EIP Vision Old and New

Early Intervention Project An Excerpt from the Proposal for

EIP The goals of the grant were: to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education; to reduce the number of inappropriate referrals for formal testing and evaluation; and to reduce the inappropriate special education classification of students, especially those from minority groups. These original goals of the project set the tone for the vision

EIP In 1989, SERC began to collaborate with CSDE to provide training and technical assistance to school-based teams. The goals of the project were to develop: –A systematic early intervention process which is initiated when the classroom teacher first seeks assistance for a student experiencing academic and/or behavioral concerns; –A non-special education building team trained to assist classroom teachers with alternative strategies within the least restrictive environment of the general education classroom; –The least biased, non-standardized assessment techniques that provide information about the student’s performance on the specific curriculum.

EIP In 1993, SERC began to work collaboratively with Connecticut’s Drugs Don’t Work Program to incorporate both EIP and Student Assistance Team (SAT) models in specific districts and schools. Statement of Assurances were developed to outline SERC’s role in district partnership and to identify long term commitment to EIP. SERC developed a vision statement and belief statements to define the concepts of EIP.

EIP Vision The Early Intervention Project (EIP) empowers people to create interdependent partnerships to help all children learn and experience success.

Early Intervention Project Belief Statements Learning, growth and change are fundamental, defining characteristics of human experiences. Positive learning, growth and change in children can be nurtured and enhanced by the efforts of caring adults working in partnership. Early identification of constraints to positive learning, growth and change, and early intervention in the least restrictive environment benefits all children. The diverse needs of children drive the actions of adults.

Early Intervention Project Belief Statements Collaborative efforts to meet the needs of children must be a continuous process between and among educators, families, and citizens. Early intervention strategies are most effective when based on data (evidence) and developed through a team-based, systematic problem-solving process. Effective instruction must be built on students’ prior knowledge and skills as a base. The Connecticut Early Intervention Project is both a model for organizational growth and a forum in which caring adults may engage in creative problem solving to meet the needs of children.

EIP SERC began to individually customize EIP training in order to meet the specific needs of individual districts. Core skills training was tailored to fit unique circumstances, such as expanded the training of SAT teams. In 1998, SERC revised the components of EIP, while maintaining the EIP vision and belief statements. I came to SERC in 2000 and adopted the vision and belief statements

Components of a Successful Early Intervention Process Team Functioning –Membership Team membership should be made up primarily of classroom teachers. This process is a regular education initiative and classroom teachers should be the individuals driving this process. –Teacher Control Teachers needing assistance should be the ones to choose strategies and to determine objectives. They should also feel supported by colleagues. Response time should be immediate. –Effective Brainstorming The process should include opportunities for teachers to brainstorm strategies with their colleagues. The process is grounded in a belief that teachers have the answers on how to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulties.

Components of a Successful Early Intervention Process The Process –Problem-Solving Process The process should include a team structure that uses an effective problem-solving process. This process should help teams to focus on specific objectives and to provide opportunities to develop and implement an action plan for individual students. –Early Intervention Assistance should be provided quickly and efficiently. Colleagues should be encouraged to ask for assistance early on when the child is experiencing difficulties so the problems do not escalate. –Individualized The process should be unique for each school and each student. The process needs to help teachers to focus on one issue at a time.

Components of a Successful Early Intervention Process Data Collection Procedures –Importance of Data The process needs to include a systematic way for teachers to collect curriculum-based assessment data to help drive instruction and any intervention. –Monitoring The process needs to include the monitoring of student progress to determine if the strategy or intervention is working.

Early Intervention Project Examining the Expansion and Sustainability of EIP At this point the project was beginning to be challenged to examine its practices in relationship to its goals, vision, and beliefs. The number of consultants involved with EIP increased.

EIP In June of 2000, SERC held a two-day retreat for EIP consultants. The purpose of the retreat was to examine the current vision and function of EIP professional development. An outcome of this retreat was the development of ten characteristics of quality EIP schools. I coordinated an outside, neutral facilitator to help the full EIP team to reflect on the vision and beliefs of the project.

Characteristics of Quality EIP Schools Quality EIP schools embrace: 1.Problem-solve through collaborative teamwork that utilizes schools, families, and communities to meet the diverse needs of all students. 2.Support teachers to enhance student learning in the general classroom. 3.Empower teachers and other school personnel to define problems, access supports, and select effective instructional and classroom management practices that are effective for all students. 4.Respond early to learning barriers in a proactive, preventive manner. 5.Collect and analyze evidence to make effective team decisions. This was the resulting product

Characteristics of Quality EIP Schools Quality EIP schools embrace: 6.Individualize responses to student needs that include the student’s prior knowledge, skills, strengths, and interests. 7.Reflect on, and refine, instructional practices to meet the diverse needs of students. 8.Use effective and efficient documentation to develop action plans and monitor student progress. 9.Allocate adequate time for reflection on process, integrity, and content outcomes. 10.Institutionalize EIP vision and beliefs in the school community through committed leadership. This was the resulting product

EIP In 2001, SERC revised the EIP components to reflect broader concepts.

Components of an Early Intervention Process Collaboration –Effective communication and support Team membership –Primarily classroom teachers Teacher empowerment –Classroom teacher makes decisions School ownership –Unique for each school

Components of an Early Intervention Process Early intervention –Intervenes early-on –Individual responses Problem-solving process –Uses a step by step problem-solving process Effective brainstorming –Follows brainstorming principles

Early Intervention Project Examining & Researching Early Intervention Events of A more formal challenge was presented to the project to re- examine itself. The EIP team expanded from a small of consultants to the full consulting staff.

