Training in Instructional Consultation, Assessment & Teaming Todd A. Gravois, Ph.D. Edward Gickling, Ph.D. & Sylvia Rosenfield, Ph.D.

Instructional Consultation Teams represent the systematic search for quality instruction. Student Instruction Task Match=Success

Objectives Develop a systematic support network within each building, including a trained IC Team Facilitator and trained Instructional Consultation Team. Enhance teachers’ skills in and application of best practices of instructional assessment and delivery Develop school-wide norms of collaboration and problem-solving Utilize data for classroom and school decisions IC Team Program Goal Enhance/ Improve/ Increase Student and Staff Performance.

Instructional Consultation Team Facilitator: Receives advanced training and supervision in instructional consultation Provides support to students by supporting classroom teachers Supports the on-going training and development of the team Facilitates professional development IC Team Roles: Instructional Consultation Team: Provide support to classroom teachers Provides a venue for continued training and team member development Assists in aligning school resources Principal: Active participant on team Establishes a vision for objectively aligning curriculum and instructional practices Other Key Personnel: Co-facilitates team development Models instructional consultation process

IC Team Case Management Configuration TEAM MEMBERS: Administrator General Educators Special Educator School Psychologist Guidance Counselor Health Provider Social Worker Others CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER Students

Process Variables: Three Critical Case Manager Skills Collaborative & Reflective Communication Systematic Problem Solving Process Instructional & Behavioral Assessment

IC Team Support Process Teachers complete brief "request for assistance" Team member assigned as Case Manager Contract for Professional Collaboration Assessment of student's entry skills conducted Baseline and Goals Established and Documented Classroom strategies developed/ demonstrated/ implemented Ongoing data collection to determine progress toward goals

Every Case is Documented Using a common SDF

IC Team Student Documentation Form (SDF): Page 2

All Cases are Monitored Using ICAT Tools

Level of Implementation/ Fidelity Teacher Feedback & Use Student Goal Attainment Team Functioning Disposition of Cases Capacity to link to other data management systems Uniform Practices Consistent Implementation Accountability at Case/ School/ District ICAT Tools System Tracking: Student Codes Case Progress

Secure Log-In for ICAT Tools Logging On

Each school has on-line access to an individualized profile. The profile provides information on the fidelity of program implementation. The report allows each team to plan for additional training and activities to ensure quality support services for students. School Reports: Sample Implementation Profile

School Reports: Sample Student Goal Attainment Profile Each school has on-line access to an individualized profile. The profile provides information on student progress toward established goals. The report allows each team to plan for additional training and activities to ensure quality support services for students.

Click to View or Print any District Level IC Teams Data Report District Reports: Sample Aggregate Report

View Individual Schools’ Data or Overall District Data

Implementation: Nevada IC Teams District# of Teams Yr % Team with High Implementation Carson City825% (2) Churchill743% (3) Clark250% (1) Douglas11 45% (5) Elko2100% (2) Humboldt580% (4) Lander40% (0) Lyon1527% (4)* IC Team Level of Implementation

Teacher Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams of 1148 teachers requested assistance of the IC Teams and engaged in the IC process for professional development and problem-solving around a student concern This is approximately 36% of the teachers in Nevada project schools.

Teacher Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams Of the teachers surveyed, 89% teachers requested assistance for an individual student  28% said they used strategies learned in IC case with another similar student  40% said they used the strategies with a small group of students  32% said they used the strategies with their whole class 72% used strategies learned with the IC Team Case Manager with small group/ entire class Schools and districts focus on helping teachers improve instructional practices

Teacher Feedback: Nevada “ Being involved with the IC process has made me more reflective of my instructional practice and how I can change the task or environment to best meet each student’s needs. I have applied many of the strategies I learned with to many different situations.” “Not surprisingly… time. It definitely takes a significant amount of time to identify and implement intervention strategies, but then once they are working, it is great!” “Change is a process, not an event” Hall & Hord, 2010 “The only concern I have is that others may not be open to the process”

Student Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams # of Students Concerns Reviewed Concerns Rated Concerns Demonstrating Progress Concerns Meet/Exceed Goals % (646)21% (138)68% (439) Goal Attainment 89% of IC Team cases demonstrated progress or met goals Schools and districts focus on setting and meeting goals for students

Special Education Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams IC TeamNon IC Team CasesCases EvalCases PlacedCasesCases EvalCases Placed 43223% (99)18% (79)9272% (66)49% (45) Hit rate = 80% (evaluations that qualified) Hit rate = 68% (evaluations that qualified) Referral Patterns Schools and districts focus on using resources effectively

Student Demographic Data: Nevada IC Teams Request Patterns: # StudentsMaleFemale 72958% (424)42% (305) # Students Caucasian African American AsianHispanic Native American Other 72962% (455)2% (14)2% (4) 25% (185) 3% (25)5% (36)

Problem Solving Process Contracting Problem Identification and analysis, including instructional assessments Intervention design Intervention implementation Evaluation of intervention Follow-up/Re-design/Closure Data and process recorded on SDF

Structure of IC at PHES Team composed of 20 members: 2 special education, 1 instructional aide, 1 counselor, 1 principal, 1 reading specialist, 1 computer tech, 1 school psychologist, 1 GT teacher, 11 classroom teachers Facilitator and buddy Weekly meetings: case updates, case assignments, training, case reviews Site training days Roving subs for coverage of instructional assessments

PHES Goals for IC Sustainability Implementation of classwide and small group interventions Ongoing professional development and collaboration IC as part of the school culture

Impact on Teachers Common language Staff participation in the process  100% of faculty have attended 2 day intro training  20 members on team, wide representation Collaborative problem solving Ownership and utilization of IC principles

“I most appreciate the positive support from a colleague. It gave me support with the parents. The process really helps when you can "talk" out the concerns, see what's working and not working and have another set of eyes when looking at how best to aid a student.” “I love having the IC Team at this school. I believe it is a vital part of this school to have this program.”

District Support DIG grant  Stipends  Sub days Solicitation of input for DIG grant, sustainability plan Facilitator meetings IC networking days, continued training