The National Landscape of Team Practice for Infants and Young - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The National Landscape of Team Practice for Infants and Young Children with Disabilities under IDEA CH R I S T I N E A. S U LLI VAN LE N D F E LLO W ( S P E CI AL E D U CAT I O N ) U N I VE R S I T Y O F C O N N E C T I C U T A. J . P AP P AN I K O U C E N T E R F O R E X C E L L E N C E I N D E VE L O P M E N T AL D I S AB I L I T I E S E D U C AT I O N , R E S E AR C H AN D S E R VI C E

Statement of the Problem  Background  Early childhood special education  Early intervention  Preschool special education  Early primary grade special education Children are diverse in – ages (0-8), as well as socioeconomic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and religious background and disabilities

Statement of the Problem  Recommended practices  DEC (2005) – A Comprehensive Guide for Practical Application in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education.  5 Practice recommendations for direct service provision:  Assessment  Child focused  Family based  Interdisciplinary models  Technology applications  2 Practice recommendations for indirect services  Policies, procedures, and systems change  Personnel preparation

Statement of the Problem  Implementing interdisciplinary teaming practices has proved difficult  Frequently cited impediment:  lack of interdisciplinary pre-service training and the impact of pre-service faculty attitude and practices  Bruder, Mogro-Wilson, Stayton, & Deitrich, 2009  Mellin & Winton, 2003, Kilgo & Bruder, 1997 Interdisciplinary model – professionals from multiple disciplines conducting discipline specific assessments, recommending discipline specific goals, with some team discussion Multidisciplinary model – two or more professionals from different disciplines, conducting discipline specific assessments, recommending discipline specific goals, and minimal team interaction Transdisciplinary model – professionals from multiple disciplines conducting cross-discipline assessments, recommending cross discipline goals, collaborating and interacting, and transferring skills between disciplines

Research Question:  What is the national status of team practices in programs under IDEA that serve infants and young children with disabilities?  More fully examine the status of interdisciplinary team practices in all early intervention (Part C) and preschool (3 -5 year olds) special education (Part B, Section 619) programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Hypothesis: The majority of early intervention and preschool special education programs under IDEA do not contain certain selected recommended components associated with interdisciplinary team practices.

Methodology  Electronically mailed information about the survey and request for participation along with a link to the survey  Survey response was anonymous and results were aggregated  Target population Part C and Part B, Section 619 Program Coordinators (all 50 states, territories, the  District of Columbia, Bureau of Indian Education, and the Department of Defense)  Survey Structure: 19 items: 11 fixed response and 8 open-ended questions   Survey Questions: Approach to teaming  Written policies and procedures regarding teaming and policies defining team  membership  Development of and requirements for training in making decisions as teams and/ or team functioning Monitoring of team practices 

Methodology  DEC recommended practices were used for guidance in developing survey  Key DEC practice ideas:  Theoretical principles – teamwork, transdisciplinary, functionality, practicality of services for caregivers  DEC Practice recommendations:  team/ family work together to make decisions  Professionals cross disciplinary boundaries  Intervention focused on functional needs, not services  Natural learning environments - regular caregivers/ routines

Results:  88% response rate achieved  One hundred and five (105) coordinators responded to the survey.

Team Models • The majority of both Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators reported that a m ultidisciplinary m odel best described their approach to teaming when conducting evaluations (57%) and assessment for IFSP/ IEP planning and development (54%). • However, 41% of Part C coordinators reported that a transdisciplinary m odel best described their approach to monitoring child progress. Part C Part B, Section 619 17 41 Monitoring child Monitoring child 35 57 progress progress 24 26 Assessment for Assessment for 34 21 Transdisciplinary IEP planning and 62 Transdisciplinary IFSP planning and 46 17 20 development development Multidisciplinary Multidisciplinary Evaluation for Evaluation for 21 15 Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary eligibility eligibility 53 61 26 24 determination determination 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Programs Percentage of Programs

Percentage of Programs 100 Protocols for Team ing 80 •61% of Part C and 49% of Part B, Section 60 61 Have written 619 coordinators reported their state has 49 40 policies written policies , procedures, training, or 20 0 monitoring to support teaming. Part C Part B, Section 619 Team Mem bership Percentage of Programs 100 •61% of Part C and 80% of Part B, Section 80 80 619 coordinators reported having 60 61 Have written 40 written policies defining membership policies 20 for teams for evaluation of eligibility 0 determination, assessment for IFSP/ IEP Part C Part B, Section 619 planning and development, or progress monitoring .

Team Decision Making/ Team Percentage of Programs 100 Functioning 80 •40% of Part C and 46% of Part B, Section 619 60 Have written 40 46 coordinators reported their states have policies 40 20 written policies which define how teams 0 make decisions or how teams function when Part C Part B, Section 619 performing teaming tasks. Training Percentage of Programs 100 •19% of Part C and 32% of Part B, Section 619 80 coordinators reported training in making 60 Training decisions as a team or team functioning has 40 has been 32 developed 20 been developed within the last year. 19 0 •The majority of states did not report that Part C Part B, Section training was mandatory for service providers 619 and/ or service coordinators.

Im portance of Team ing •The majority of Part C and Part B, Section 619 coordinators rated the im portance of team ing a “4” or “5” on a scale of 1 to 5 for each assessment function: evaluation of eligibility determination, IFSP/ IEP planning and development, and progress monitoring. 100 90 90 89 89 80 82 82 70 Percentage of Programs 72 60 50 Part C Part B, Section 619 40 30 20 10 0 Evaluation for eligibiliy Assessment for IFSP/IEP Progress monitoring determination planning and development

Percentage of Programs 100 Monitoring Team ing 80 • 48% of Part C and 45% of Part B, Section 60 Monitor 48 40 45 619 coordinators indicated their states 20 m onitor team ing practices . 0 Part C Part B, Section 619 Reim bursem ent for Team ing 100 Percentage of Programs Activities 80 •62% of Part C coordinators reported 60 62 teaming activities are reim bursable in 40 their state. 20 0 Reimbursable 100 Percentage of Programs Effective Im plem entation 80 •51% of Part C and 79% of Part B, Section 619 79 60 coordinators reported service providers 51 Implementing 40 effectively were effectively im plem enting their 20 state’s teaming policies. 0 Part C Part B, Section 619

Open-Ended Questions  Descriptions of written policies concerning:  Training in teaming  Definition of team membership  How teams make decisions and/ or how teams function  How teaming is monitored  Sources of funding for Part C reimbursement of teaming activities  Specific supports that have been developed to support teaming  Barriers to effective implementation of teaming policies

Summary of Responses to Open-Ended Questions  Written policies, procedures, training and monitoring:  Part C  26 responses:  Procedures and payment to support team meting for children with complex needs  State statutes, regulations, and rules  Practice manuals and guidance documents  Primary service provider approach to service delivery  Toolkits developed for primary provider approach and teaming  Training – some statewide , some multiple day course, online, Institutes on teaming, coaching, and mentoring  Moving towards a transdisciplinary model  Early Intervention Specialist training concentrates on teaming in core curriculum  Some training in team facilitation  Teaming required in contracts  Multidisciplinary teams  Assure communication between family and other members of team

Written policies, procedures, training and monitoring:  Part B, Section 619  15 responses:  Most stated they follow federal statutes, state statutes and administrative rules and federal and state regulations and announcements  Guidance documents – OSEP, state and local  Policy manuals, toolkits,  Specific policies addressing assessment and completing Child Outcomes Summary Form  Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment Centers -training and monitoring provided