Castellani, Principal Investigator
We also want to thank our partners with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in
Education for their ongoing assistance with incorporating Marking Access Happen into
Maryland’s Birth-21website, Maryland Learning Links.
Maryland Demographics:
State Organization
24 local jurisdictions:
• 23 counties & Baltimore City
Local Programs:
• 24 local school systems + Maryland
School for the Blind and Maryland
School for the Deaf
• 24 Local Infants & Toddlers Programs
Maryland Demographics:
Fast Facts
 Maryland is one of 5 “Birth Mandate” States: legislation was
enacted in 1980 requiring all local jurisdictions to service to eligible
children beginning at birth.
 Maryland is the only State currently implementing the Extended
IFSP Option (January 2010).
 Children Served
 13,105 preschool children with disabilities served - 1125 through
an Extended IFSP and 11,980 through an IEP (October 2014)
 29,811 children served through public school pre-kindergarten
programs (2013)
 10,653 3 & 4 year-old children served through Head Start (2013)
 220,930 slots available in center-based and family child care
What do the data tell us?
Expanding Inclusive Community-Based Preschool
Increases From 2004/05 to 2014/15
3 yo Separate ECS
27%
26%
3 yo Regular ECS
28%
39%
4 yo Separate ECS
24%
21%
4 yo Regular ECS
35%
52%
What do the data tell us:
Change is Possible!
Indicator 6A: Regular Early Childhood Program
With the Majority of Services in that Setting
October 1, 2014
Source: Maryland Special Education Census Data
NE/LRE
Preschoo
l
IEP
R4K
Formative
aAdapted
from Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A.,
& Van Dyke, M. (2013)
Efficacy in Implementationa
i
bAdapted
from Blase, K., Kiser, L., & Van
Dyke, M. (2013)
Needs Assessment Using
Implementation Science Hexagon Toolb
l
cAdapted
from Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013)
Stages of Implementation Sciencec
Exploration Stage
Installation Stage
Initial Implementation
Stage
Full Implementation
Stage
Ask: How are we
planning for…?
Ask: How are we
installing...?
Ask: How are we
supporting and building
resilience...?
Ask: How are we
improving, capacity
building, scaling, and
sustaining...?
Current Stages of Maryland Jurisdictions/Public Agencies
(N = 26; 100%)
Exploration
(n = 6, 23%)
Installation
(n = 4, 15%)
Initial Implementation
(n = 10, 38%)
Full Implementation
(n = 1, 4%)




Planning
Community partner engagement
Family engagement
Needs assessment



Personalized professional development and support
Team responsiveness
Programmatic and structure changes



Leadership support
Communication loops
Feedback and revision



Additional training and support based upon data
Planning for sustainability
Examining outcomes
dAdapted
Rush D.D. & Sheldon M.L.,(2011)
Focus of Research of the MAH
Reflective Coaching Modeld
 Coaching best techniques and practices including






Adult learning principles
Collaboration-building strategies
Video reflective practice
Web-based resources
IPod Apps
Tool kit
 UDL principles and strategies
 Common Core Standards with particular interest in Common
Language Standards
Individually and collectively on
 Performance of preschool students with disabilities and their
families
Samples of Data Sources:
 Jurisdictional assessment
 Reflective coaching checklist
 UDL checklist (in process)
 Pre and post survey of trainings
 Video reflection
 Satisfaction surveys of stakeholders
3
J
Just in time
Just enough
Just for you
Washington County
• Foundation in
Reflective
Coaching
established
• Leadership team
identified
• Think Tank Model
used to explore EBP
• Monthly meetings
with community
partners
• One hour of
content and one
hour of application
to the jurisdiction
needs
• Relationships
established with
coaches and
community
providers
• Partnering with
other jurisdictions
• Expanding EBP to
include RBI training
Anne Arundel County
• Empathy and
Perspective
• Leadership
team and
community
partners
identified
• Head Start,
Community
Childcare and
Family childcare
support
• Routines Based
Interview
training
• Explored the RBI
as a means for
engaging
families, early
care providers
and ECSE in
decision making
for priorities
Allegany County
• Coaching institute
with 20 coaches
• Identification of
collaborative
partners
• Re-identified
coaches
• Additional training
and support on
reflective
coaching
• Monthly coaches
meeting
• Identification of
the focus on
transition both
horizontally and
vertically
• Meetings with
partners and
building
relationships
• Four strong
coaches
• Transition process
that is supported
at all levels
• Transition that
occurs within a
process makes a
tremendous
difference
State Tool Kit
 Maryland Learning Links
http://marylandlearninglinks.org/363438
 Reflective coaching checklist
 Universal design for learning checklist
 Video Exemplars
 Use of reflective coaching
 Use of EBP
 Podcasts with Dathan Rush and M’Lisa Sheldon on Reflective
Coaching topics
 State RBI Certification Institute for Part B and C Providers
Local Tool Kit
 Transition flow chart
 2 credit MSDE approved course on Reflective
Coaching
 Checklist of Qualitative characteristics of Play in
Young Children
 Peer mediated learning strategies for children with
visual impairments
Reflection
Readiness is key to success.
Readiness is relative to the people.
Underestimated the readiness factor
Final Thoughts
 Initiative vs. “Project”
 Language is Important! Communicating long term commitment
to changes in State and local program infrastructures and
practices
 Emphasis on sustainability and “renewal”
 Generative and it becomes systemic
 Overarching framework for implementation
 Local level of readiness – consultation vs. coaching
 Local priority area for focus as starting point
 Funding
 RTTT funding end point
 State IDEA funds
 Local discretionary funds
References
Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Stages of implementation science: Where are we? Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research
Network.
Blase, K., Kiser, L., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). The hexagon tool: Exploring context. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research
Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Blase, K., van Dyke, M., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Implementation drivers: Assessing best practices. Chapel Hill, NC: National
Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional
children, 79(2), 135-144.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K.A., Naoom, S. F., & Duda, M.A. (2013). Implementation drivers: Assessing best practices. Chapel Hill, NC: National
ImplementationResearch Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children,
79(2), 213-230.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation science: A synthesis of the literature.
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Oarte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research
Network (FNHI Publication #231).
Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. L. (2014). Implementation science: A brief overview and a look ahead. Zeitschrift fűr Psychologie, 222(1), 4-11.
Rush, D. D. & Sheldon, M. L. (2011) The early childhood coaching handbook. Brookes Publishing, Baltimore, MD.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Evidence-based reform in education: Which evidence counts? Response to comments. Educational Researcher,
37, 47-50.
Wallace, F., Blase, K., Fixsen, D., and Naoom, S. (2008). Implementing the findings of research: Bridging the gap between knowledge
and practice. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.
Co-Presenters
 Nancy M. Vorobey, M.A., Maryland State Department of
Education
Email: nancy.vorobey@maryland.gov
 Laura R. B. Broughton, J.D., Ed.D., Johns Hopkins University
Email: lrbbroughton@jhu.edu
 Mary Hendricks, M.S., Johns Hopkins University
Email: mhendri6@jhu.edu
MAH Information
For more information, please
contact Beth Boyle, Ed.D.,
Initiative Coordinator at
beth.boyle@jhu.edu.
Download