Lessons Learned from OSEP’s Model Demos: Creating Change to Promote Children’s Success

1. Lessons Learned from OSEP’s Model Demos: Creating Change to Promote Children’s Success

2. Lessons Learned from Model Demonstration Projects Mary Wagner, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Phyl Levine, Ph.D., Director SRI International OSEP Project Directors’ ConferenceJuly 19, 2010 Washington, DC

3. Model Demonstration Project Cohorts • Cohort 1: Progress monitoring/RtI for struggling readers K-5 • Lehigh University, University of Pittsburgh • University of of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools • University of Oregon • Cohort 2: Tertiary behavior interventions K-8 • University of Kansas, Illinois PBIS Network • University of Oregon • University of Washington • Cohort 3: Early childhood language development • Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute • University of Kansas • Vanderbilt University, Florida State University • Cohort 4: Writing proficiency in high school • University of Kansas • University of Hawaii-Manoa

4. The Model Demonstration Coordination Center (MDCC) was launched in 2005 to: • Identify characteristics of an effective implementation/evaluation/refinement process that moves a practice from early testing to being ready for wider adoption • Coordinate the evaluation of each cohort of Model Demonstration Project’s (MDPs) and synthesize and analyze their findings to maximize the strength of evidence produced

5. MDCC activities: • Facilitate a collaborative partnership with the MDPs to create opportunities for learning • Contribute and/or broker methodological expertise • Develop a data system to assemble MPD-provided data • Conduct cross-MDP and cross-cohortanalyses • Communicate implementation and evaluation findings to promote adeeper understanding of the modeldemonstration process and its results

6. Frameworkfor understanding model implementation and outcomes

7. Characteristics of the “source” in progress monitoring models* *Using cohort 1 as an example

8. Characteristics of progress monitoring “purveyors”

9. Characteristics of the progress monitoring “destination” organizations

10. Influences on destination organizations and their implementation • District-level (e.g., other initiatives, superintendent turnover, history with grantee university) • State level (e.g., RtI initiatives, testing requirements) • Other factors (e.g., union power/influence)

11. Intervention outcomes of progress monitoring models

12. Feedback on progress monitoring model implementation and effectiveness • Reflect on lessons learned within cohorts • Fidelity data • Social validity data

13. Analysis and reporting • Describe variations in each component of the conceptual framework for the three MDPs in a cohort • Generate hypotheses from implementation/ innovation research regarding how variations may shape implementation experiences • Hold hypotheses up to implementation experiences and outcomes • Across MDPs in a cohort • Across cohorts • Derive principles regarding an effective and efficient model demonstration process

14. Cohort I: The University of Minnesota: Teri Wallace Minneapolis Public Schools: Douglas MarstonLehigh University: Edward Shapiro and The University of Pittsburgh: Naomi ZigmondThe University of Oregon: Gerald Tindal

15. Project MP3: Monitoring Progress In Pennsylvania Pupils Lehigh University

16. What Makes RTI(I) Work? • Consensus • Infrastructure • Implementation

17. Lessons Learned: What Made It Work?Consensus • District committed to sustainability from outset • District support at highest level of administration • Willingness of schools to own the process

18. Lessons Learned: What Made It Work?Infrastructure Support • Professional Development Specialist in district • District redirected resources to support implementation • District partnered with Project to secure new instructional resources • Schools had similar context • Each school had identified principal leadership, from the district perspective • Presence of well established core reading program • Willingness to modify schedules • Willingness to seek needed professional development • Inclusion of parent advisory component

19. Lessons Learned: What Made It Work?Implementation Support • Universal screening measures already in place for several years • Use of data, use of progress monitoring, not evident despite universal screening • Schools modified professional development schedule to meet project specifications • Schedules included recognized time for core and grade level meetings

20. Process Outcomes • Implementation fidelity high for model in all schools • Data use and data based decisions high in all schools • District expanded the project to all elementary buildings in district within 2 years of project ending • Maintained presence of parent advisory group to process • Maintained process despite change in building principal at one building • Staff able to assume data management task after support for a year • Model fit within the statewide initiatives

21. Some Not So Good Outcomes • Despite strong implementation in all buildings, one building had much poorer student outcomes • Instructional leadership of building principal level becomes crucial

22. DPM University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Public Schools http://progressmonitoring.net/ - see link to video

23. Context • District had long history of commitment to using data for instructional decision-making though not implemented fully in all schools • Implementation school’s leadership was committed to RTI, Reading Initiatives, Professional Development, etc. • Schools had numerous and varied initiatives needing alignment • Teachers’ knowledge of RTI and its various components varied across the schools

24. Implementation - Tools • System Supports • Data Management System • Time – Master Calendar • Professional Development • Leadership and Changing Roles

25. Process Outcomes • Procedures were developed to assess teachers’ fidelity of implementation related to interventions, progress monitoring procedures, and data review meetings • Professional development strategies were targeted based on the needs shown in student data. For example, PLCs focused on Tier 2 and 3 interventions needed to meet student needs. Coaching responded to needs identified through fidelity checks, and more…

26. Process Outcomes, continued • Data meetings met to review progress of all students and focused on students receiving Tier 2 and 3 interventions. A RTI coordinator was hired to facilitate these meetings, organize data, etc. Originally supported through grant dollars, this position remains despite district cuts. • Teacher attitudes were measured to determine their view of the components of RTI. They were supportive and positive.

