Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP): One State’s Plan for Systems Change

1. Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP): One State’s Plan for Systems Change July 2008 8th National Early Childhood Inclusion Institute

2. What Does Virginia Look Like?

3. Virginia’s SPP and APR Preschool Placement Baseline (2004) – 28% in settings with typically developing peers Placement data 2005 – 30% 70 divisions met target (62 did not) State population – 7,642,884 (2006); 8% growth from 2000; 6.7% under 5 years PK ECSE Special Ed All students 2006 20,396 16,773 172,704 1,221,939 2007 28,986 16,859 169,669 1,232,436 (Some duplication in PK numbers. Does not include community-based Head Start) State Demographics

4. Why Make the Effort? • Greater and more lasting impact if change occurs through a coordinated system-wide approach versus several isolated and disconnected initiatives • NCLB/IDEA ‘04 • State standards for 4-year-olds • We Are Passionate About Doing What Is Best For Kids!

5. Federal Description of Data Needed for State Annual Performance Plan • Indicator 6: Percent of children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (i.e., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education)

6. Preschool Placement Data

7. Dec 1, 2005 Child Count

8. LRE for Preschoolers in Virginia: 2005 Child Count Data for 3-5s • VA ECSE settings: 45% • VA EC settings: 15% • VA Itinerant settings: 23% • Average of all 50 states, DC, and BIA ECSE settings:33.1% • Number of states with more students in ECSE settings than Virginia: 13

9. Dec. 1, 2006 Child Count

10. Dec. 1, 2007 Child Count(new placement definitions)

11. So, What Did We Do About This? • VDOE’s Priority Project addressed via the Inclusive Placement Opportunites for Preschoolers project: • Statewide initiative to create or expand on inclusive placements opportunities for preschoolers with disabilities

12. What is IPOP? • VDOE initiative; information shared via Supt’s. Memo • Application process

13. How Many IPOP Teams? • Cohort 1 - 2005 (7 teams) • Cohort 2 - 2006 (7 teams) • Cohort 3 - 2007 (6 teams) • Cohort 4 – 2008 (9 teams) • Total = 29 teams

14. Why Did We Choose A Systems Change Approach To IPOP? Systems change is: • An orderly plan to add or alter an existing program • A process involving key stakeholders • A commitment

15. Components of IPOP • Planning guide and training modules • Statewide training on system change and teaming • Long Term Technical Assistance within programs • Resources and materials • Funding

16. What We Know Works • Focus is top priority of program staff • Involves stakeholders from all levels • Builds in staff development with follow-up • Utilizes participatory decision making for all steps

17. What Works, con’t. • Hold regular planning meetings • Focus on using research-based models • Use structured team meeting process • Use process for reaching consensus/handling conflict • Have “critical friend” to the school team

18. What It Takes! • Time: 2-3 year commitment • Planning: A team to coordinate the effort • Leadership: Administrative involvement • Buy In: Is the focus of the initiative a top priority? • On-going data collection: Determine needs and help with decision making • Evaluation: How do you know you are making progress?

19. 4 Phases of Systems Change • Readiness • Planning • Implementation • Continuation

20. Readiness Phase • Gather momentum • Obtain administrative approval • Form a team • Clarify purpose • Gain consensus to apply and complete application for Long Term Technical Assistance

22. Planning Phase • Learn a structured team meeting process • Gather information about current situation • Learn about research-based models to address the need • Visit model sites

23. Planning Phase, con’t. • Select a model to use • Develop a philosophy • Develop an action plan (state outcomes desired) • Gain support of school division administrators • Develop description/guide

24. Planning Phase,con’t. • Share information, seek support, elicit concerns • Guide the faculty to develop the program • Plan for and conduct on-going evaluations • Plan for and conduct series of training • If needed: Develop or recommend changes to position descriptions

25. Why We Plan First!

26. Implementation Phase • Plan for and conduct orientation activities to introduce and create awareness of new initiative • Pilot the initiative • Conduct regularly scheduled meetings • Evaluate the pilot and determine how/when to continue on a larger scale

27. Collaborative Model 8 ECSE children 4 ECSE children Head Start Class 4 ECSE children Head Start Class

28. Consultative Model ECSE students ECSE Students Community Childcare ECSE Students Virginia Preschool Initiative Class ECSE Students Head Start Class

29. Reverse Inclusion 8 ECSE children 8 Children without disabilities

30. Continuation Phase • Refine aspects of the program • Make program an on-going part of the system • Participation in state QRIS

31. Tools for Quality Improvement • Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) www.fpg.unc.edu/~ECERS/ • Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) http://classobservation.com/

32. Virginia Governor’s Pre-K Initiatives • Early Childhood Initiatives www.education.virginia.gov/Initiatives/EarlyChildhood/index.cfm Governor’s Working Group www.education.virginia.gov/Initiatives/EarlyChildhood/GovWorkingGroup.cfm The Alignment Project Home Visiting Consortium Professional Development VA’s Plan for Smart Beginnings Quality Rating Improvement System School Readiness • Milestones of Child Development • Competencies for Early Childhood Professionals www.dss.virginia.gov/family/cc/publications.cgi

33. Benchmarks • Benchmarks of Quality Inclusive Placements • Tools to Support • Goal Functionality Scale II • Intervention Matrix • EIEIO • STARE • National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project (NIPIP) • Robin McWilliam • www.vanderbiltchildrens.com/interior.php?mid=1157

34. Cohorts 1,2, 3 Representing 12 school divisions

35. Lessons Learned from IPOP • Need for broader perspective of functionality in larger settings by ECSE • Lack of knowledge about how general education classes are facilitated • Removing children from general education once they are “identified” • Expectation of preschools, parents, ECSE • ECSE in “catch them up” mode • Need for IHEs to merge programs (ECE and ECSE) • Need for administrative buy-in • IDEA, NCLB, SPP

36. Communication Between IPOP Sites And Resource Staff • PB WIKI http://earlychildhoodpp.pbwiki.com/ • TTAC Online http://www.ttaconline.org/

37. Clarifying Questions?

38. VDOE Resources • Virginia’s Foundation Blocks for Early Learning • www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruction/Elem_M/FoundationBlocks.pdf • Preschool Curriculum Review Rubric and Planning Tool • www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruction/Elem_M/preschool_rubric.pdf • Early Childhood Special Education • www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/sped/earlychildhood.html

39. Contact Information • VA Department of Education (VDOE) • Phyllis Mondak, 619 Coordinator • Phyllis.mondak@doe.virginia.gov • VDOE Training & Technical Assistance Centers (T/TAC) • Cheryl Henderson, Co-Director (JMU) • hendercl@jmu.edu • Dianne Koontz Lowman, ECSE Coordinator (JMU) • lowmandk@jmu.edu • Sandy Wilberger, Co-Director (VCU) • slwilber@vcu.edu

40. References • Lazara, A., Danaher, J., & Kraus, R. (Eds.). (2007). Section 619 Profile (15th ed.). Available from www.nectac.org/~pdfs/pubs/sec619_2007.pdf