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

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

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.

Recommended Practice Topic Areas Leadership Assessment Environment Family Instruction Interaction Teaming and Collaboration Transition http://www.dec-sped.org/ ECTA/PW Leadership Team

The “How”: Systems Model for Early Childhood Professional Development Incorporates best practice from: Systems Thinking Cross-Agency Collaborative Planning Implementation Science System: Too often PD is considered simplistically, e.g. one-shot training If the goal of PD is the high fidelity use of EBPs, then it is multifaceted with many interdependent elements: Requires state, local and program infrastructure and systems using effective implementation components and strategies Data/evaluation systems to ensure fidelity and data-driven decision making Monitoring and feedback loops Implementation supports (drivers) such as coaching and decision-making teams Cross Agency Collaborative Planning: Cross-agency State Leadership Team Cross-agency PD effort Collaborative Planning: shared decision-making; intensive planning (monthly meetings, shared vision, shared resources, etc) Implementation Science: Stages (2-4 years) Implementation Teams Buy-in/Readiness Drivers (e.g. leadership & competence) Data decision-making Goal is High Fidelity use of EBPs (DEC RPs)

Implementation Process Interactive Guide http://ectacenter.org/implementprocess/interactive

Key Elements of the RP² Intensive TA Model State Leadership Team to plan and implement a sustainable, cross-agency, state infrastructure; develops sustainability and scale-up plans A Master Cadre of External Coaches that support high fidelity use of Recommended Practices in programs Implementation and Demonstration Sites with Leadership Teams and internal coaches; demo sites to demonstrate effectiveness and to model for others 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

external coach to sites; state T/TA RP2 System Components State Leadership Team State Coordinators Demo Sites Program Leadership Team: administrator, internal coach, data coordinator, others Implementation Sites Master Cadre external coach to sites; state T/TA

State Planning Guide

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

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

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

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

Program Leadership Team Family Engagement Program-Wide Implementation Supports for Practice Implementation Systems to Identify and Respond to Individual Child Needs Continuous Professional Development Data Decision-Making: Examining Implementation and Outcomes Child Engagement in Learning

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

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

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

Using Data for Decisions Look View your data using meaningful visual displays that can guide decision making Think Analyze your data using key questions that leads to decision-making Act Create and implement action plan based on data analysis

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 These are the major shifts for the classroom programs – the things they are not used to doing that I can use as illustrations of what is different about this approach

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 These are some of the challenges we had to address in supporting programs

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

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

Issues for Scale-Up External coaching – experienced, trained facilitators to support the leadership team Data decision-making – data tools, ways to organize data for decision-making, 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 ECTA/PW Leadership Team

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

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….. :/

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaching Potential through Recommended Practices: Minnesota Professional Development Specialist (lead for RP²): Michelle Dockter michelle.dockter@state.mn.us Part C Coordinator: Kara Tempel kara.tempel@state.mn.us 619 Coordinator: Jennifer Moses jennifer.moses@state.mn.us Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor: Lisa Backer lisa.backer@state.mn.us

Simon Sinek’s “Start with Why” Always Start with Why Why How What Simon Sinek’s “Start with Why”

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 Evidence-Informed Practices, Foundational Skills, etc.

Minnesota’s Approach Minnesota’s Centers of Excellence for Young Children with Disabilities: Regionalized Professional Development Facilitators Focus on Active Implementation

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

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.

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.

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”.

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.”

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