Questions That Have Been Raised to the Project Does EIP meet its original goals? 1.Reduce inappropriate referrals to special education 2.Reduce the number of inappropriate referrals for formal testing and evaluation 3.Reduce the inappropriate special education classification of students, especially those from minority groups Does EIP influence inclusive practice for students with disabilities?

Implementation Integrity Did we do what we said we would do? Examine what was done –Quality –Frequency –Compare to desired outcome, data, and plan –Examine reasons for non-completion or non- compliance

EIP Research Subgroup Work Purpose: –Examine data to measure the impact of EIP –Examine issues such as integrity, sustainability, disproportionality, research- based strategies, and the promotion of inclusive practice – “The analysis will be used to refine and enhance the professional development EIP offers in ” This will include program design and other support. My role was to co-coordinate the effort to conduct research, but more importantly was to develop a shared understanding of the vision of EIP.

Early Intervention Project Lessons Learned The results of the process developed these lessons learned

Lessons Learned Early intervention is a philosophy that should be part of a whole school culture, not particular to a core team. General education membership has been a consistent and steady part of EIP. The membership needs to expand to a whole school culture and the unification of supports and services. Collegial support needs to be part of a whole school culture.

Lessons Learned Concepts of pre-referral tend to impede the overall philosophy of EIP. In addition, interventions tend to mirror general teaching strategies rather than research-based quality interventions. Data are collected regularly, however, the analysis of assessments are not used effectively to define the problem. Monitoring needs to be emphasized as accountability for student outcomes to ensure implementation integrity.

Lessons Learned The focus continues to be on the general education classroom and therefore the teacher needs to continue to be an integral part of the process. There needs to be increased accountability on behalf of the leadership in order to support implementation integrity and to ensure instructional changes are generalized. Brainstorming does not necessarily result in quality intervention development.

Lessons Learned Problem-solving needs to be viewed as a form of decision-making. EIP is a specific model. EIP needs to be marketed as a philosophical conceptualization of best practice. Schools with productive and effective EIP process have committed building level leadership, who understand and embed the concepts and philosophy of EIP within the school culture.

Lessons Learned Schools need to have effective and efficient ways of documenting student progress and measuring accountability. The process of collaborative conversations is an element of professional development. Reflective practice will promote the concepts of improving instructional practice and promote job- embedded professional development.

EIP Proposal Overview of Proposed Components and Training Format These lessons led to a revised vision, components and training

Continuum of Support (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) Intensive 1-7% (Specialized Student System) Intervention 5-15% (At-Risk System, Supplemental) Universal 80-90% (District, School-Wide, & Classrooms Systems) School-Wide Individual Support All Students in School This is the new way of thinking about EIP

Proposed EIP Components These are the new components

Leadership (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) School-Wide Individual Support All Students in School Collegial Climate Culture of School Common Planning School- Improvement Plan Professional Development Vision Mentoring/Extra Support Time for Process Focused Assistance Allocation of Resources School-Wide Culture Individual Support Sustainability Family Partnerships Accountability Strategic Alignment of Resources Increased Involvement

Strategic Decision-Making (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) All Students in School Universal Practices Specialized Strategies Learning for All Students Data-Driven Monitoring of Student Progress School-Climate & Behavior Instructional Practice In-Depth Analysis Interventions & Monitoring Intensive Interventions & Monitoring Curriculum Development Problem-Solving Implementation Integrity

Collegial and Family Support (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) All Students in School Collaboration Consultation Reflective Practice Collective Responsibility Shared Leadership Parity Co-teaching Mentoring/Modeling Specialized Support Specialized Focused Assistance Peer-Coaching Effective Communication Skills School-Family-Community Partnerships

Assessment & Reflective Practice (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) All Students in School Universal Assessment Focused Assessment Student Learning Behavior/Discipline Environment Curriculum-Based Instructional Practice In-Depth Analysis Increased Objectivity Formal Assessments Curriculum Development Reflective Practice Examining Student Work Problem Validation Monitoring Student Progress

Instructional Repertoire (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) All Students in School Effective Teaching Practices Individualized Direct Instruction Cooperative Learning Strategies Embedded Strategic Instruction CCT/CCL Comprehensive Literacy Positive Behavior Support Specific Accommodations Skill &/or Strategy Instruction Intensive Skill Development Differentiated Instruction Sheltered Instruction Generalization of Strategies Classroom Routine

Accountability & Documentation (Adapted from Ortiz, 1987; Horner, 1998; Sugai, 2001) All Students in School Universal Documentation In-Depth Documentation Record Keeping of Student Progress School-Improvement Plans School-wide & Classroom Data Documentation of Instruction & Student Outcomes Grade Level Transitioning Graphing of Student Progress Individualized/ Group Action Plans Comprehensive Documentation Effective Communication

My Reflective Lessons on Vision Building Through This Process The core values and the essence of the vision never change The revision resulted in clearer ways to articulate the vision The process allowed for multiple perspectives and increased shared meaning

Reflective Questions I Still Have Did the process provide everyone (full consulting staff) ownership of the vision? Is vision something that requires periodic examination in order to maintain it? Does a vision change or remain constant?