27. Teacher Testimonial I thought I was an “OK” teacher and having been through the whole process of learning more about instruction, understanding the developmental aspects of reading, knowing what to do because I have good assessment data – I feel like a great teacher.

28. Lessons Learned from Model Demos:Creating Change to Promote Children’s SuccessCohort II Wayne Sailor Principal Investigator University of Kansas Tertiary Intervention: The K-I Center OSEP Project Director’s Conference July 19-21, 2010 Lucille Eber Co-Principal Investigator Illinois PBIS Network

29. Cohort II- cont.Intensive Positive Behavior Support (IPBS) The University of Oregon: Cynthia Anderson Scaling the Pyramid: A Model of Tertiary Intervention Services to Students with Challenging Behavior University of WA: Carol Davis Ilene Schwartz I

30. K-I Center Leadership • Jamie Bezdek • Amy McCart • Holly Sweeney • Kimberli Breen • Kelly Hyde • Sheri Luecking • Diane McDonald • Jen Rose

31. Implementation Outcomes: Change in Knowledge/Skills of Adults • Role of Building Administrators with behavior support • Change in role of Special Education personnel • Role of District Administrators in guiding the systems change process

32. Example: Principal Role(no longer a “Special Education issue”) Administrators being taught the system features, the data/tools, and the practices well enough to guide/lead any “corrections” needed within FBA/BIP and wraparound plans. Administrator Training Skill set example: If an individual behavior intervention plan is not working, what should a principal look for or ask?

33. Administrator Role Example School personnel should not be able to choose NOT to provide students with evidence-based interventions. Academic ‘analogy’: Personnel are expected to provide evidence-based academic instruction; same expectations need to be established for behavior support.

34. Implementation Outcomes: Change in Organizational Structure/Culture • Systems need to establish competency and confidence with fidelity of behavior interventions within general education. • All staff “owning” success of ALL students • Shift in system habits: from “test/place” to interventions and progress monitoring

35. Implementation Outcomes: Changes in External Relationships • District Leadership Teams • District External Coaches • Special Education Directors/Organizations • Community Partners • Families

36. Implementation Outcomes: Sustainability of Model

37. Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Faster… IL Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I(n=8 Replication Schools)

38. Implementation Outcomes: Sustainability of Model • Policy changes are addressed • transition support to ensure behavioral success • Job Description and supervision changes • Training and technical assistance for behavior skill sets are routinely scheduled in districts • Use of data by district teams (risk ratio, LRE, etc) becomes ‘business as usual’.

39. Policy Examples • Summer FTE of School Social Workers to support some students w/Tier 3 plans • Transition planning support expected as students change grade levels • Job Descriptions include expectations for evidence-based behavior support

40. Training Examples • Administrator role with behavior support at all three tiers • Changing role of special education personnel in facilitating teams/plans • Teacher expectations with behavior support at all three tiers • Using RtI ‘framework’ with family engagement

41. Data Examples • Review data by ethnicity and disability routinely at building and district levels • Discipline data • Academic data • Restrictiveness of placement data

42. Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements

43. Lessons Learned from Model Demos: Creating Change to Promote Children’s Success Cohort 3 Early Childhood Language Interventions OSEP Project Director’s Conference Washington DC July 19-21, 2010

44. Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute • Carl Dunst • Carol Trivette • University of Kansas • Dale Walker • Jane Atwater • Kathy Bigelow • Vanderbilt University • Florida State University • Ann Kaiser • Juliann Woods The Center on Everyday Child Language Learning

45. Common Features of Cohort 3Process • Models of naturalistic evidence-based language interventions for children ages birth through 5 • Implement the model in 3 sites representing typical settings • Enroll children in Part C programs and follow them into Part B programs • Provide professional development to providers implementing the model • Assess impacts using some common measures

46. Coaches build the capacity of parents and early educators to promote communication • Parents/teachers use evidence-based practices • Build on strengths and collaborate with parents about strategies and routines • Embed intervention into home and school routines • Collaborate with Part C and Part B during transitions

47. Parents are their child’s first communication partners • Teachers and service providers support child communication across settings • KTTP Communication teams include families, providers across agencies, and communication coaches • Communication coaches facilitate parent and service providers learning • Coordinated transition and continuity in communication intervention between Parts C and B is lead by the parent in the communication team

48. Identify children’s interests and everyday activities that are suited for learning communication skills • Increase child participation in these interest-based everyday activities • Embed instructional practices for supporting and strengthening communication in the contexts of activities • Part C providers facilitate parent learning and use of strategies • Approach fits within existing programs • Strengthen parents’ abilities to enhance the transition to Part B

49. Strategies to Change in External Relationships Use the team that includes parents to collaborate with the Part B preschool services during transition Empower parents to lead the team to support the transition to Part B preschool services Empower parents to promote continuity for children from Part C to Part B preschool services

50. Process Reflections on Transitions Projects differ in the people they are trying to include in the transition from Part C to Part B Projects all include parents in the transition but the emphasis of the role of the parent varies Projects differ in terms how direct their involvement is in the transition process These differences lead to different transition challenges: joining an already formed team, development of parent leadership, development of transition skills in parents