2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference OSEP Disclaimer 2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2018 Project Directors’ Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

Sam Morgan Tracy Evans-Luiselli Donna Snyder NCDB NEC KYDBP Child-Specific Technical Assistance: A National Model and State Implementation Examples Sam Morgan Tracy Evans-Luiselli Donna Snyder NCDB NEC KYDBP info@nationaldb.org nationaldb.org The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education #H326T130013. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of The Research Institute, nor the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Jo Ann McCann.

Today Topics DB TA Network Child Specific TA as a method of supporting change State specific model of TA and coaching Goals Framework for TA delivery for low incidence/child specific Understand coaching as an intensive TA method

Deaf-Blind TA Network OSEP funded National project and state projects Directives for Increased collaboration between State Deaf-Blind projects High quality TA by all Deaf-Blind projects

Challenges for Low Incidence Practice and Programming Scale of practice being implemented Frequently the only student in a class, school, or district Lack of professional knowledge/experience in sensory impairment and significant support needs Lack of infrastructure for services Certification, shortages, state ed. - Low incidence Issues of sustainability Professional turnover Student movement

Considerations for Low Incidence TA Child specific due to scale Inclusion of family Team implementation of practice - facilitation Well defined intensive TA practice that supports specialized instructional strategies Instruction frequently one to one Specialized interactive practices Consultation including modeling of practice Coaching good match due to nature of practices frequently used

Differentiating Levels of TA Have clear differentiation between targeted and intensive Potential for spill over and unclear delivery and outcomes Commitment at targeted to get to intensive Level 2 – Targeted Training, tailored information, onetime consultation Level 3 – Intensive Coaching, consultation, ongoing, negotiated

A Child Specific TA Guide https://nationaldb.org/products/ta-reference-guide Adapted from implementation and TA literature for large scale change – child specific, low incidence OSEP funded TA centers – SISEP, NIRN Public health implementation literature Input and resources from state projects – co produced Reflective of state DB project experiences/expertise 4 phases with resources Organized by topics with added resources

Why a TA model? Implementation/Technical Assistance is an effective way to organize practices that build the capacity of professionals and organizations Decision making: Choose and define across TA levels Efficient Effective Realistic Develop a process to support consistency of delivery Improve TA fidelity A consistent approach that can be understood by recipients Support staff transitions and consistency of delivery by staff

Support to State Projects Tiered TA model of support to states Universal – dissemination of TA products and models of success Targeted – Peer to peer, general consultation Intensive – Ongoing one to one support to state projects

Tier 3 Intensive TA Delivery Process Level of TA Tier 3 – Intensive - Outcomes; Implement evidence based practices with fidelity, improved outcomes for children and youth Tier 2 – Targeted – Outcome: Increased knowledge and skills Tier 1 – Universal– Outcome: Increased knowledge and skills TIER 3 – Intensive TA Process INITIAL FACE-TO-FACE CONSULTATION RFTS MAPS RFTS Cont. Identification RFTS Intervention Planning COACHING USING VIDEO CONFERENCING (Repeat up to 4 times) Review videotapes of teachers implementing interventions with students Review student progress Make changes to intervention plans Evaluation coaching session

Steps of Model Pre consultation and home visits Face to face consultation Web-based coaching sessions

Step 1: Pre Consultation and Home Visits Classroom visits Assess need for support and “team readiness” Development of agreement Review of technology needs (I Can Connect) Home visits – Reach for the Stars with families

Step 2: Face-to-Face Consultation Meeting *TA focus generated by team (including parents) Not project staff Identify priority skill (s) for student Design intervention plans (vision, hearing, communication, mobility) Identify resources needed

Coaching Table Coaching Table Column 1 - Conditions before Column 2 - Possible behavioral Responses correct or incorrect Column 3 Conditions after - Possible correct or incorrect responses

Step 3: Web-Based Coaching View video and provide coaching and feedback; Discuss and evaluate student progress; and Discuss changes to the intervention plan and need for resources

Coaching Feedback Feedback to Service Provider 3 Boxes Before After (Fidelity Measure) 3 Boxes Before After Incorrect Child Response

Step 3: Web-Based Coaching: Discuss and evaluate student progress Progress Monitoring on Child’s Outcomes Novice Apprentice Proficient Distinguished

Step 3: Web-Based Coaching: Identify resources needed In collaboration with team... Adaptive equipment - for instructional and communication access Materials Discipline specific support Support for families

Video Coaching Case Example: “Mom and Henry” Henry - 2 years old; cultural & language; Dad is from Eastern Europe Likes Dislikes Vision Hearing Neurological Motor Learning History Expressive Communication Receptive Communication

Intervention Goal: Increase Upright Positioning and Exploration of the Environment (Nov 2017)

Weekly Zoom Sessions: Trying a Variety of Positions & Sensory Modalities & Materials

Mom begins to use more visual and tactile cues to support reaching and upright positions (Feb 2018)

Henry begins to explore independently (March 2018)

Increased time weight-bearing, walking with support, tolerating swings and car rides (June 2018)

Outcomes Strong gains in Henry’s vision and motor skills; increased movement and exploration Increased tolerance of hand-under-hand, gestures & signs Mom and Dad more confident in how best to support Henry and identify priorities; initiating environmental arrangements FAMILY & TEAM working together and not in isolation; earlier sessions helped facilitate setting priorities especially around vision, positioning, and communication Parent sending videos almost weekly; requesting more TA sessions.

Challenges and Considerations Scheduling “Buy-in” from entire team Technical issues Less personal than face to face Focused mostly on school activities and routines Training in Evidenced-Based Coaching Practices: Narration, Questioning, Coding or Quantifying Behaviors, Pivotal Pausing Facilitation (content focused on sensory skills)

Benefits Financial benefits to project Team members can participate from anywhere Team is focused on a single plan that all can follow Videos provide evidence of progress Ongoing support to team Allows for relationship building without traveling to schools Creates consistency in delivering instruction to student Focus remains on student outcomes Home and school are represented Sustainable Cultural preferences and video

Coaching Model Article Grisham-Brown, J., Değirmenci, H.D., Snyder, D.C., Luiselli, T.E. (2017). Improving practice and outcomes for learners with deaf- blindness: A consultation and coaching model. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50, 263 - 271.

Presenters Sam Morgan Program Director NCDB sam.morgan@hknc.org Tracy Evans-Luiselli Project Director NEC tracy.luiselli@perkins.org Donna Snyder State Coordinator Kentucky DB Project donnal.snyder@uky.edu

2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference OSEP Disclaimer 2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference DISCLAIMER: The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2018 Project Directors’ Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)